Book: The Jews among the Greeks and Romans

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58245
Published by The Jewish Publication Society of America.
Isn’t that all of the publishers?

This is why you read the publication information.

Funny –

GREEK AND ROMAN CONCEPTS OF RACE

During the nineteenth century a peculiar rigidity was given to the conception of race through the application of somewhat hastily formed biological theories. One or another of the current hypotheses on heredity was deemed an adequate or even necessary explanation, and by any of them racial characteristics became determined, fixed: race was an unescapable limiting condition….

If by a peculiar rigidity you mean the concept of Darwinian evolution, sure.

Hastily formed biological theories is an oxymoron.

Theories are very well developed and Darwin used many species, all applied well on his taxonomy.

Now DNA (the ‘gene’ is a Darwinian theory) has been proven to exist so… he was right.

Genetic distance is very real, as real as concrete.

He theorized genes and now we can measure them.

There is no way to deny this without a gross denial of evolution itself.

“determined, fixed, limiting condition”

This is literally DARWINIAN INHERITANCE.

Biological determinism is 100% fact.

Two Asians cannot give birth to a European.

One Asian and one European cannot give birth to a European or an Asian. Their hybrid mongrel, much like a liger, will tend toward infertility and genetic disease. This includes psychiatric disease.

This even applies to cross-breeding plants and the associated fertility issues that entails. Former perennials can lose the ability to reproduce naturally. There is also a unique risk of weakness to disease and vitally, the parental unique DNA is lost.

You will not spontaneously mutate into a chimp.

http://pediaa.com/difference-between-cross-breeding-and-gmo/#Cross%20Breeding

“By the mating of two different breeds, a new organism can be produced with hybrid vigor. The hybrid vigor or heterosis is the tendency of the crossbred animal to exhibit the qualities superior to either parent. In animals, cross breeding is used to increase the production, longevity and fertility.”

False, a myth, even in dogs. Mongrels have many medical issues.

“exhibit the qualities superior to either parent”

Statistically false, due to regression to the mean.

We have extensively tested this in children, they are the mean of their parents.

https://www.nap.edu/read/10977/chapter/5

“This chapter explores the likelihood of unintended effects from diverse methods of genetic modification of plants and animals (see Operational Definitions in Chapter 1). Specifically, it discusses unexpected outcomes of breeding methods used to develop a food crop or strain and unexpected or unintended effects recorded in the scientific literature.”

BACKGROUND

Novel gene combinations arising from the genetic manipulation of existing genes through conventional breeding techniques may introduce unintended and unexpected effects. However, through the breeder’s selection process, the genetic lines that express undesirable characteristics are eliminated from further consideration, and only the best lines—those that express desirable characteristics with no additional undesirable agronomic characteristics, such as increased disease susceptibility or poor grain quality—are maintained for possible commercial release. Although plants and animals produced from conventional breeding methods are routinely evaluated for changes in productivity, reproductive efficiency, reactions to disease, and quality characteristics, they are not routinely evaluated for unintended effects at the molecular level. 

The clearing doesn’t happen in animals.

Cross breeding is known to be dangerous. If Hybrids had vigour they wouldn’t need that deliberate culling process.

In animals, their performance outcomes would be greater than the sum of their parents.

This never happens.

In humans, this would include IQ past both parents. Again, this never happens. We have plenty of negative evidence debunking this lie. At this point, it is a lie to make money.

They’re playing God.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijms/special_issues/plant_genetic_breeding

https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/16922/why-are-hybrids-infertile

I guess if race doesn’t exist then the so-called Holocaust only happened to white people?

If they really want to claim there’s no such thing as race, there’s no such thing as a Jew.

So they have no group-level complaints.

http://sociobiologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/10/problems-with-mixed-race-marriages-and.html

Hot v. Beautiful

Nope, hot does not exist.

That’s Hollywood and porn brainwashing.

It didn’t exist fifty years ago.

There was sultry or alluring but it was a type of beauty, as it should be.

e.g.

That’s natural (whereas mainstream ‘hotness’ is normally plastic surgery, which a biologist has no valid comment on as a fashion trend).

Natural always wins. It’s the genetic billboard.

Nowadays, men are programmed to find the cheap sexual signals of desperation attractive.

Cheap is the correct term because there’s little to no investment required.

It’s obvious with celebrities.

Jessica Alba. Note the manjaw. Hot?

Markle. Again with the manjaw. Hot?

What are you being told to select by media?

The Jewess Johansson, post-nosejob. Hot?

The Jewess Jolie, same. Again, post-surgery and owns a manjaw. Hot?

There’s a reason he didn’t name names or dare show photos.
Hollywood only hires the whores, with manjaws. There’s no control group.

Another chameleon face to illustrate the point:

Which one of those four pictures is hot and how many are beautiful?

I’d say one “hot” and zero beautiful. The hotness is confounded by make-up and hair dye, which he didn’t mention!

Nor did he mention male beauty, which obviously does exist.

I see it all the time.

e.g. Jakob Hybholt. This is a real man. He exists.

Men in studies have different risks of abusing their spouse (aggression) based on their facial features. Again, something you’d think he’d mention?

At least “handsome” (a word that used to be applied to women too) versus “sexy”.

Adonis versus Hercules. Any man who’d get insecure about this is deluded.

We don’t get insecure about Athena and Aphrodite. Typical model versus lingerie model.

But they’re both forms of beauty. Neither is better and it really is a spectrum because both must be fundamentally fit (Darwin) and hence, beautiful. So two sisters, one can be hotter (the “hot one”) and the other more pretty, hot features age badly after ten years as fertile markers and pretty remains constant as a purer genetic quality, easier to pass on to male and female offspring too. Hotness has no history as a concept, as he alludes it’s based in 60s advertising. Surgeons can fake “hot” but never beautiful because it’s genetic and individual. The 60s allowed people to display “hot” but again, that’s a fashion trend, our bodies didn’t magically change.

This evobio guy makes a basic error – you can”t assume modern male preferences are historic.

In fact, basic pop culture evidence from the past century suggests otherwise.

“Hotness” is easier to market.

You can buy hotness, beauty is genetic.

He blatantly lies “the majority of human cultures have been polygynous” is a lie.
A Cultural Marxist myth. Look at a family tree, we have them stretching back a thousand years.

He could possibly get away with polygamous if you included sex slavery (rape).

That is bad evolutionary biology. Sexual selection must be a choice to be valid.

Most tribal humans were monogamous and this is why the sexes are born approximately at 50/50, we keep digging up archaeological evidence of couples. Also, savages are not models of civilization, they keep trying that on.

He could mean serial monogamy if the spouse dies (divorce or breaking up doesn’t actually count as this) but he doesn’t.

Most men are not r-selected, he lies again. If so, all men would visit brothels instead of the omega minority. Parental investment outcomes show this strawman single mother scenario leads to death and dysfunction.

Mathematically, he is lying there. Monogamy is better for male DNA.

No sexual selection without natural selection, many feeble, weak r-selected males died off and now we have “crime” in society because they’re still bluntly, stupidly trying to compete without the reward in a society structure. Wars were invented to cull them but we had to mess that up too with draft qualifications and nukes. Without the dregs of men (see: where have all the good men gone?) removed, they are free to multiply with the dregs of women, producing more dregs than ever before. Previously, those women would die alone with no suitable man.

It’s like pulling up weeds.

Idiocracy could only happen when war ceased being common. Who dies first in battle?

Reproduction is the reward (not sex), for survival.

He hints at the rapist strategy of extreme r-types but dances around it. If men would find sex “difficult to resist” and could overpower a woman, surely that suggests…. that her choice didn’t factor into it?

That’s why he refuses to discuss rapists, which are not a viable strategy actually*. He’s pretending there’s a selection without choice, I’m sick of these slutty intellectually dishonest assholes acting like they’re the model of humanity.

*Women can easily not carry to term by starvation, various herbs in every location, punching themselves in the stomach. Why do you think traumatized women stop feeling hungry? Anti-rape baby instinct!
Witches provided abortifacient herbs.

Men aren’t “wired” any way, that’s sexist and poor science (it’s a limited metaphor not used in this field) and it’s the naturalistic fallacy. Most men are faithful and generally good. They have a natural disgust for easy women.

Broadcasting hotness – is not a thing. That’s sexual desperation, a personal choice, not fertility. Plenty of American men willingly prefer infertile women and women who look like it (swollen breasts as if already pregnant, narrow hips, muscled suggesting high testosterone and manjaw, short legs like a child). Those are typical r-types, both trying to avoid pregnancy.

So as far as an evolutionary biologist is concerned, that sexual interaction doesn’t exist because it’s a dead end.

It’s like counting homosexual sex – that doesn’t lead to babies either!

There’s no life created, it’s nothing to them. Except maybe a disease risk, funny he doesn’t mention STD-caused infertility….

You cannot switch reproductive strategy, it’s neurobiological, ask Anonymous Conservative. Your amygdala volume cannot magically change on a dime.

This guy keeps lying.

You cannot have it all, spoiled rabbits.

There’s a reason manwhores, when they marry, tend to get divorced (or cheat). It’s them.

Neither can you turn a ho into a housewife, same reason. It’s them.

This is why the evolutionary types are distrusted in academia, you must prove you’re not one of these guys that is totally excusing half the promiscuity that is completely novel to society now (with fake history) while claiming from the other side of their face that the other half is impossible (women aren’t sluts – but men are sleeping with them somehow) because of babies that don’t exist. (Pre-marital birth rate says different).

Other, lesser mammals were polygamous, not humans!

He doesn’t tell you this.

It would be akin to saying humans can self-clone because you used to be an amoeba, it’s bad science.

Read The Mating Mind for good evobio.

The concept of “hotness” (sciencey) isn’t mentioned.

This guy might as well be an astrologer. This is cold reading a modern culture and trying to re-write history.

He also misrepresents Freud. Madonna/Whore is a specific complex and has nothing to do with that.

NOTHING.

Madonna is marrying a woman for reputation then cheating on her with whores because the male is too immature to view the mother of his children as a viable sexual and romantic outlet, abandoning her emotionally and sexually in fear. The complex is the split (between socially attractive women to other men and baby-making women at home) and it’s as bad for you as a split personality. That’s it. That’s the complex. It describes a common form of impotence.

They can’t get it up for the wife they chose, assuming childbirth gave her cooties.

Nothing to do with evolution. This guy is full of shit.

Simple question: what is “hotness” without porn?

Do you even know? (no) That’s the purpose of sexual programming. The mind control nobody talks about. Insulting the father figure and telling him housewife types are boring in bed. Old as the musical Grease.

comment

I’m surprised by this conversation between Joe and Bret. I’ve asked multiple men before if they could see someone as only aesthetically pleasing but not sexually pleasing, and they never could (including my boyfriend.)

True, they were lying, assuming the other could.

Women, on the other hand, always could.

Women are more attuned to appearance in general.
Men don’t notice cuticles.

I can find a man or woman aesthetically pleasing, without seeing them as sexually pleasing. Seems like most men either find them sexually pleasing or they don’t.

If they’re honest.

An erection is a solid binary.

If they don’t find them sexually pleasing, they don’t find them aesthetically pleasing either. ‘I would fuck it or I would not fuck it.’ Lots of guys can’t seem to appreciate attractiveness without it being of a sexual nature. This conversation seems like it’s on similar lines as the question I’ve asked people before and yet both men were able to grasp it. Good on them

Men who can are called gay.

That’s why I laughed when they tried to compete by claiming they could do it.

Sluts are shamed because the entire tribe pays for it. Male or female.

Men have to pay with resources taken from the family or possibly a war in revenge for stealing a woman.

Then there’s disease risk, a major source of the shame is avoiding death and defects.

Many STDs are just passed by social contact and as a touchy species, viruses spread easily with hugs, kisses, grooming common to mammals.

comment

I personally think the people who use the word hot to describe women are immature and shallow. I have noticed that the more people use words like that to describe people the worse off our future will be.

It’s so cringe-worthingly American, isn’t it? They sound like rappers.

Not just women, if all a man can be is hot, he must be a real loser.

It’s the one thing you can call a vapid moron. “At least he’s hot”.

Women use it this way primarily, it’s our new ‘nice’. It’s a backhanded compliment, like telling someone they could be a stripper. (Tatum)

comment

These people are so condescending and boring

They think they’re important. E-celebs, aw. Adding nothing to history.

He totally ignored the data on how much women value looks.

comment

Are these two fools trying to pass off this non-think as if it were based on biological fact? Women have a much greater capacity for sex than men.

Shh, don’t tell them! (They won’t listen anyway, they actually think sex is a male thing).

Imagine if men had multiple orgasms and no refractory period, chaos!

It’s like how they say women get triggered easily but if you insult Rick & Morty…

You don’t see many unstable women threatening to rape men online but okay, women are the mad ones. Okay.

Whites least likely homosexual

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220120/White-people-likely-gay-Huge-study-reveals-highest-proportion-homosexual-people-African-American-community.html

“The survey – based on interviews with more than 121,000 people – contradicts the perception that lesbians and gays are mostly white, urban and affluent, said lead author Gary Gates.”
“‘But this data reveals that relative to the general population, the LGBT population has a larger proportion of non-white people and clearly is not overly wealthy.’”

In evolutionary terms, you don’t have to raise children you can’t make.

I cannot find survey data on what percentage of mixed race people aren’t straight.
That is weird.

It’s basic demographics, why is that buried?

You would think they’d shout it from the rooftops.
But parents want grandkids, don’t they? Or their own investment is worthless.

Very little research has been done into which races are more likely to be homosexual.”

That sounds likely.

“Estimates of the proportion of the population who are lesbian or gay range from 2 per cent to 10 per cent, although recent US surveys have put it at around 4 per cent.
In 2010, a survey by the Office for National Statistics concluded that 1.5 per cent of Britons identified themselves as gay or bisexual, although a 2008 poll put the proportion at 6 per cent.”

If you sample urban gay areas, your data will be skewed.

This is interesting but twists things.

http://www.mixedracestudies.org/wordpress/?tag=journal-of-the-history-of-sexuality

“The concept of continuity was harnessed to growing attention to miscegenation, or “amalgamation,” in social science writing in the first decades of the twentieth century. Edward Byron Reuter’s The Mulatto in the United States, for instance, pursued an exhaustive quantitative and comparative study of the mulatto population and its achievements in relation to those of “pure” white or African ancestry.”

That bias isn’t science, it’s propaganda.

How little he turned up is great negative evidence though.

Spot the frauds.

“Xavier Mayne, for example, one of the earliest American advocates of homosexual rights, wrote, “Between whitest of men and the blackest negro stretches out a vast line of intermediary races as to their colours: brown, olive, red tawny, yellow.” He then invoked this model of race to envision a continuous spectrum of gender and sexuality: “Nature abhors the absolute, delights in the fractional. . . . Intersexes express the half-steps, the between-beings ”

Most hermaphrodites are infertile.

We evolve FOR one thing and AGAINST another.

Nature loves the absolute, bears can’t breathe underwater.

You evolve for ONE ecosystem at the EXCLUSION of all else.

This is Origin of the Species tier, old biology. This guy’s anti-evolution.

“In this analogy, Mayne reversed dominant cultural hierarchies that privileged purity over mixture. Drawing upon irrefutable evidence of the “natural” existence of biracial people,”

What about the evidence of their fertility issues?

And there’s no such thing as irrefutable in biology on the level of individuals.

Real identity problem, huh?

If race doesn’t matter, why pretend you have one?

Miscellaneous is not a category, that’s a category error.

Why have racial pride if that’s the root of evil to you?
And how can atheists believe pride is a sin?

“Mayne posited a direct analogy to a similarly mixed body, the intersex, which he positioned as a necessary presence within the natural order.”

False equivalence. Naturalistic fallacy.

You can see the slow creep of genocidal rhetoric.

Pure races have a human birthright to exist in their homeland, invader.

If you want the whites kicked out of Africa but not the blacks from America, you’re a massive hypocrite.

Comic: shit rapists say

Sorry, is this shitposty enough? They really don’t deserve better.

Ironically, these are the same guys to bitch about prison rape (prison full of people exactly like themselves). Because women/children/rarely men have no rights when it conflicts with their lust and sense of entitlement, but God forbid someone wolf whistle snowflake in prison, he demands social justice!

If anything, the Devil supports free choice – free of conscience.

It makes you wonder, were the Devil like a person, how much he hates humanity?

Why else try to trick these scumbags into deserving heaped punishment?

That would logically explain why a Godhead was fine with it.

It’s just bringing out more of what’s already there, the blackness of their evil heart. Blaming the Devil is like an American blaming McDonald’s. Dude, just don’t go!

When I’m standing in a bakery and really hungry, I can’t steal the food no matter how much my body’s instincts scream at me. Crimes have a mens rea. Guilty mind, intent, it isn’t spiritual or physical. People miss that fact because they distract from it. These perverts try to play “Real Victim Here” when, if being themselves were such a torment, they’d commit suicide (logically). They have the lowest risk of suicide of many pathological groups, because they compulsively lie (obviously) and inhumanely enjoy their sexual predation like a lion biting into a juicy gazelle. This is difficult for good people to wrap their head around. They enjoy ruin, including their eventual own (idiots self sabotage). They dig their own grave, call it “insanity” (they’re not) or sin, the result remains.

It isn’t an excuse. If anything, far from meriting compassion like a full human being, they merit lead and a shallow grave because we put all other predators down except for the most deadly – human on human predators with provably subhuman brains. Or hell, if we’re going to think Joker style about this, give them to the necrophile rapists, that’d be a plot twist. They don’t believe in dignity, after all. They don’t think they have a soul so it’s just a clump of cells left behind, whether worms or technical humans enjoy it shouldn’t matter.

Man has caused most of his problems by ignoring or preventing natural law. Most law is in the punishments and they fit the crimes. By keeping various people around and worse, encouraging them (you can’t rehab someone if it’s what they are) then they increase the world’s suffering according to utilitarianism and the “helpers” become enablers also responsible for the crimes committed (part of pathological altruism in a clinical context).

When therapists and lawyers are held personally (partially) responsible for the criminals they helped free to re-offend, that’s justice.

If they released a non-human predator, we wouldn’t get so soft. Violent criminals are not children. Infantilizing them is enabling horrors.

They didn’t know? some cuck will claim. Really? It was their job to know, they took the job, they took the money, they looked at the facts. Case closed. They claimed a lie, in court, that criminal X was safe. At minimum perjury and medical negligence to society. They lied to a jury and a judge. To get more money. Isn’t that… aiding and abetting? Bribery?

Sexual selection does not include rape in humans, hence the “selection” part. Even birds choose their mates, bird brain is an insult (unfair but still). Rapists like Genghis Khan are not, in fact, successful in the Darwinian sense. He was an r-type. Fitness is qualitative (K-select attribute), not quantitative (N descendants) and over sufficient generations the material of one rapist would be diluted out or dead (inherited high time preference trait is recklessness), which is far less of a genetic “gain” to count than the murders (of men! creepy fans of his) that allowed him to continue his rampage for so long (including deaths of his kin in his own army). Khan was the ultimate deadbeat abuser. What’s to admire? That isn’t civilized, it’s a savage. Savages are unfit and if you read Darwin this comes through clearly. He discusses sexual selection in the context of society’s formation and fitness and the struggle for life and peace and what we consider the long, painful process of civilization (e.g. sanitation, humans prefer one another not smeared in shit). Rapist genes are useless (incompetent individuals who, by definition, need to steal/parasite from others) and in fact harmful to a group (hence there’s such a thing as incestuous rape, they aren’t even “good” for close kin). Inferior genes do exist (selfishness is a hallmark of the unfit) and a desperate man is no man at all. Unfit genes are culled and this is good, this is what evolution is all about. Whether it’s the vain guy who wants to focus on his career and the gym or the rapist who gives women “the creeps” so they don’t want even more vulnerable kids with it, those genes don’t serve any human society, current or future, they should be allowed to go gently into that good night. Rapists only desire to reproduce for three reasons: 1. control of the victim/mother including financial leeching, 2. vanity/children as status symbol (like welfare queens) despite abuse of the child (they see it as an object that should be grateful they let it live, God complex feeds into this point) and 3. all the benefit of children who will probably try to love them and feel like taking care of them when they’re old and none of the investment (deadbeats should be abandoned in turn, they come back to the kids classically when they ‘need’ a kidney). Such dependence and parasitism (and on the innocent too) is low and disgusting. Loyalty is a two-way street. Loyalty evolved (reciprocity, pair bonds) to merit compassion, they are owed nothing but society’s shaming. [Shame works on the narcissist better than anyone else.]

(Note: Deadbeat mothers should also be abandoned, the logic applies to all of the predatory leeches).

Children owe their parents in as much as they acted like parents. It’s a job. 

Yet you’ll see them try to twist “honour thy mother and thy father” despite being atheists.

https://www.biblehub.com/2_corinthians/6-14.htm There is no fellowship. There is no obligation to a cheat in any game with rules.

Those are roles. You don’t magically become a parent at conception or birth, like modern simpletons claim, it’s really an IOU on years of upbringing. It’s a contract more than a title.

Deadbeats are like an employer who expects you to work but refuses to pay you. That has a name.

You know what is evolution, though? Natural selection. As in, murdering rapists and pedophiles to prevent the genes worming into future court cases, it’s good for the fitness of the group/tribe. They never “get” to that part. The Victorian society was so incredibly prosperous in the latter period directly BECAUSE it kept hanging for various crimes in the early period. A genetic cull preludes prosperity (dating back to the K/T extinction event allowing humans to best dinosaurs and later, the Ice Age giving Europeans* a massive edge at a unique latitude, an event Inuits missed with later migration Northbound), it’s a fact of history that some death allows worthier life to flourish whether the cause is a proportionate penal code with its act together, war with a vast drafting policy or fatal disease that picks on and exploits various human flaws e.g. promiscuity, by EVOLUTION. It’s the same with American prosperity, they hanged a bunch of criminals, were tough on crime (just?) for many decades and then magically, there was a long time where crime rates were pitiful, as if the problem stopped breeding. [Think rabbit farms but rabbits with rabies.] These are not human problems, it’s mathematical. There are forces that allow flourishing (fitness is the result) and those that regress society by depressing the flourishing forces (worst of all punishing those instead). Society is not obligated to keep those groups who endeavor to destroy it on an individual level. The Bible clearly doesn’t include punishment of violent crime as killing of 10 commandment fame because sometimes only death (let God sort them out alludes to killing, America) can prevent more death and trauma i.e. not killing your enemy means war eternally. It’s a binary choice of bad now or worse later.

Abortion of future criminals (I trust you can look up the stats) has prevented far more cruel murders. Would it be better to prevent conception or earlier in the chain of events, fornication? Of course but the fact remains, there are calculations. Human life does have a price – and a cost.

Keeping one human alive can incur a greater cost to humanity than any self-congratulation (sin of pride and playing God) at “sparing” their life (like you have the power or the wisdom to know what’s right). Such do-gooders are the most un-Christian people you’ll ever meet.

Suffering is not a wishy-washy thing. It’s quantifiable. 

If we slot them into r/K (as an extreme, tbf) then you’d be hard-pressed to miss how r-types have a high fertility rate (consensual reproduction or not) simply to compensate for their extraordinarily high death rate (this is true across species). To accept the sexual fact of the matter (ignoring the proof on parental investment requirements for fitness) then ignore the fatality side of the literal life/death equation goes to show these psychopaths are low IQ.

Most of them are many, many SD below the likes of Bundy**, who was probably killing for a cult (look at his background). Rape-murder is a cliche case because it’s the epitome of misogynistic rage (think Jack the Ripper) and the epitome of unfit (no baby if they’re dead and it prevents other members of society from survival too, like genetic civil war).

Basically, rapists are enacting a kind of civil war on the genetics of the society dumb enough to host them, whether it be with murders, causing infertility (trauma can or various STDs they pass) or their inferior weakling genetics eventually leading to the death of the better genome they forcibly combined with. They’re the lamprey on the good genes (measured in fitness) of their victims. Pictured:

Society is the victim, especially at a group level (genetics, gene pool). Society is the biggest consensual structure going. This is why the legal system is mostly imposing its values via punishments. When losers have nothing, society has everything. Justice does not mean everyone gets a cookie.

If they dehumanize their rape victims, society owes them no humanization (let alone privileged treatment) themselves. Sexual impulses led to the modern creation of cheap satisfaction toys and there’s always their hands. There is no excuse. Evolutionary arguments would actually call for their hanging or castration because Social Darwinism. For the good of the collective genome.

If nobody wants something, it’s defective.

*A Troublesome Inheritance goes into it.

**Do not suffer a male witch to live either.

For the point about selfishness, in the clearest context we call it cowardice.

Selfish people don’t just stop one day. It escalates like psychopathy, rape and murder.

Considering this –

Homework, think about this: is killing a rapist (child or other) worse than rape?

Society will be buzzing about that question after the next decade’s events.

Memoryholed IQ science

To be completely balanced, it also explains why there are so many male accidents, suicides/criminals, low-wage workers and bachelors who can’t find any woman to marry them, any at all. There are simply more male failures (and those things are outcomes, symptoms of the cause) in the general population due to the erratic nature of their brains.

https://vdare.com/posts/beria-s-razorblade-applied-to-science-paper

Nobody ever mentions that half of the data because the men reading it are midwits with only slightly above average intelligence. They miss the point like an autist without the excuse.

Of course, the likes of MRAs don’t believe in biology if it hurts their feefees.

Bloody equalists.

In real terms, there are far more male idiots than geniuses so looking overall doesn’t work either. To be totally practical, IQ is roughly comparable to life outcomes so being a moron is a big deal, meanwhile not being a genius (more normative) isn’t actually a problem? But even the manosphere doesn’t want to take up the victim card, even when it actually applies. They act as if all men are of equal genetic fitness and can expect equal life outcomes, a delusion.

The people who don’t get this post are the very people I was referencing.

Academia pays attention to the right extreme of the Bell Curve to wank themselves off in p-values, when actually, the purpose of IQ (Binet) was to focus on the causes of the left extreme and bring it up to average. It’s a category error, they know they’re wrong. The right extreme is too small as a population to legitimately study, especially in this time period of fewer true geniuses than before.

The midwits sometimes only understand if I include pictures so here, this is a fact they try to hide. Naturally, to uplift the sub-par into positions of responsibility would be A. dysgenic and B. anti-merit along with C. dangerous.

For the 2-4+SD, consider their extremes-based argument in light of this.

There is a vast difference but it’s difficult to say how much because (aside from the race confound) they don’t want to accumulate the data. Instead they’ll only gather the data on their own group (middle-class, usually Jewish/Atheist, middle-aged) from the right-extreme (however they manipulate the test to show this) and falsely represent it as the reference population [label: Genius] to allow them to signal with bad science. In truth, the geniuses of the world are incredibly rare (based on contribution) and passing a test does not a genius make.

Absence of evidence (because you refuse to do your job) is not evidence of absence.

No, we’re not going to “trust you”, take the data. The researchers are biased in favour of their own group and will twist the data into agreement.

We demand unmasking laws

Notice the efforts to ban hoodies went away and crime spiked?
Scientifically, it produces more antisocial behaviour.
http://www.academia.edu/331707/The_Role_of_Anonymity_In_Deindividuated_Behavior_A_Comparison_of_Deindividuation_Theory_and_the_Social_Identity_Model_of_Deindividuation_Effects_SIDE_

I’ll believe it’s religious when the men fully adopt it.

It’s called deindividuation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10600364_Deindividuation_Anonymity_and_Violence_Findings_From_Northern_Ireland

The findings revealed that significant positive relationships existed between the use of disguises and several measures of aggression

It’s a known finding over many, many studies. It’s Established Science TM.

(Police wearing facial protection have ID numbers displayed.)

If they have a public cause, the purpose of appearing in public about it is to lend your face and voice. Anything less is terrorism and intimidation for the reasons below.

Sumptuary laws are culturally encouraged for preservation of the peace.

https://www.thoughtco.com/medieval-sumptuary-laws-1788617
Jewish leaders issued sumptuary guidelines out of concern for the safety of their community. Medieval Jews were discouraged from dressing like Christians, in part for fear that assimilation could lead to conversion.”

It directly damages social trust to allow any group to go about publicly with their face covered.

It’s evolution!
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/05/facial-expressions.aspx

“Arguably the most important contribution basic science has made to our understanding of emotion concerns the universality of facial expressions of emotion. Darwin (1872) was the first to suggest that they were universal; his ideas about emotions were a centerpiece of his theory of evolution, suggesting that emotions and their expressions were biologically innate and evolutionarily adaptive, and that similarities in them could be seen phylogenetically.”…

Yes, since established.

Real World Applications of the Basic Science of Facial Expressions of Emotion

Findings concerning the universality of facial expressions of emotion and the existence of microexpressions can help people in a range of professions requiring face-to-face interactions improve their skills in reading the emotions of others. Reading facial expressions of emotion, and especially microexpressions, can aid the development of rapport, trust, and collegiality; they can be useful in making credibility assessments, evaluating truthfulness and detecting deception; and better information about emotional states provides the basis for better cooperation, negotiation, or sales.

Multiculturalism is impossible with covered and concealed facial expressions.

It is anti-assimilation, it is intolerant and breeds a sense of alienation, hostility and distrust.

The Pill and attractiveness

Bet the title caught your attention, didn’t it?

http://www.blogos.org/thetakeaway/birth-control-safe.php

It’s an abortifacient, as covered before, that’s literally the only way it can work.

You can’t be anti-abortion and use The Pill (unless there’s also a barrier method so the uterine implantation doesn’t matter).

Partner choice. Pheromones and body odor have more of an influence on who we choose as a partner than we realize. Usually, people are attracted to others whose odor indicates they are genetically different. But when on hormonal birth control, not only does the woman tend to choose men who are more similar,

And consequently, cause poorer health in their children.

she is chemically less attractive to dissimilar men.

Plenty of women marry the wrong man because they were on the Pill.

You don’t tamper with the mating instinct. God/Nature guides you to the right one.

I’ve noticed women on the Pill were less attractive overall too, more vindictive (the hostility of a pregnant woman, maybe because of reduced attractiveness and the insecurity it produces) and I’d assume the men on their version (it was trialed) would be less attractive also. This could be studied but nobody is willing to offend. It’s almost to the point I can spot the women on the Pill against those who never had it.

The women can seem technically as sexy (or sexier if they lacked estrogen before) but they’re somehow less attractive.

All you’d need to do is take photos before and after Pill use (1 year?) and see if one is more attractive. This may be why younger photos are more beautiful.

This has a couple of potential repercussions. If a woman is on hormonal birth control when she chooses her mate, she will be less likely to become pregnant because of the genetic similarities. In addition, when she goes off birth control, she will be less attracted to her mate.

False love, arguably the marriage doesn’t count because she was on drugs.

Sound mind?

The Pill is psychoactive. It has psychological side effects.

Conversely, if a woman waits until after she’s in a committed relationship to go on birth control, she may find her mate less attractive while on it.

That one is unlikely, this is purely a selection phenomena.

See women on HRT in middle age for debunking it.

Whether decreased interest occurs after she starts or stops taking birth control, it could adversely affect her marriage as she inadvertently finds herself more attracted to men other than her husband.

Doubtful.

But it could make her less attractive to her husband.

The Pill (any hormones) also throws off development. Women don’t stop physically developing until their mid-twenties.