Enjoy your 5G.
Study STDs. Dare ya.
“The research, published in the journal eLife, shows that the human leukemia virus (HTLV-1) acts at a large number of sites across the human genome, disrupting the regulation of tens of thousands of genes.”
One strain, of one virus.
“HTLV-1 is thought to infect more than 10 million people around the world. The virus can be transmitted through unprotected sex, blood transfusions, and from mother to baby via breast milk.”
Harmless fun. Fuck a Thai girl, kill your baby. Who are you to judge? They aren’t hurting anyone. What the wife doesn’t know, won’t hurt her. – Satan
“They add that the findings provide new insight into how viruses like HTLV-1 can alter the structure of the human genome, which can result in diseases such as cancer.”
The wages of sin.
When will it be taught in Sex Ed?
Never ever ever ever.
You couldn’t tell by bone structure? The men are almost pigeon-chested with women’s shoulders an Austen character would be proud of.
New mutations crop up all the time and the genes don’t survive.
It’s kinda like the SJW claim that sexes don’t exist because hermaphrodites do.
Er, mutants exist. They are aberrations. Ironically, they’re seeking meaning like Jesus in toast.
But they would also have had mutant genes affecting the mind.
This is because the brain, home to 84% of the genome, is extraordinarily sensitive to mutation, so mental and physical mutation robustly correlate. If these children had grown up, they might have had autism, schizophrenia, depression… but they had poor immune systems, so they never had the chance.
Why would nature waste resources better spent on the children likeliest to breed?
This is literally Darwin.
Among these, the authors argue, was a very specific kind of religiosity which developed in all complex societies: the collective worship of gods concerned with morality.
It’s no coincidence many atheists are psychopathically broken enough to reject the concept of objective morality, moral absolutes (unless it applies to their opponent, to weaken them). In a small tribe, they’d have been kicked out by the elders at the first sign of criminality and deception to starve. The anti-weasel reflex is still present in us, it makes us get off a bus early when an unstable person gets on or avoid the creepily attentive boy who offers to buy us a drink to spike.
Your instincts keep you alive better than a lazy police force.
Antisocial people hate instincts because it thwarts their lies.
Ask yourself, why did men in all great societies have to leave the home, live alone, prove themselves and follow the law to be worthy of respect? We coddle teenagers and hence we have a society of weak men. They complain about this yet never volunteer to do what needs to be done, a sign of their weakness, it begins with the moral.
If you’re so different from women, ya gotta act like it.
Sitting around complaining among the women is what the gay guys do. Not attractive. How many mistake this vanity for intellect?
Mixed schools were a sign of the mistake. When little girls exercise like little boys, their brains are masculinized. How many pro-Patriarchy guys would prefer a male-only school? Vanishingly few. They’re full of shit. They want all the imagined rewards with none of the effort. But sex-exclusive schools get better grades, with less distraction, as do religion-specific and race-specific ones.
Without morality, there is no reputation. Without reputation, there is no honour and no culture.
Hypocrites who refuse to lead by example because *valley girl voice* It’s HAAAARD.
This very specific kind of religiousness was selected for and, indeed, it correlates with positive and negative ethnocentrism even today.
Genophilia is evolutionally fit, no shit.
The authors demonstrate that this kind of religiousness has clearly been selected for in itself. It is about 40% genetic according to twin studies, it is associated with strongly elevated fertility, it can be traced to activity in specific regions of the brain, and it is associated with elevated health: all the key markers that something has been selected for.
Ask an atheist if he has asthma. That one condition.
They’re lazy moral Marxists. “I can take what I want because I can find an excuse”. It’s a child’s mindset begging their parents for a toy or to “let them get away” with eating a cookie before dinner. They feel the world (and any God) owes them personally, entitlement is the mindset of weakness.
They earn nothing. They get nothing. That is just.
Their failure is a sign the system works. It’s like the “incels” who refuse to develop an adult personality but demand AA for orgasms. Redistribution of hotties and thotties. They’re just fucking marxists. Literally.
“Rejection should be illegal” people. Utterly brittle personalities, sheltered.
There is no right to another person’s body, and this coming from self-proclaimed libertarians? How many hands do they have? Take matters into your own hands.
They think women don’t suffer (aren’t fully human) or that suffering is rare, new and some personal outrage. You can’t argue with reality.
Who wants to sleep with a kid in a grown man’s body?
And it is from here that the authors make the leap that has made SJW blood boil. Drawing on research by Michael Woodley of Menie and his team (see here and here)they argue that conditions of Darwinian selection have now massively weakened, leading to a huge rise in people with damaging mutations. This is evidenced in increasing rates of autism, schizophrenia, homosexuality, sex-dysmorphia, left-handedness, asymmetrical bodies and much else. These are all indicators of mutant genes.
dysgenic, the word you need to use
Pollutants in food, water, air, clothing, medications (neurotoxic) and unprecedented interactions with foreign microbiomes throwing the native ones off cause a hefty amount too. Then there are easily remedied things like non-Indians eating a diet they didn’t evolve for and wondering why gastro issues are through the roof.
I think the antacid people own stock in curry suppliers. White people are dumb.
Peasant food is not good for you. Foreign peasant food is worst for you.
Malthus shall prevail.
All except the handedness is true. Natural variations exist in eye colour, hair, nails, handedness. It doesn’t mean as much as psychologists claim it does, it’s just easy and cheap to study. They’re lazy. You have a dominant foot too but nobody gives a shit.
It’s fucking palmistry.
Most people are slightly ambi.
Mutants are not necessarily dysgenic though, advantageous ones are simply a lot rarer and normally come from better bloodline stock with reduced genetic load (in fact, that might be the deciding factor in whether a trait presents as useful or thanatos).
Look at the HBD studies about SES (class) over multiple generations. Social mobility is a false condition of fiat debt spirals, it will correct too. Champagne socialists will be the elderly people in manual labouring jobs.
Little mentioned but autism is a “low empathy” condition. Like psychopathy. They cannot cooperate properly and lack the emotional intelligence to be leaders. The idea some super-academic smartypants in the white house would solve all problems is symbolic of their deficits. They can’t run their own life in an orderly way.
Low empathy = antisocial, in practice.
They deny this from egocentrism but it’s pathognomonic of the pathological medical condition.
They deny it’s any of the last three things too. It’s part of the condition.
Why deny they lack empathy? They’re shrewd enough to know it’s socially undesirable but if you ask around the idea, they’ll freely admit they hate all people, raging bigots. They’re full of self-pity, self-loathing, refusal to change (like a sociopath) or learn from moral errors and highly reactive to others but in an angry closed-off way.
They think reactivity (over sensitive) and lashing out at people (intermittent explosive) is empathy.
Utterly incapable of humility. That requires the self-awareness of social intelligence but they don’t really see other people. They are not perceptive on the human level. They even crowd out other mental illnesses for more air time.
Super competent and smart, they claim…. until you hold them to that standard.
It’s like how the ADHD guys claim to be slow but also geniuses (logically exclusive). Their own subjective experience of their mind when it sputters like an old car biases them with feeling. They claim they don’t have feelings because they’re constantly over-run with them. Overwhelmed. It’s like Victorian hysteria in men.
A nerve study would be interesting.
They’ll abandon their parents on their deathbed once they hear their name’s on the will, totally callous. Instead of admitting they’re selfish, they’ll go Ayn Rand and claim (intellectualization is their favourite defensiveness) they aren’t bad people (just do bad things, repeatedly, by choice??!!) but society, unwilling to coddle, is dragging them down.
Antisocial people feel the need to destroy and punish all the good of society and spare the bad. It does vary.
In some instances, heartless. Look up stories of women who’ve been married to Asperger’s men, they sound almost exactly like sociopaths. For example, denial of the condition to gaslight then blaming the condition at other times.
So Dutton and his team argue that, this being the case, deviation from this very specific form of religiousness—the collective worship of moral gods in which almost everyone engaged in 1800—should be associated with these markers of mutation.
oh look, a real psychologist and none of the JP fans like him
maybe he should tell them to wash their hands
In other words, both atheists and those interested in spirituality with no moral gods (such as the paranormal) should be disproportionately mutants.
There has never been a pilot country of atheists. They refuse to found so much as a village. When a group doesn’t want to live among itself, it implicitly admits it is damaged.
They can’t play the Poor Me card if they aren’t surrounded by normal empaths who’ll assume the best.
And this is precisely what they show. Poor physical and mental health are both significantly genetic and imply high mutational load. Dutton and his team demonstrate that this specific form of religiousness, when controlling for key factors such as SES, predicts much better objective mental and physical health, recovery from illness, and longevity than atheism.
Can someone film Aubrey when told this?
That’s literally the best Darwinian metric.
I wonder if he could study atheist researchers of the psychology of religion. Would they rig the test? Yes, they’d try. Aren’t atheist researchers of religion a little biased? Nobody brings this up.
It’s generally believed that religiousness makes you healthier because it makes you worry less and elevates your mood,
look at the Wiccans, it’s a connection to the natural world (disconnection from the fake world of urban, neon and shiny atheist crap)
but they turn this view on its head, showing that religious worshippers are more likely to carry gene forms associated with being low in anxiety. Schizophrenia, they show, is associated with extreme and anti-social religiosity, rather than collective worship. Similarly, belief in the paranormal is predicted by schizophrenia, and this is a marker of genetic mutation.
Aliens, bigfoot, Slenderman. Atheists believe in lots of things, diffuse. Next they’ll break out the healing crystals.
Next, they test autism, another widely accepted marker of mutation, as evidenced by the fact that it’s more common among the children of older men, whose fathers are prone to mutant sperm. Autism predicts atheism.
Old men babies are damaged. Huh. If only I had a tag on paternal age.
Genetic disease leads to genetic suicide?
Of course, rather than blaming men for marrying and breeding to late, I’m sure they’ll blame wider society like men didn’t make a series of choices over years that materially harmed their children.
The problem people have with atheistkult isn’t that they don’t believe. It’s that they’re obsessive about how EVIL (but evil doesn’t exist?) this meme is and wish to harm and destroy and crush people who are “dumb” enough to fall for it and be happy and healthy.
Yeah, we aren’t falling for it.
You choose what to believe, you choose to look for it or not. They shut their eyes and cry “why don’t I see?”
Mala fides. If they were women in the olden days, they’d have been killed as witches. It’s amazing given how many claim to be super competent, how their life fails to play this out. We have mewling men who can’t take care of themselves but attempt to guilt trip the rest of us into respecting them and playing into the delusion.
throw on a dress and legally, we’d have to
Darwin was right, what a shocker this one is.
Allow me to explain.
There are three selection events in humans.
- Pre-birth, failed by miscarriage. Many go this way.
- Birth itself to infancy. Many went by malnutrition, starvation, abuse, maladaptive development or illness.
- Reproduction. Nowadays, this tends to be how people go. Better written up as genetic suicide, when intentional.
Parental age (both genetic contributors) does affect risk, yes, but genetics research does NOT want to EVER acknowledge the varying benchmark of genetic quality to begin with. There are teenagers who miscarry for this reason or produce children with defects, the risk is always there with every conception that the conception event goes awry, it’s simple maths. The possibility is always there.
It really goes by family. If the people in your family could be first-time parents successfully in their 30s/40s, you’re fine, the overall genetic quality level is good.
LOOK AT HOW DIFFERENT PEOPLE ARE ON A GENETIC LEVEL
HBD is still BS tho–
LOOK AT THE EVOLVED DIFFERENCES
LOOK AT THE VISIBLE GENETIC EVIDENCE OF EUGENIC SELECTION
LET’S EUGENICALLY APPLY THIS TO INCREASE THE FITNESS OF THE WIDER SOCIETY BY ENGINEERING
but don’t call it eugenics.
If you don’t actually use the word ‘eugenics’, it’s all fine.
Okay let’s say one line about this logically.
If you ignore the eugenics thing, and apply this to absolutely everyone, the baseline drops again and it becomes meaningless as a positive selection factor, so pushing the ‘it’ll help everyone!’ rationale would literally never work; you’re simply moving the average with no heed to negative consequences, further, the other innate factors (all billions of them) would in fact, become more prominent by comparison, as one genetic factor was removed from the equation and they moved up the effect size ranking.
Another case of bigoted statistics, I know.
Quantifiers ruin all the liberals’ fun.
Any “transwoman” is genetically lesser compared to a real woman, aside from the overt Y issue, as I had suspected for some time. After which point, the book discusses genetic diseases of the chromosome (they often shamelessly use these people as a verbal fucktoy and shield “what about people with different chromosomes?” as if it isn’t a disease).
I wasn’t insulting men either, the common speculation for this difference is that women need a full suite of genetic material to potentially pass on to and/or bear children.
Also see Mullerian and Wolffian ducts: http://courses.washington.edu/conj/bess/differentiation/differentiation.htm
I should probably quit while I’m ahead, I’ve spent far too long mulling this over with a geneticist/biologist and things are getting fuzzy. All this talk of allosomes and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA).