Good breeding

Time for another good old-fashioned shallow posting. It’s mostly about white people because -honestly- nobody else matters if we’re being accurate and this way the weebs can’t get pissy.

https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_facial_proportions_of_beautiful_people

Anyway, why have I bothered to address the upper nasal region at length?  Consider Marquardt’s beauty mask again (Figure 13).  The shaded nasal region is unambiguously European, especially in the upper nasal region, and most non-whites and a number of whites don’t possess this type of nose.


Figure 13: Note nasal region (shaded).

Most non-whites—and some whites, too—have no hope of producing offspring with the fine nasal bones, especially upper nasal region, of the woman shown in Figure 14, even if they bred with her like.

The delicacy is the marker of “good breeding” aka civilization.

e.g.

I include my own example because… well..

No offence that’s quite an ugly looking white woman used here, especially for a Swede.


Figure 14: A woman with fine nasal bones.  Her facial proportions are more appealing for a European than some of the allegedly ideal proportions depicted by Yosh Jefferson in Figure 6; for instance, the eyes in Figure 6 are farther apart than the European norm and thereby more like that in non-Europeans.

Her eyes look weird. Awful example.

Maria Orsic would be much better.

Note: no weird eyes.

Asians literally paint in a massive, deep curve from brow to nose to look more white.

As if the Aryan-coloured contact lenses weren’t creepy enough for that sultry, dead-eyed stare.

They’re not fooling anyone.

And smaller nose, as you can see, is not better. It can make a person look sick (bad breeding) or just plain foreign. It ages something awful. Classic beauties of the Euro or specifically Anglo variety (like this English Rose) actually have a full nose, curved nostrils that don’t flare too much nor too little and a fine-boned nasal bridge all the way up into a more feminine brow, either with a straight nose shape or a slight curve. Rhinoplasties intend to trick the eye with reduced volume but cannot reconstruct upper and midfacial bone structure, especially the dainty variety (well, without a freakish egghead effect).

Straight nose above, and historically:

Compare with a weak nasal bridge, looks a bit like a duck’s bill:

Please ignore the contour makeup and lighting. It’s more obvious without…

It’s objectively, as a feature, an uglier nose. If you shopped these women with Kate or Eva’s nose, they’d be more attractive. That isn’t possible with a classic beauty.

Exotic is not classic. Sexy, yes, but not beautiful. Needs a lot of makeup, like thick eyeliner, to look normal.

An example of weak nose with the curve:

It’s just a little too thin for her face and doesn’t match the nostrils. Close but no.

The bones are clearly heavier in the later examples.
If the jaw is broad, the eyes have more distance. It’s the same with deep sea fish, dammit.

Pretty sure he’s not wearing makeup.

 

English Rose exceptions are possible with a thinner nose as long as it’s straight and the nostrils and tip relatively full. That way it fits the face.

The brow-nose contour natural to white women is blatant there.

Yes, I spend too much time staring at my fellow woman, but I wanted to figure out why one was hot and the other, not. It was pissing me off. I figured it out though.

It’s secretly the look of civility.

While I’m sure you could track IQ by nation or section e.g. Western Europe, it would more closely tack onto cultural sophistication. This is only partially represented in cultural achievements – artistic, scientific, technologic – genius, in other words. Original contribution.

Let us also address Marquardt’s beauty mask from the side (Figure 15).  Marquardt’s beauty mask is clearly that of a European and also that of a masculinized woman; some of the clearly observable masculinized traits [7, 8] include a nasoglabellar region (where the nose meets the forehead) that is curved in a masculine manner, a nose that projects in a masculine manner, a masculine chin region and a sharp gonial angle.

NOT masculine, just white.

White children have this curve, it has F-all to do with male puberty. I had it, everyone I knew had it at school, sit down America the world doesn’t revolve around you and your testosterone neurosis.

….Manly.

Maybe if you don’t know what you’re talking about, shut up?

“curved in a masculine manner” is an oxymoron

nasal projection is feminine 

a cherry chin also, feminine (projection, not the same as the jaw where it chews – gonial)

Americans think a normal chin is a recessed inbred wonder.

[whispers] No.

Stop mouth-breathing.

Beauty has a complex nature.

No, not really. High WHR and so fertility in women, broad shoulders and taller than the average woman for men.

Literally measuring tape tier.

Returning back to Saira Mohan, even though she is able to fit Marquardt’s beauty mask reasonably well, she still doesn’t qualify as a great beauty by European standards.

Standard thot look, eww.

The average girl I went to school with looked better. She isn’t a beauty, she looks slutty.

Big difference. Huge.

Rare example of both.

White men are gracile compared to other races.

They’re still the best-looking.

Bodybuilders starving themselves or mongrel models shouldn’t move your perception for cultural programming reasons. Do they look like an elf or an LA hooker? Case closed.

Rare case of both. Both is the answer.

Note the Asian jawline ruins it.

As you can tell when she turns and how she could’ve looked.

Purer Anglo (North Western European, min) stock is always better for this reason.

Show me one legacy American who looks like that. You can’t.

Even Amber Heard has the manjaw problem and a weak nose.

People in melting pot societies get uglier with every generation and everyone in them gets dragged down eventually (that’s what degeneracy means), compared to what they WOULD have been, it’s just that America has a centuries-long head start on us.

Hourglass has nothing to do with fat

It’s skeletal. Even at a low body weight, an hourglass woman is still an hourglass.

QED.

She was an extreme hourglass, actually. >10inches natural Waist-Hip difference.

Marilyn Monroe was Not Even Close to a Size 12-16

Apparently around 13″ usually. Typical hourglass must be 10-11 inches to count.

Extreme hourglass is up to 13-14.

So what size was Marilyn Monroe actually?  Luckily, many of her dresses, carefully preserved, are still around to measure off of.  Further, one of her dress makers also chimed in with exact measurements he took.  Those measurements were 5 ft. 5.5 inches tall; 35 inch bust; 22 inch waist (approximately 2-3 inches less than the average American woman in the 1950s and 12 inches less than average today); and 35 inch hips, with a bra size of 36D.

35-22=13

the difference is usually continuous in Waist-Hip, regardless of fat volume based on same genetic deposition across the figure

Make-up can do that, sure.

It’s all the lighting and angles, right?

Tall women live longer than short ones

https://www.upi.com/amp/Health_News/2019/01/22/Study-Body-size-may-influence-longevity-in-women-but-not-in-men/6731548193467/

And from what I know previously, short men tend to outlive very tall ones, unsure about medium to slightly tall height.

The thin finding is ‘duh’ but the height one is surprising.

I guess it’s genetic?

Maybe leg men know best.

I’d like to see a more detailed study comparing within and between race but I won’t hold my breath.

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.

Beauty is pretty objective and makes you a better person

http://jonathanstray.com/papers/Langlois.pdf

Common maxims about beauty suggest that attractiveness is not important in life. In contrast, both fitness-related evolutionary theory and socialization theory suggest that attractiveness influences development and interaction. In 11 meta-analyses, the authors evaluate these contradictory claims, demonstrating that (a) raters agree about who is and is not attractive, both within and across cultures; (b) attractive children and adults are judged more positively than unattractive children and adults, even by those who know them; (c) attractive children and adults are treated more positively than unattractive children and adults, even by those who know them; and (d) attractive children and adults exhibit more positive behaviors and traits than unattractive children and adults. Results are used to evaluate social and fitness-related evolutionary theories and the veracity of maxims about beauty.

D is the kicker. Natural outer genetic beauty appears to match prosocial, heavily culturally-informed behaviours aka inner beauty.

Beautiful people also have higher IQs, suggesting greater overall fitness.

See my link about The Mating Mind. Contrary to popular belief, Darwin accounts for intelligence as part of the package of attractiveness.

Video: The perils of being desirable

They miss out one thing: the higher rate of harassment and stalkers.
Obviously anyone can have antisocial troubles, but if you present as bait or alluring, it’s more likely. The Bitch Shield should really be the Model Shield but the blokes coming up with this stuff aren’t bi so they don’t notice. It’s too easy to approach someone based on a thing they aren’t trying to be and force them into your expectations so you can use them. Nobody wants to feel used. And people do want to exploit it to make themselves feel better or look good. Doesn’t need to be sexual at all. It’s social, primarily.

Otherwise, yes, I identify with all of these partially. I think a lot of people identify with identity crises based on how we look and how much it informs other’s treatment of us.

friendly happy nice smile relaxed pretty

If you aren’t nice on the inside to match, at all times, people are likely to blame the outside, when it might be an off day or their rude treatment causing it. Sticking up for oneself is bitchy, you’re expected to be nice as apology for something you often dress down. It’s like being famous but with all the downsides of attention and paranoia. Attention leads to kidnap and rape, and creepy people will joke about these things to your face.

They mistakenly treat you like you’re thick too. Beckhap’s Law doesn’t really apply because IQ isn’t the only intelligence, it isn’t common sense, it’s too mathematical, and Beckhap ignores the moderate for the extreme. There is a moderate correlate of above-average IQ and above-average beauty. They don’t bother to get to know you because you’re just another attractive person to them. This never ends well. People keep trying to do you ‘favours’ to control you later (classic friendzone feign) or give you ‘free’ stuff, where there is always a string. Always.

We’re expected to take advantage of others, because from the outside we get stuff, stuff we want, sure, but the cost is always worse than earning it ourselves. Like dignity, or morality or something very obscure that sounds like a First World Problem. People keep insisting I go to their shows and sit in the front row.

fake smile laughing wait what wut eh huh be normal dexter

It feels like a weird topic to bring up. Like you can’t complain about a gift.
More of a curse nowadays. No politeness or societal protections, especially for women. I’ve known men be continuous victims of predatory women too. No respect, like they’re Ken dolls.

They are not there for you to play with. Respect their right to consent, to reject, to be without interference, like a beautiful bird… with abs.

I can’t go to Fashion Week stuff anymore, I get hassle. It makes me a sad panda.

When you meet a person, try to think what makes them unique, instead of drooling over them.

I don’t expect any of you to believe me, since you haven’t seen me.
Well, maybe you’d have seen me but you wouldn’t know it is me. Put it that way.
There’s a gloss of politeness a person over six? has to adopt, so less people randomly hate us, it makes intellect or wit less apparent. We get patient about showing the other sides to see if they treat us like dirt first, based on assumptions about our Look. The obvious ways they try to manipulate us like dumb little kids can be funny when it isn’t scary.

e.g.

Like no, I won’t let you buy me a drink, because then you’ll think you can talk to me and grab my upper thigh like a ghetto kid launching at KFC, like the last fifteen guys in the past hour, ranging in age from fake ID to old man that’s a creepy Santa. As it is, I get free ones from the bartender. Because he isn’t a jerk. So I’m nice. Attractive people are not constantly available or open for attention. They’re just people. I’m busy with a friend. Please leave. Please.

There’s an assumption that the way people treat you won’t get a differing reaction. You must either be rude to everyone or a ‘slut’ to everyone (being nice?). Nope. Better looking people are more polite but with stronger limits, to contrast with the catcalling monkeys that can literally follow you down a road mentioning lewd porn acts. Not OK. If we wanted to be treated like shit and controlled, we’d join the military and get paid. Or get a sugar daddy. Or become a model/actor/presenter. There are respectable ways to make money off being demeaned. Bloke number 324 who spends way too much time believing in the women of porn is deluded that a bitchy line is the magic word to Aladdin’s cave. Those do not exist. People don’t have passwords. STAHP.

Snape is underrated as an inspiration

Women are the more emotionally intelligent sex, right? We can tell when you lyin’.

It would be like expecting a magic line to make a man sign over his life savings. Not going to happen. Game is supposed to be about healthy social intercourse between the sexes, in theory, now it seems to be gimmicks and con tricks about dumb bitches and the insecure boys who pursue them only to complain they got hurt, in both cases.

But hey, at least I can explain how attractive people might view this topic. If you didn’t believe it’s relevant to me. I like being anon like this, it’s liberating. Nobody treats me nicely based on my looks because you assume I’m an ugly weeb. I’m just a person. Nobody should feel ashamed of presenting themselves well either, I’m not saying that, but the information is useful e.g. makeup is fine, as it can be tricksy to handle tactfully.
False modesty feels wrong when you’re lying about something everyone can see.
When someone insults your appearance it’s quite funny, because they’re always uglier, by a margin of at least 3 points and as many stone in fat, so we avoid more personal insults with a layer of dumb and assess what the other person projects onto us. Imagine if someone came up to you and started screaming because you looked like someone who bullied them at school. It’s weird.

Idiots can’t tell when you’re acting dumb but they get enraged when you’re smarter than them too. The word unfair is used.

Snape was a role model in some ways

It may be passive-aggressive or sarcastic, but we owe those people literally nothing. They didn’t approach us like a person but a product. screw ’em and their entitlement issues

Normally they throw out things that don’t even apply e.g. you’re old/ugly/nobody likes you/ things a schoolgirl would say. From a grown man. It’s sad but also funny? And they have no sympathy, not truly. No emotional connection, so a conversation is out of the question. They don’t see you as an equal, but a potential living sex doll. Bye, bitch. 

I had a post on mansplaining and what it really is if you’re attractive and men talk to you wherever you go. I should upload it.

Data drive: IQ, immigrants and economy prosperity

Data dump incoming… you’re welcome in advance.

bow tony stark iron man expo
As we all know, intelligent people contribute more to the economy.

We also know IQ differences remain in immigrants, closer to their country of origin (race).

We also also know the wealth or poverty of a nation is a major, HUGE factor of national (racial) IQ. (PDF link here).

We also^3 know that the better a state’s overall IQ, the higher voter turnout; (clue: civic duty)

Voter turnout as a percentage of the voter-eligible population and average IQ correlate at a statistically significant .65 (p<.000001) at the state level. Average IQ alone thus ‘explains’ 42% of a state’s voter turnout. That is a strong relationship for the social sciences. Put in another way, it suggests that for every one point increase a state’s average IQ, voter turnout should increase by nearly 4%.

We know we must avoid the sociologist’s fallacy scrambling for socialisation-causation from correlation (kudos: very detailed site).

We know high mutant (mutation/genetic) loads can impact brain development, function and cause various diseases (even relatively harmless ones like epilepsy) e.g. “Most pathogenic mtDNA mutations act recessively and only cause disease when present at high mutant loads (typically >90%) in tissues such as muscle and brain.” The Mating Mind refers to the evolution of intelligence as a way to spot mutation load and develop an aversion to it (“our mate preferences have been shaped more to avoid mating with high-mutation load individuals”).
e.g. explainer of the genes (and ‘load’ effect) again;

Various researchers have suggested that g may be simply an index of a general fitness factor – an indirect measure of the mutational load of an organism.  The idea is that, while we all carry hundreds of deleterious mutations, some of us carry more than others, or ones with more severe effects.  These effects in combination can degrade the biological systems of development and physiology in a general way, rendering them less robust and less able to generate our Platonic, ideal phenotype.  In this model, it is not the idea that specific mutations have specific effects on specific traits that matters so much – it is that the overall load cumulatively reduces fitness through effects at the systems level.  This means that the mutations affecting intelligence in one person may be totally different from those affecting it in another – there will be no genes “for intelligence”.

social metaphor: Imagine you’re on a group project and you have to babysit the village idiot while working. Now imagine the group is the economy and that’s your drag effect on productivity and prosperity.

boom boom boom blackadder

For the evolution-deniers, it (intelligence) also seems to predict beauty too (as measured by visually-appealing symmetry) so yes it would be sexually selected for, pack up and go home. And a beautiful brain, which is much more important genetically.

“Those with higher intelligence are presumed to have a lower mutation load”  source source2

Add to what we know about IQ, immigrants and the economy… (well, you do now).

Fact: The Flynn effect doesn’t apply to this century (which social policy changed the demographics in the First World)?

Gee, I wonder what this shows in light of the Flynn thing.

h/t post inspired by: http://thefutureprimaeval.net/the-weak-galt-hypothesis/
and to a lesser extent by this: http://www.xenosystems.net/cold-water/
there’s ya data

Sex and IQ bonus round (aka most women aren’t smart enough for the economy to need them working): http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/29/invisible-women/

The IQ loss in the West is actually under-estimated and going by current demographics (UK for example, is now majority-minority children at primary school level because we pay them like breeding sows) this will get much, much worse for the economy. The biggest mistake the Left ever made was expecting they could switch out the White Working Class (WWC) with foreign replacements like cogs and they’d be able to work as hard. So our economy is still going to go to shit due to our low fertility rates (thanks feminism) but it will be compounded by rent-seeking, “racial tensions” and probably Civil War at some point when the benefits stop (the London Riot times a thousand, and that was over nothing).

mean girls regina george that's really interesting sarcasm