Prey body language

Feminists don’t talk about this. Not that it’s possible to reduce vulnerability to zero either.
If you’re attractive to a predator, no amount of confident body language will deter them.

http://readynutrition.com/resources/hard-core-chicks-eight-self-defense-tactics-every-women-should-know_20042015/

And for all their shrieking of rape, they don’t teach women the one move we have on men, so much so they’ll call it “unfair” despite having every other physical advantage.

OK, if you don’t want to be treated like a rapist, don’t be a rapist.

?

I have been teaching Krav Maga to women and girls for over 5 years now and we teach a technique which should be in every woman and girls arsenal.

This is the “groin grab” self defense technique to use against a male attacker which is taught in many womens self defense classes, and there is actually a little trick to it… We are a women only event, run by women, for women, and this is what we teach to women of all ages:

You’re going to take your hand and grasp between the attackers thighs underhand. Its going to feel like you’re “cradling” the testicles. Dig your fingertips into the fragile skin BEHIND the scrotum.

perineum

Then, once you have a good grip, you turn your hand into a vice, with your fingers digging inwards, around the back and over the top of the testicles. If you do it right, you should feel the testes INSIDE your hand which is holding the scrotum. You want, whenever possible, to hook your fingers over at least one testicle. One of them is enough.

Teach this to rape gang victims.

Then, with your hands in a claw and your fingertips latched around the testes, you turn your hand sharply, as though you were turning a doorknob. Simultaneously, squeeze and pull the testicles away from his body as fast and as hard as you can. Do not let go of them. What happens then, is that your assailant usually screams out in pain and then tries to grab the wrist of your hand holding him in a futile attempt to try to get you to release him. Don’t. He then quickly loses one of the natural advantages he usually has over us (his strength) within a matter of seconds. Vomiting, curling over, collapsing and convulsing is common. Shock and unconsciousness can set in within 8 seconds. When he collapses, which he will, you get away to safety as quickly as possible and report the crime.

Hey, twisting a predatory man by the bollock is equally as natural as rape, right?

Because if we can, why shouldn’t we?

It’s never too late to perform this at any stage of an attack, and that even includes the option of reaching down if he’s on top of you, but it is easiest to do when the testicles are exposed and closest to you where you can grab hold of them. I’ve actually met several women in my life who have fought off their attackers in this way and one did it when her attacker was on top of her and raping her at the point he lost control. Don’t ever hold back.

Well, the “men” didn’t.

You have to assume in cases of rape they’re going to murder you because a lot of them do. To say it’s just rape really shows how psychopathic some people are – most women would rather be murdered than raped, less trauma.

And to the men reading who doubt that, would you rather be prison-raped or prison-stabbed? Most say stabbed.

Some women scream while they are doing this, and some women think of a loved one being harmed to help overcome any bad feelings of hurting someone else even if they are being hurt themselves. Do whatever you have to do if it helps.

Rapists aren’t people. They started it.

If done properly, and done with enough force, this technique can even lead to the testicles rupturing. It’s actually easier to do than most women believe, and just about all of us have the capability to injure an attackers testicles in this way – whether we are young girls still of school age, or whether we are great grandmothers. After all, if you think about it testicles are just small objects of extreme vulnerability to pain squishiness wrapped in a delicate flap of skin which offers them no protection at all from this kind of counterattack to them. Most importantly, this fact holds true no matter what size your attacker is, nor how strong he is. And no matter how angry he is, nor how much he’s threatened what he’s going to do to you, he’s going to drop. Don’t let anyone (usually men) try to convince you otherwise.

K-shift bitch.

Early marriage and breeding bad for families

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00269/full
Well, duh, says every K-type.
“high rates of morbidity and mortality”
Darwin wins.
As I said before, minors are not fully mature. This is about the 20s, when peak health occurs in both sexes.
You marry and breed in the 20s like most civilized societies. Either parent should be self-reliant in case one dies.
Of course, creepy men don’t really care about the women, they like the idea of the youngest wife legally allowed. Don’t hold out hope for SE Asia. Those who think with their dicks will fall into the sea eventually.

Old men, dead babies

Harsh title? Yes. Accurate? Yes.

Both parental ages factor into miscarriage risk, equally.

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/17/6/1649/2919231
Miscarriages occur in teens too so I dunno who is dumb enough to rely on this one variable alone.

37 is the age when maternal age starts to matter for women (depending on family history) if you look at the shift in gradient on the charts (barely any change before) but 40 is the huge risk age in both men and women, as in this study.
“However, the increase in risk was much greater for couples composed of a woman aged ≥35 years and of a man aged ≥40 years.”
Is Human Reproduction not a prestigious enough journal?

The 37/40 thing:
Age and the Risk of Miscarriage
It isn’t sufficiently studied in men but data on paternal age as a factor keeps coming out.
Looks like you can’t just blame the woman again. Takes two to make a baby.
“a dramatic rise starting after age 37, with the steepest increase occurring after age 40.”
“The man’s age matters too. Having a partner over the age of 40 significantly raises the chances of a miscarriage.” Nature doesn’t like old, mutant sperm either.
“Over half of miscarriages are caused by genetic abnormalities.” It isn’t a bad thing, really.
“On average, a woman in her early 20s will have chromosomal abnormalities in about 17% of her eggs” So that’s a really terrible metric considering humans are human. There is always risk.
It’s worse in men than women, so I’m hardly favouring women by opposing this reductionism.
“And as men age, chromosomal defects and point mutations–changes to a single nucleotide in their DNA–become increasingly common.”
Where minors are raped and studied, they tend not to do well either.

Memorize that chart.

A teenager is as bad (at-risk) as a woman with an additional two decades.
You’re still debating less than one percentage point of difference though. Are you autistic?

It’s an interesting variable but hardly everything.

An IVF study


Note: Again, 37 is the magic number.
“While IVF helps many couples overcome their fertility problems, it largely cannot overcome the age-related increase in genetic abnormalities. Without genetically normal sperm and eggs, a viable pregnancy is impossible.”
“Despite this problem, several studies involving couples discordant for age now paint a clear and consistent picture: older prospective fathers raise the risk of miscarriage by about 25-50%. One study found an a 60% increase in the odds of a miscarriage if the father was over 40. Another found a roughly 25% increase in the risk of miscarriage for fathers over the age of 35.”

I guess the Have it All guys can’t read.


As you can clearly see, getting a teenager up the duff would actually be worse.
All things considered.
There are plenty of studies on this but what’s the point?
They basically show the same thing.
No doubt they’ll try to cherry-pick something else to draw focus back onto Boo Women.

A little more then I’ll give up and hope men who value their health listen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809297/
“Trends towards increasing paternal age are being observed in the UK as well as USA, due to delay in marriages for attaining better socio-economic stability.”
Fucking feminists. /sarc

Advancing paternal age has been shown to result in subfertility, adverse pregnancy outcomes (miscarriage, late foetal death, preterm delivery, low birth weight), birth defects (cleft lip and palate, congenital heart defects), achondroplasia, osteogenesis imperfect , Apert’s syndrome, schizophrenia, childhood cancer (brain cancer, retinoblastoma, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) and adult cancer (breast, prostate and nervous system).3 Possible mechanisms for these problems include single gene mutations, autosomal dominant diseases, structural abnormalities in sperm chromosomes (e.g., reciprocal translocations) and multiple genetic / chromosomal defects. DNA damage in sperm of men aged 36 – 57 years was found to be 3 times that of men less than 35 years”

Good luck blaming females for that.

“The present study has demonstrated that the paternal age more than 35 years was an independent risk factor associated with spontaneous first trimester miscarriages. In order to eliminate the effect of maternal age, which is itself a known risk factor, we selected women between the age of 20 – 35 years, as this is considered to be ideal age for child bearing.”

Yes. 20-35 is the ideal range.


The reproductive system needs time to become stable, women take longer to physically mature (completed by the late twenties).

Paternal age is a factor in disease and infertility, independently.

“They recommend counselling of men more than 40 years of age when seeking pregnancy.
I’m not gloating, my heart goes out to men who waited too long and have to raise, at best, a sickly child. They need to be warned of the risks of waiting just like women do.

“Kleinhaus K et al have studied various age groups and have found father’s age more than 40 years to be significantly associated with spontaneous miscarriage.13 Slama R has also studied age ranges and have found that risk of spontaneous miscarriage showed linear increase in the hazard of spontaneous miscarriage in male age between 20 and 45 years. They also observed that hazard ratio was highest with male age > 45 years compared with 18 – 24 years (HR = 1.87, 95% CI, 1.01 – 3.44).1 Others have used paternal age between 30 to more than 50 years.”

The male system matures before the female, (18, mid-20s). If we’re being nubile about social policy, the wife should be older slightly.

So the ideal female age for motherhood is 20-35, but as we see here, ideal male age for fatherhood is 18-24, up to 30 if we’re pushing it. You’d expect the male age to be earlier since they have more DNA damage over time and shorter lifespans combined with earlier physical maturation.

Biology? Sorry?

Freezing sperm doesn’t last by the way. They go off.

“Studies on paternal age and fertility suggest that male biological clock does exist. Similar to women, advancing paternal age results in negative effects on reproductive outcomes.”
“Klonoff-Cohen also found decreasing pregnancy rate with male age. Pregnancy rate was 53% for men less than or equal to 35 years, 35% for 36 – 40 years and 13% for men > 40 years.”
Again, 35 seems to be the turning point for male infertility. Almost equal to the female 37 downturn but the male peak is earlier because the (greater) damage is cumulative (see next quote) and gamete production is ongoing.

Why do you oldies wanna marry young unless you’re admitting there’s a deleterious effect to counteract?
In future, more studies will look at differences in the under-35 men, between, say, 18-24, 25-29 and 30-35.

We postulate from these studies that damage to sperm accumulates over a man’s lifetime. Sperm making cells continue to divide throughout the man’s life, increasing the chances of mutations. Impaired DNA replication and repair mechanisms and increased DNA fragmentation.
DNA damage could also result from reactive oxygen species formed by alcohol, nicotine and drug abuse.”
The wages of sin.
“According to Aitken RJ’s study, male genital tract infection can result in DNA damage in male germ cells and therefore, increase the rates of miscarriage.”
Oh look, male chastity was logical.

“CONCLUSION
Paternal age more than 35 years was found to be an independent risk factor in spontaneous first trimester miscarriages.”

They haven’t really studied younger in sufficient detail to claim that’s fine though, findings like those mentioned above show <30 is ideal in both sexes, to start.

https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/16/1/65/705193
There a section called “Paternal age and infections”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4125283/
“In this Opinion piece we argue that the tendency of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to cause infertility is likely to reflect an evolutionary adaptation of the pathogens. We use an evolutionary perspective to understand how STI pathogens may benefit from reducing fertility in the host and what clues the mechanisms of pathogenesis can offer to the evolution of this ability. While we concentrate on human infections, we will also briefly discuss the broader context of STI-induced infertility in other species.

STIs are a common cause of human infertility worldwide…”
No, men can’t sow any wild oats.

No such thing.

“Reduced fertility and an increased risk of complications during and following pregnancy both contribute to reduced reproductive success in the host—and may benefit the sexually transmitted pathogen by destabilizing partnerships and increasing promiscuity.”
The microbes in your urethra are thinking for you.

Not even your dick.

This does explain gay culture. Wow, gay germ theory gets everywhere. This also explains their fetish for fluids and pozzing parties. At least they’re somewhat aware of it.

“Not only are highly promiscuous individuals exposed to a higher risk of acquiring STIs, but STIs may also actively generate hubs of transmission in a vicious circle of promiscuity and infertility: in traditional societies,”
It’s anti-natal and terrible for society.
You can’t leave behind a life of sin.

Also liberal fertility rates make a lot more sense right about now. It is a bug, and it is a feature!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pass-it-on-children-can-inherit-herpes/
STDs can be passed on at conception, which explains the first trimester paternal age miscarriage finding, the older you get, the more diseases infect the body.
A direct study hasn’t been conducted yet – sexual infection history and miscarriage.
Could it find funding?

Doubtful. Even if it looked at both parents.

Onward, to computer modelling!

Sim City; Sin City Edition.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/12/stis-may-have-driven-ancient-humans-to-monogamy-study-says
“Writing in the journal Nature Communications, Bauch and his colleague Richard McElreath from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, describe how they built a computer model to explore how bacterial sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis that can cause infertility, affected populations of different sizes. The authors considered both small hunter gatherer-like populations of around 30 individuals and large agricultural-like populations of up to 300 individuals, running 2,000 simulations for each that covered a period of 30,000 years.

In small polygynous communities, the researchers found that outbreaks of such STIs were short-lived, allowing the polygynous population to bounce back. With their offspring outnumbering those from monogamous individuals, polygyny remained the primary modus operandi.

[coughs in r-selection]

But when the team looked at the impact of STIs on larger polygynous societies, they found a very different effect. Instead of clearing quickly, diseases such as chlamydia and gonorrhea became endemic. As a result, the population plummeted and monogamists, who did not have multiple partners, became top dog.

[hums in Malthusian tones]

The team also found that while monogamists who didn’t ‘punish’ polygyny could gain a temporary foothold, it was monogamists that ‘punished’ polygyny – often at their own expense of resources – that were the most successful.

[religion is evolutionally fit]

[K-types FTW and for discrimination based on self-protection]

While the form of such punishments were not specified in the model, Bauch suggests fines or social ostracisation among the possible penalties.

[stop paying for their babies and STD treatments? FIRSTLY?]
[kinda like how prison was meant to keep you from breeding – a genetic death penalty – until you dummies invented welfare for their women and conjugal rights, making the whole thing useless]

The results, they say, reveal that STIs could have played a role in the development of socially imposed monogamy that coincided with the rise of large communities that revolved around agriculture.”

Socially imposed?

Well, he had to get published I suppose.

The social/cultural clearly comes after the rest. Like, the die-offs?

Civilization has and always will be K-selected. 

Where Spencer is wrong

Youtube comments, what do ya know? Tell me your secrets.

My friends read these (and rarely, write in themselves) so you don’t have to!
The little bitches could do the editing for me, though.

He should really study up on Trivers’ Parental Investment theory, that one would count as individualistic-oriented, I think. It also ties into r/K. Spencer is saying up with K-strategy, basically, which is individualistic in comparison to the rest of the world. Look at birth rates!

Try to find national case studies or go by national heroes.

Good find, there is no such thing as an individual in evolutionary or biological terms. There is only the breeding unit (plus surviving spawn) – man and woman, here defined in our culture as the nuclear unit.

Biologically, single humans do not exist because humans are not an asexual species.
Collectivist races tend to have extended family (Asians, genetic-Asian “Native” Americans) or a total breakdown of family but an extended community (The Hood).

For other theories Spencer could stand to use, anything about the amygdala, oxytocin and Terror Management Theory.

I’ve linked this before but it’s a good start.

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

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002186017002006

It’s ripe for discussion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19864286

There’s no such thing as ‘harmless hedonism’, as libertarians imply.
The state must absorb the cost of their social damage e.g. STDs, abortions, drug resistance.
Is it really a freedom if someone else is paying for its consequences?

I find it ironic the winning ‘strategy’ of the Non-Aggression Principle (a wimp’s Golden Rule) is to either behave or plot murder. The solution to violence is violence. Instead of threat of violence, we have a guarantee. The evil of society will spontaneously and logically agree to stop pursuing a selfish strategy, in their mind.

What is automation?

I keep seeing people use this word all over the place, thinking they sound smart and they think of it as a big blob of magical, complex ‘technology’ instead of anything resembling reality.

Here’s a decent, simple example of how a human cell (work station) varies from a robot cell.

http://www.machinedesign.com/industrial-automation/guide-making-robots-work-your-factory

We don’t need higher population numbers because of these babies.

The labour won’t be there.
And you think Gen Y living at home is bad? Those are 1940s levels, common in the unmarried.

Naturally, this also means immigration has been outmoded as a policy. Only middle-class labours can be replaced past this point on a visa system, low-skilled workers are too low in IQ to be needed when these machines exist.

We overbred post WW1 anyway, pre-bust. The numbers you consider normal are biased, an evolutionary fluke. Unless we banned all forms of chemical contraception (fact: no Baby Booms since the Pill) to all people (inc. the married) then numbers will never get up, and maybe we should aim for a sustainable nation first and foremost before assuming that African levels of cloning are healthy for a society?

Look at food security and tell me population can afford to go up.
Soil fertility, malnutrition rates, obesity rates.
Clean house before extending the bloody thing.

Comment from Endgame Napoleon on ZH;

Automation is reducing the need for workers at a time when there is already too much competition for full-time jobs. America has generated new, full-time jobs at the paltry rate of 6% since 2005, and yet, we fret over the need to import more immigrant workers or to increase the birth rate, creating more future workers for the declining number of non-automated jobs.

That is irrational [cubed].

The story of the declining Western middle class is not, as sold, just a product of a declining birth rate. If the number of humans is the sole explanation for widespread prosperity, why was the U.S. at the peak of middle-class prosperity at around the mid 1960s to the early 1970s, when our population was much lower?

Between 1970 and the projected rate for 2020, the U.S. population will have close to doubled, with a far greater percentage of humans chasing increasingly automated jobs. America had a much bigger middle class when it had fewer humans producing and consuming products and when there was less global trade.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/1940census/CSPAN_1940slides.pdf

The stupid men in the economy have been replaced. This is eugenic.
It’s better than becoming cannon fodder, guys.

It is not just birth rates that determine middle-class prosperity. It is wage growth. The reason for the decline in widespread U.S. prosperity is the increase in women in the workforce. It concentrates the wealth from decent-paying jobs in fewer households due to assortative mating.

And it works on the smarties too. For the smarties.

It is not because of declining birth rates, but because two high earners marry, concentrating salaried wealth under fewer roofs.

The left hate inequality, the left hate marriage.

It punishes r-selected decision-making.

It lowers wages and hours at the bottom, too, including for single, childless women who face increased competition from married mothers with spousal income and from welfare-buttressed, single mothers who do not need higher wages in the still [and always will be] overwhelmingly female-dominated, low-paying, traditional jobs.

https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/TraditionalOccupations.pdf

That’s without accounting for education, presentation and manners. Lookism and classism are real but not always bad.

You can’t just discuss women in an economy with two sexes. The economy is a system and since we live in the 21st century, IQ must be discussed. You can’t run away from HBD.

Every political plan fails if you ignore the full population and the HBD salient facts of it.

It hits those with earned-only income, no spousal income and no reproduction-based welfare the hardest.

Welfare parents are the new, artificial middle-class.
Poor single people are paying for the breeding habits of irresponsible mother-fuckers.
Who should be paying? The deadbeat dads. You breed it, you feed it. That’s your gender role.

Birth rates have declined, but we now have a large population of single mothers who need to work the welfare-reform minimum of 20 hours per week, staying below income limits for welfare to get everything from free food and free housing to child tax credits of up to $6,269.

Here we have child tax credits and they should be abolished. You chose not to abort. Why should I have to pay for the fruit of your uterus? Wealth transfers are theft. How can you save up for your own family? They don’t want you to.

And people wonder why wages never rise.

My favourite ZH commentor, she is, and no, it isn’t secretly me.

There are middle-class people, smug trendies reading the Guardian, pretending they aren’t on welfare (child tax credits and a host of others) and they wonder why birth rates suck?
The rights of a parent are based on the fact you literally pay for it.

Real women love researching our home econ. More money for shoes.

I’ll post the rest for the curious.

Women must be accommodated by government to work while having children,

national debt hangs over everyone
we wouldn’t be allowed to return to the home until ND is down

even though the decline of the Western middle class can be linked to the increase in working moms and even though automation is reducing the overall number of full-time jobs, resulting in a middle-class minority in the U.S.A.

And it is Not True that middle-class prosperity was higher when the ratio of low-consuming people over 65 was much lower. Back in 1970–when we had a much larger, high-consuming, American middle class and fewer working moms–only 9.8% of the U.S. population was over 65. By 2010 the ratio of elderly to high-consuming youth was only 3.2% higher.

https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1140.pdf

That is not a huge difference.

The economic difference is in the percentage of working moms, diluting the wage pool, in addition to the wage-lowering mass immigration, offshoring and now automation. Those forces reduce the purchasing power of Americans.

In ascending order of importance.
Why?
The average WASP mother has a higher IQ than an immigrant off the boat. In the rare brain drain cases, the working mom types aren’t going for the same job as the typical educated American man, are they? No, it’s immigrant competition for traditionally male occupations and don’t you dare deny that fact.

There is only one extra-large population of SS-age elderly to support, namely the Baby Boom, making these demographic economic arguments even weaker.

High-earner working parents are not creating jobs. Most are not taking the risk to start businesses. They are taking 2 salaried jobs with benefits undergirded by a $260 billion employer tax exclusion, resulting in a concentration of access to employer-provided benefits, like the concentration of decent-paying jobs in fewer households. Thus, fewer Americans are covered by so-called employer-provided health insurance, which is actually a super-costly part of the U.S. budget due to the tax exclusion.

If you look at the total numbers, by household.
The supposedly pro-Patriarchy guys are aware of none of these arguments. This is why I post.
Women didn’t work much before (they did work, but not in the same capacity as men) because it wasn’t known they were capable. Post-WW, we know. We can’t go back. The politicians will never let us. Infinite growth!

Dual-earner parents are mostly doing the safest thing they can, financially speaking, with government accommodating the liberal social concept of working moms to the hilt.

Don’t punish the K-types for providing for their children, a PSA.

But it is not growing the stagnant economy. It is not resulting in a bigger middle class. And it will only get worse as computer programs and robots continue to absorb full-time jobs, with an increased birth rate among the native born or more imported immigrant workers only making it worse, in that we will have more mouths to feed and fewer non-automated jobs.

What politicians should be doing is making it easier for more citizens to be stay-at-home parents, not taking two jobs out of an economy with insufficient, full-time jobs, and having the number of kids they can afford. There should be more emphasis on the quality of child rearing.

The truth is: More American parents are working in the wage-earning economy while doing a bad job at the unpaid job of raising their kids. The U.S. has 5% of the global population and 25% of its incarcerated humans. How about some emphasis on quality over quantity?

Stay-at-home fathers are awesome, if they can afford to. Part-time is ideal.
1950s fathers would be considered deadbeat for going down the club or “hanging out” at a bar. Forsaking all others, it’s a vow.

Encourage K-selection, because birth rate is no indicator of quality.

As mass immigration has been reliably demonstrating for the past century.

As another comment put it

Automation is going to mean that we want to have less consumers, eg: less useless mouths to feed, not more.

And in the economic depression we’re fast approaching, K-types will prosper. Over-breeders will not.

Update: I would like to point out humans shifted in the West to a more K model as soon as infant mortality dropped. This is a fact, it is so overt in nature it proves itself if you only look. It demonstrates itself. The rest of the world (e.g. India) has failed to make this shift to reflect medical changes and that is why the Malthusian trap will hurt them more and others like them (presently by things like a drop in standard of living from overcrowding), since they choose to ignore this selection pressure change. That isn’t our fault, they could copy us, they seem to think they can have their cake and eat it, have too many kids and just cash in on the prosperity from the finite resources as before, a billion mouths and counting. No. For the same reason I can’t buy a cup of coffee then wonder where my money went. If your culture doesn’t adapt, it is culled by the inevitable courses of events. You can’t keep outsourcing your problems, including by blame games.
The shift the Victorians called civilizing or civilization was well-known at the time, they wanted imperialism to expand these benefits.
Common sense is about survival so no, I don’t give a shit what IQ China claims to have, they are stupid by dictionary definition. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/stupid

They are pursuing a pre-Industrial sexual strategy, producing a billion economic drains like resources are infinite and ignore the mathematical impossibility of it turning out in their favour.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-feeding-china/

It is foolish to think that what has worked in the past will continue to work into the future, Politicians are, unfortunately always backward looking.

The 20th century is the exception, not the rule.
We know about the number obsession, it’s all about the ego of your virility, get over yourself. You’ll be changing those diapers, no nanny from Spain.
Smart people raise quality offspring, not an infestation of Geldofs.
We need less degenerates, of any hue.
*fewer

atheism*
That includes the neopagans who larp with fire and booze for debauchery because the idea of a patriarchal Sky Daddy threatens their phallic neurosis.

no-fault divorce is really just the quittershits, isn’t it?

And now they cry!

“And now, they find their Day is over! their power gone! and the throne of this nation possessed by a Royal, English, true, and ever constant member of, and friend to, the Church of England! Now, they find that they are in danger of the Church of England’s just resentments! Now, they cry out, “Peace!” “Union!” “Forbearance!” and “Charity!”: as if the Church had not too long harboured her enemies under her wing! and nourished the viperous blood, till they hiss and fly in the face of the Mother that cherished them!”

No Gentlemen, the Time of Mercy is past, your Day of Grace is over, you should have practised Peace, and Moderation, and Charity, if you expected any yourselves.

Source?

British Literature 1640-1789: An Anthology, pp. 370.

I meditate on this whenever an enemy of progress gets too big for their boots and feigns umbrage, especially the Muslims. Especially the Muslims.

The author in particular is Defoe.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Shortest-Way_with_the_Dissenters

Oxytocin promotes patriotism

It is the love hormone because love also means protection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3029708/

“Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination, we conjecture that ethnocentrism may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote cooperation among in-group members.”

Have we found the hormone for the k-selected?

The higher oestrogen of women (general finding) depresses amygdala (stress) activity (this is written up on wikipedia if you want to link-follow) but oxytocin release increases amygdala stimulation over the top of the oestrogen signal, which is otherwise fine and generally neuroprotective (presumably so we don’t miscarry when a shadow looks like a guy).

So maybe the way to get women caring less about the ‘refugees’ and remember their personal safety is now their job, not a husband, is to pass out free oxytocin nasal sprays?

Or put it in the water supply?

I’m kinda serious. It’s crazy enough to work.
Compassion fatigue already set in years ago, ride the wave and reduce the maternal clucking of middle-age Boomers.

I wonder if military service induces oxytocin release for male-male bonding?

“Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.”

K-shift…?

Dare I dream?

It doesn’t mention that when ANY ingroup meets ANY outgroup, the natural result is competition because Darwin.
It isn’t a choice or a value judgement. War happens constantly, it is the norm. When modern food supply runs low, it’ll come back, roaring back, bigger and badder than ever. We’re in the experiment.
Race to survive, anyone?

You might remember there was a BS flurry in the MSM about a chemical that reduces ‘racism’ – this was it.

It doesn’t – because ‘ingroup preference’ (the positive social term, along with the lesser known and more genetic genophilia) is totally natural. They stupidly assumed they could extend the ingroup to literally everyone in the whole world. The brain resists this, that’s why they haven’t drugged us all by now.

 

Since among other findings;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122242/

It increases patriotism for one’s culture and love of one’s family.

It changed freedom of association to genetic kin and love of the flag but not corporations.
It studies Asians which is a hiccup but hormones tend to have broad effects.

The men of society love strength in their social group of other men.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25193946

It also leads to monogamy and fidelity – in MEN.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23152592

Ding ding ding K-type central.

“Together, our results suggest that where OXT release is stimulated during a monogamous relationship, it may additionally promote its maintenance by making men avoid signaling romantic interest to other women through close-approach behavior during social encounters. In this way, OXT may help to promote fidelity within monogamous human relationships.”

I would bet that sluts, the promiscuous with higher and higher N counts, with damaged pair bonding, release less.

More studies on whites and women needed but otherwise, great work.
Nature is literally against these ‘social engineers’, too kind a term, for penpushers and petty meddlers.

New fave GIF, will get a lot of use.

BTW the primary source of oxytocin in humans would be ..the nuclear family. You’d have to knock that out to bring multiculturalism in.