The crime-genius connection in extreme IQ men

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222671325_Why_productivity_fades_with_age_The_crime-genius_connection

The biographies of 280 scientists indicate that the distribution of their age at the time of their greatest scientific contributions in their careers (age–genius curve) is similar to the age distribution of criminals (age–crime curve). The age–genius curves among jazz musicians, painters and authors are also similar to the age–crime curve. Further, marriage has a strong desistance effect on both crime and genius. I argue that this is because both crime and genius stem from men’s evolved psychological mechanism which compels them to be highly competitive in early adulthood but “turns off” when they get married and have children. Fluctuating levels of testosterone, which decreases when men get married and have children, can provide the biochemical microfoundation for this psychological mechanism. If crime and genius have the same underlying cause, then it is unlikely that social control theory (or any other theory specific to criminal behavior) can explain why men commit crimes and why they desist.

the same underlying cause being extremes of IQ

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/08/07/the-eugenic-economy/

volatile extremes

obviously they’re not the bloody same

But yes, marriage has a good effect on some people. And?

Should we reward criminals with breeding and punish genius genes?

Tesla’s highest achievement we know was done before aged 30. Clearly, something isn’t right here.

Makes more sense as a sexual selection strategy to attract a mate.

High IQ – prosocial.

Low IQ – antisocial.

Are kids of teenage mothers dumber?

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167395

The creeps are wrong again.

Teenage motherhood has been associated with a wide variety of negative offspring outcomes including poorer cognitive development. In the context of limitations of previous research, this paper assesses the contemporary relevance of this finding. In this study we investigate the long-term cognitive status (IQ) among 21 year adult offspring born to teenage parents using the Mater University Study of Pregnancy- a prospective birth cohort study, which recruited all pregnant mothers attending a large obstetrical hospital in Brisbane, Australia, from 1981 to 1983. The analyses were restricted to a sub-sample of 2643 mother-offspring pair. Offspring IQ was measured using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test at 21 year. Parental age was reported at first clinic visit. Offspring born to teenage mothers (<20 years) have -3.0 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): -4.3, -1.8) points lower IQ compared to children born to mothers ≥20 years and were more likely to have a low IQ (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.7; 95% CI: 1.3, 2.3). Adjustment for a range of confounding and mediating factors including parental socioeconomic status, maternal IQ, maternal smoking and binge drinking in pregnancy, birthweight, breastfeeding and parenting style attenuates the association, though the effect remains statistically significant (-1.4 IQ points; 95% CI: -2.8,-0.1). Similarly the risk of offspring having low IQ remained marginally significantly higher in those born to teenage mothers (OR 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0, 1.9).

In contrast, teenage fatherhood is not associated with adult offspring IQ, when adjusted for maternal age. Although the reduction in IQ is quantitatively small, it is indicative of neurodevelopmental disadvantage experienced by the young adult offspring of teenage mothers. Our results suggest that public policy initiatives should be targeted not only at delaying childbearing in the population but also at supporting early life condition of children born to teenage mothers to minimize the risk for disadvantageous outcomes of the next generation.

 The small but significant decrease in offspring IQ combined with other challenges often faced by children of teenage mothers may contribute to increased risk of poor educational performance and intergenerational transfer of psychosocial and health disadvantage. 

aka poor fitness among r-types

corroborates forensics in the history of anglos

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00766097.2015.1119392#

Their bodies haven’t finished developing.

Yang exploits the welfare cliff

He knows this. By trapping people in the nanny state, the parasite owns the host.
Predicted Chapter 2, Enjoy the Decline. Old copy, sorry.
UBI is a trap baited with your own flesh.

Asian collectivism is state slavery.

This is their doom, genetically, the West is individualistic, this is why we outcompeted them for millennia.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894685/

As long as we choose to resist and be free.

Look into the corrupt shell companies claiming property ownership in the West. Reject them.

HBD has proven in studies that chromosomes dictate culture. Do not permit collectivists to live here.

No, no exceptions. No such thing as a good Trojan horse. Still an invader.

The illusion of Star Trek infinite resources is just that. The State cannot pay for your luxury.

The producers always pay, it’s utterly dysgenic.

Paying the out-group or low IQ to breed is genocidal. 100IQ license for both parents to have any state support of your childbearing. Have kids below that, but don’t expect taxpayers to fund people who aren’t even average.

That money belongs to the germline who earned it to have their own children.

Taking it directly prevents births and family foundation – c

d – transfer of wealth from earners to state breeders/sponsored voters

Why did Venezuela turn to socialism?

It’s trendy to virtue signal how sorry we feel that the people who voted for socialism, for many smug years, are actually getting socialism.
However, nobody discusses why they chose it. If only we had some form of data which describes a nation’s problem solving ability or aptitude for digging out of societal problems. Oh wait – we do.

https://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

84 – a full standard deviation!


That might be it, boys.


“The intelligence scores came from work carried out earlier this decade by Richard Lynn, a British psychologist, and Tatu Vanhanen, a Finnish political scientist, who analysed IQ studies from 113 countries, and from subsequent work by Jelte Wicherts, a Dutch psychologist.” Replication is important. Cherrypicking “muh China 105” pisses me off.

China, for reference, has an accurate score of 100 in this analysis. Urban, no cheating.
USA 98, Russia 97, Italy 102, Iceland 101, Poland 99. These jibe with most IQ data collected properly that I have read.
Greece and Ireland 92, Mexico 88, it’s almost like the lower national IQ tanks, the more socialist the citizenry becomes …or will become should the economy become volatile.

Brazil 87, Yemen 85 – their national IQ is literally worse than Yemen.

Colombia 84, Pakistan 84, Syria 83, Zimbabwe 82.

Haiti 67. Oof. Over 2SD.

“SOURCE: Richard Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen, Jelte Wicherts.”

If an immigrant’s behaviour makes no sense and actually seems to spite them, I find out where they’re actually from (or would return to if the going got tough) and look up the national IQ. It hasn’t failed me yet. It doesn’t absolve them of responsibility but it does indicate we’re not operating on all cylinders or have a legitimate place in a First World country. It’s just a matter of time until they self-deport based on the economic impossibility of surviving in a high IQ economy alone. Don’t forget the exit wealth tax!

If the quality of discourse on this subject could improve with the tactful use of data available, that’d be great.

Their (Venezuelan) solution to socialism is yet-more socialism in the form of food subsidies.
You can’t fix that stupid, that’s advanced stupid.

An IQ of 84 – in the context of a global economy?
Do we have the data? Yes we do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification
How many times must I point to the obvious?

You could build a stock market investment strategy purely based on IQ crimethink fact.

If you did a colour-coded bell curve of world IQs by continent, Asia would be lower than Europe on the whole. South America slightly lower, Africa the lowest. Note: all collectivists by culture. They have to be because individually, nobody’s home upstairs.

By the gold standard scale, Venezuela is borderline retarded.

Don’t feed the bears.

Two heads are only better than one if one is not terminally stupid.

They even tried to alter the wording on lesser tests to be more PC.

In IQ results.

Yeah, but eugenic policies improving national IQ are evil, as opposed to a system of dysgenics that leads to starving babies.

Under Marxism, the redundant Party always dines very well. Communism is just a form of plutocracy for suckers.

This information has vast implications for national planning, including whether we let inferior Eastern European intellects crowd out our domestic job market (as the EU wants, you’ll note). From the perspective of safety (building, medical etc) that is insane. Encouraging dysgenic coupling with them is far worse though. Don’t ruin your national IQ with peoples who literally live in shacks, regardless of their skin colour.

Modest drinking health claim debunked

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-alcohol-stroke-idUSKCN1RG2ZI
Well, duh.

Blood pressure and stroke risk rise steadily the more alcohol people drink, and previous claims that one or two drinks a day might protect against stroke are not true, according to the results of a major genetic study.”

Drinks companies lied to us?

The research, which used data from a 160,000-strong cohort of Chinese adults, many of whom are unable to drink alcohol due to genetic intolerance, found that people who drink moderately – consuming 10 to 20 grams of alcohol a day – raise their risk of stroke by 10 to 15 percent.

It isn’t good for anyone, America won’t take the data. It’s addicted, Prohibition was required to make it seem glamorous.
Alcohol affects your DNA but the conspiracy people won’t touch it with a barge pole.
Yet Millennials are shamed for not going into debt poisoning themselves.
Why do men die younger, again?

For heavy drinkers, consuming four or more drinks a day, blood pressure rises significantly and the risk of stroke increases by around 35 percent, the study found.

Drinks = units.

“The key message here is that, at least for stroke, there is no protective effect of moderate drinking,” said Zhengming Chen, a professor at Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Population Health who co-led the research. “The genetic evidence shows the protective effect is not real.”

Fuck, genetics? How dare you hint at racial differences.

Common sense on leftpol, what the right needs

Never thought I’d see the day.

2,500 words.

This is a salt post. If you’re new, you might try to argue. This is cute.

You know the only reason the left has power over the young? The right refuses to discuss class issues.

They hand-wave the concerns of the poor, the realpolitik.

Because most of them are middle-class, like the chattering left, but rescind the ground out of supposed principle. The principle being cowardice. They’ll talk about race, sex, sexuality and so on like the left want them to. Never classism.

Huh.

As if everyone capitalist, whatever their job, is the fucking Monopoly man.

Check this privileged asshole. Poster boy of all men. And you let it happen.

Why do you think they still got a hate-on for Thatcher?

She knew, daughter of a grocer and didn’t ridicule the poor/proles for capitalist ambition.
She treated them like intelligent adults who wanted to work hard and do better.

This is surprisingly realistic on the obligations of gender and biological realities.

How is a woman supposed to simultaneously raise children (alone, so still bad for them) while earning a high-earning full-time wage sufficient for financial support of self plus dependents as well? Especially given how men have higher-paying roles in the first place, prior to conception? [motive or cause aside]

And were she to apply after being left with baby (punished and derided for trusting a weak man, my stars), what of the so-called motherhood penalty? The one that makes her a less attractive hire, first to fire (less time for corporate faux family drama, HR hates them) and less likely to get a promotion whatever the skill level? You’d have to be a total fool to think companies don’t factor all of this in. After childbearing, a woman’s work options ARE severely limited and her earning potential for herself is impaired, discussions of cause or blame aside. If capitalism had disabilities, that would be the biggest one. Whereas fathers can get more pay, more time off (covered by the single, unfairly) because it’s expected they aren’t the primary caregiver to their own child. I’d love to see studies on single fathers and earning potential but the SJWs won’t do them! Because then it isn’t about the women (and not even white women) but companies punishing responsible parents.

Child support or welfare, I wonder who should be held responsible for your loin meat.

Parental protections in occupational law are vital. States exist to make sure businesses don’t ruin the People and that includes dysgenic culling of the future population by active punishment of childbearing, the cultural risks to having kids are already high enough.

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/9118a9ef-0771-4777-9c1f-8232fe70a45c/compendium—sans-appendix.pdf

And if men want to be primary caregiver, if they think it’s easy, I haven’t seen anything to suggest this damages the children if both parents are still a unit and supporting the child. That’s the business of the people in the marriage, not the State.

MRA types assume all women are upper-middle class with Daddy’s savings. Like the SJWs, that’s why both get so, so much wrong.
They’re out of touch.

The following inspired by

https://8ch.net/leftpol/res/120643.html#q126164

It’s hilarious that misogynists assume they’re on the right side of the bell curve a- when they can’t read it properly and b- they make basic bitch errors clear to anyone who can think three hypotheticals ahead. For example, assuming white women were the property (as has never actually happened, historically) of white men (their fathers or possibly brothers) then why would those relatives want the women mistreated? Why would they sell them like desert cowboys when all men even get emotionally attached to the wellbeing of their dogs? It just seems like rapists trying to justify their ‘consent’ hamstering with the notion it’s validated by the owner in a sales position… when white women would be the most valuable, globally, pricing them out of the market, were it to happen. Finally, the recent universal suffrage of men would be torn down and slavery or servitude to pay off debts brought back. Well, plenty of men have Fight Club style debts on car leases, carousing parties and Ikea branded cardboard. If your sole argument for enslavement is IQ, look at the bell curve, most of the low IQ are male and already work in those lower tier manual roles, causing little movement in the labour market. It could be argued they’re already enslaved now, by practical virtue of their low IQ. It isn’t like you’re freeing up jobs for men (who don’t want to do them) and infertile women (by age or nature) would also be forced to work like men so the office couldn’t possibly be a 100% Mad Men montage sausage fest. All the glamorous jobs would go to the highest IQ i.e. not you and the majority of works (busywork) would disappear, the thing about a minority of workers producing the most? Assuming you actually wanted meritocracy and the best man or woman for the role. Men wanted worker’s rights for a reason – they wanted it for themselves.
What do they expect to rest on, for those job roles, their winning personality? I mean, these idiots think it’s the worst of times for men. Fuck grand-daddy gored on barbed wire, his grand-daddy dying down the mines crushed by debris with black lung hindering any escape, his being pressganged and dying a slow painful death of syphilis – women not humouring your bullshit HURTS. These guys think the modern times oppress them when it actually keeps them alive (with the threat of nuclear war) to consider blogging a job and blame women for their weakness on an information hub they waste on porn addiction. Porn is the opiate of the idiot masses.
The Peter Pan immaturity that conflates taxes for labour and fun for “rights” to an imaginary Pleasure Island discussed on the internet to troll them.
Some HR harpy may pay taxes but do they work? Who’s paying for the abortion clinics these wannabe manwhores wanna fill up with their ‘stealthing’ bullshit? Where in the human rights law does it say other-caused orgasms?
They also imply homemakers aren’t workers, which is abject crap. Deadbeats tend to be male because they don’t want to put in the work raising a family, being a Patriarch so they dump the contractual obligation of their gender role after making the most expensive ‘mistake’ (actually investment) characteristic of mature adults i.e. making a child. They knew sex made babies and didn’t get a vasectomy beforehand. What hypoagency? Are women really responsible for your case of the wandering penis now?
If women couldn’t inherit despite longer life and their own earnings, property rights wouldn’t exist for over half the
population, not including low IQ men who’d likely be stripped too. So it’s a fundamentally classist thought experiment and screws over their fellow man the most. If suffrage were based on paying taxes, a sensible position, then all the libertarians and corporate men couldn’t vote for betraying the nation, even if they were billionaires. Again, a sensible position. Suffrage is inherently nationalist, look at how white women voted in droves for Trump to protect their families.

The enemy using a good system doesn’t make that system the enemy. Your ancestors died for that position, you think they didn’t have good experience of what happened without them?

Deadbeats are a ghetto concept, it’s rare for a white man to have such r-select inclinations but they try to normalise this. Show me deadbeat populations by race. It should be larping like a rapper or something.

What’s normal for other races in whatever continent shouldn’t be normalised or (god forbid) celebrated for white people.

All they have is ad hominem for the average woman, if you ask for citations of their Muh Studies and ‘logic’. If they had such an issue with whores they’d make actual prostitution (inc. hardcore porn) illegal. Yet they ignore all the realities they don’t like e.g. porn addiction/mental issues, bachelorhood/lifespan, divorce/male re-marriage, paternal age/literal autism, and call women the emotional snowflakes who hate science.

Why aren’t there more women on their team? Big mystery. Guess they’re jealous too.

And gatekeeping the right wing, philosophy of sexual cooperation, segregated by sex, is totally feasible.

But Emotional Intelligence isn’t real, guys. Apparently big-brained men can’t figure out, as a sex, how to do it, so it cannot be real. This is science. This isn’t just a bunch of autists complaining about empathy.

Let’s be clear, snowflaking isn’t sex-specific, it’s an IQ range. For one Trigglypuff there are a thousand guys ragequitting their keyboard because you like a different phone or think a certain car manufacturer is over-rated. At least Triggly had some higher bloody attempts at priorities.

Men stereotypically bicker about the most pointless of things and act like it’s so deep.

Are we supposed to pretend we don’t notice?

Bring back duelling and the gobby lefty will mysteriously go extinct. As will black crime gangs.

They’re allowed to box with gloves, that might kill them, but not fight for their principles under agreed rules?

They don’t even specify landmass, racial composition or national IQ average for their thought experiments.

If utopia were a graph, a couple are important legends. What are you controlling, what do you measure?

Libertarian cuck tier “errors”, like ignoring what’s happening with the billions of swarming parasites populating the rest of the world – and feeling entitled. Like pop! we magically get to a land of no history and genetic competition.

That’s only a thought experiment if you’re a moron.

Would only the sons and daughters of the rich be recognised as having natural rights they’re born with?

You know, like the right of kings?

But they won’t dare bring up eugenics, because that would lead to a discussion of declining male quality too. The old coots were right, we do need a good war… or smarter abortion/contraceptive efforts.

Caring for the fate of your group (i.e. its fitness because evolutionary competition exists) does not imply caring for the individual entitlement feelz of everyone IN said group, presently. The current generation is nuclear ashes as far as low time preference planning is concerned.

Hey, I promised salt. All women are brutal thinkers, we just can’t acceptably say it (unless you want people singing songs about witches when you die).

We’re all trying to come up with some grandiose plan (one by one, how smart) that replaces a monarch’s wisdom and even has a cultural tier replete with aristocrats (in a democracy, in all but name) – all without discussions of class, IQ, culture/quality…

and wonder why it doesn’t work?

Muh Social Darwinism from actively anti-natal genetic suicides is tragic and ironic and I love it. You don’t want your genes in the future but sure, you “care”… like the socialists who tax evade!

They’re actually taking advice on how to form a healthy family unit and Patriarchal masculinity – from gay guys!

No wonder women laugh at you, who’d respect someone who thinks THAT is a good idea?

Do you want a world where Oscar Wilde wannabes can fuck your brother and call it trad?

Assuming it’s genetic and you believe in evolution (big ask, I know), nature has culled those people from the gene pool for solid reasons. Let them paddle in the brown-tinged hot tub in peace.

The hidden bisexuals, however, are a threat.

How does a person go through this loop of circular irrationality a thousand times for various forums and never figure it out?

>women are selective, it’s just evolution, they can’t help it
>why don’t girls like me? must be their fault, women r dumb

You can’t rationalise your way out of evolution but they try.

Tier: Sexual selection.
Outcome: rejection.

>women shouldn’t be able to accuse men of rape, lol don’t believe women
>how did Rotherham happen? why did nobody believe them?

Literally protecting rapists (unless Muslim) and would probably claim rights to access a rape baby, over rights to a lead payment. Are they rapists? Are they enablers?

Why don’t women want them?

Rape is the only way they can reproduce. Your forefathers knew this and carried out the death penalty. No bros before hoes. It was missus before sissies.

Think of it in terms of property rights. If I grew drugs in your garden without your permission and tried to sell that land, keeping all the profits. Bastards are an illegitimate exchange. The baby was made with an egg that didn’t belong to you, in a growing machine that also did not legally belong to you. It’s theft of fertility.

Otherwise, I can drill for oil on their land. If consent doesn’t exist, drafting returns.

The reason they hate the Brahmin class, the typical Hipster Joe Goldbergs of the world running everything from a modern art gallery, is that they’re a decadent aristo class who usurped the role of the rightful inheritors by blood.

That’s your real problem, isn’t it?

Was leaving your racial kinfolk of the British Empire truly worth your precious melting pot?

Take a good, hard look.

Would this have happened if you’d stayed with your race over multiculturalism mark 1, the pre-European pilot test or at least installed a King? You slag off monarchy but there’s one benefit. Kings don’t care about getting people to vote for them.

Instead you have rule by aristo-acting Jews. You must be so proud.

The Muh Ashkenazi Verbal IQ thing is just cultural Stockholm Syndrome at this point.
Who owns academia, who does the tests, who excludes the majority of white people?

Jung’s critique of Freud for ‘Jewish Psychology’, Jews of any stripe are not the human prototype.

It’s gone from frogs in palaces to banker toadies. Huge difference, huh?

Especially from our perspective, watching from their sewer as we filter their Third World shit.

Look at national debt under the British Empire versus now and repeat after me: Land of the free!

It is possible to vote wrong. Your working class great-grandpa might’ve been a socialist for the ‘right reasons’ but that doesn’t make the consequences of the voted party’s actions any less severe. Now America is fast becoming Little China, look at new immigrant flows.

A lot of the people new to right-wing ideas are experiencing bastardizations, pollutions with leftist assumptions and this includes “history was just the same as now, but the present is totally different, new and only getting worse”.

I question.

Psyops?

We know they have research profiles. Why not?

Alongside “people are all the same and ignore HBD, all class differences are a social construct but the oppression of class is totally real when we, your betters, deign to officially notice it”.

Like, isn’t it ultimately class-privileged to work in journalism?

I wonder.

Some universalism in whites dates back to our ancient tribal history. Why treat close genetic kin like shit, that would fly against inclusive fitness? We wouldn’t have survived the Ice Age. Not to be confused with pathological altruism’s out-group universalism. The bad faith try to draw a false equivalence, trying to make it a thought-terminating cliche so you cannot discuss the first, drowned out by accusations of the second.

There are misogynists in power in America, that’s correct, they’re Jewish culturally who consider women the spawn of Lilith. Orthodox Jews are the most woman-hating group in the world, moreso than Muslims. Why else try to turn white women into actual whores? Then get white men to cheer it, like the presence of camera equipment (thanks Edison!) makes it less shameful? There is a class of misogynists running the ‘rape culture’ but hardly a white Patriarchy and they also prey on little white boys. Look at all the crimes swept under the rug dating back to Old Hollywood. Whites wanted Prohibition to reduce crime, and this actually worked, so what did the Jews do? Under-mine it. What vice precedes most degeneracy, please?

I digress.

You can’t discuss society without class, America, it’s the fundamental way power is used, abused and accumulated.

TLDR: America’s stubborn refusal to discuss class is why it’s a moral cesspool. 

The ultimate problem is very simple, in an increasingly high IQ-demanding civilization:

What does America do with its low IQ?

Most of those happen to be male, fuck your feelings.

Human history was polyandry

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

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

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

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

SEXUAL SELECTION IS EUGENIC.

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

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

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

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

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

You know, mathematically.

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

[Being a sterile manwhore means nothing in evolution.]

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

From here on out, no normie filter.

You have been warned.

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

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

EVOLUTION IS A HIERARCHY, IDJITS.

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

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

Women didn’t vote for her. Shocker.

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

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

Anyone who falls for it deserves to die out.

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

Why was this such a huge hit? Listen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’d rather have NOTHING.

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

So why don’t women talk about it?

We do, you don’t hear it.

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

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

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

Again, basic maths.

However, this was in there:

I’m sure they forgot.

To be friendzoned, you must actually be friends.

Most people are acquaintances.

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

Why are misogynists so common and misandrists so rare?

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that’s why you are here.

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

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

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

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

Evolution is brutal and cannot abide weakness. Mother Nature.

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

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

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

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

If women are crazy, why want them?

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

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

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

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

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

That is the omega.

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

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

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

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