Melanin is an aggression hormone

Not just a pigment. Biologists know this. It’s found in countless other species.
We even know the reputation of black birds with witchcraft and death.

“Do pigmentation and the melanocortin system modulate aggression and sexuality in humans as they do in other animals?”
http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Rushton-Templer-pigmentation-aggression-sexuality.pdf

Remember the femme fatale is always black (haired*).

From the abstract:

“Both within human populations (e.g., siblings), and between populations (e.g., races, nations, states), studies find that darker pigmented people average higher levels of aggression and sexual activity (and also lower IQ).”

Yes, they look at IQ too.
It’s a reason Asians try to look paler (even the men).
The classic intellectual is pale. It’s status, it’s about money.
It’s also more ‘civilized’, as in less prone to criminality. This is key to collectivists, such as Asians.

*Historical references to black women e.g. Anne Boleyn, always referred to hair because black skinned people obviously didn’t naturally exist in Europe (they’d be referred to by geography, Moors are common descriptors). An African in Europe wouldn’t do well for many reasons including Vitamin D deficiency. Without imported sources, it can be fatal and the NHS guidelines do target Africans in Europe for warnings about this.
Italians were considered the most passionate women in the Middle Ages (and angry) due to their black hair, closely followed by dark-haired Irish women.
Spanish women were considered mongrels due to Islamic conquest, along with some Italians to this day. Northern Italians are what all Italians used to be, genetically.

Lower your sperm count, white male

You don’t want to become a member of the patriarchy, do you?

Because the impulse of white men to have children in a secure unit is just bigoted.

https://www.medicaldaily.com/condom-free-birth-control-shot-men-may-be-more-effective-other-methods-402599
Having children is evil, white men.

Buy this harmless expensive chemical concoction and trust your biological future to it.

“However, due to the rate of adverse effects, specifically depression and mood disorders, the researchers stopped enrolling new participants. Of the 1,491 reported adverse events, nearly 39 percent were found to be unrelated to the contraceptive injections. These included one death by suicide which was assessed not to be related to the use of the drug.”
I smell bullshit.

The lawyers told them to stop recruiting.

“Meanwhile, drug-related side effects included: injection site pain, muscle pain, increased libido and acne.”
Like women then, only not as bad.
Nobody should take hormones unless there’s something medically wrong with them.

First do no harm.

It’s almost like nature is telling you something is wrong.

I’m guessing the retardation or psychiatric dysfunction of later offspring would also go up.
They don’t look at that. They can plead ignorance later.

Cancer risk? nope, not looking

As for the manwhore pill:
“This only lasts a few days, making men temporarily infertile.”

They say temporary…. no such thing as temporarily INFERTILE.

That would eventually damage production altogether based on the daily formation in the male body.

Cumulative damage. Mutation risk.

Invest in STD medications, demand will surge.

If this isn’t about targeting white men, are we giving them out in Africa as a condition to receive aid for children they can’t feed?

Will this be a condition of deadbeat fathers to let the state support their children for them?

Or is this pushed on high IQ men, to shame them for wanting their income to go to their own bloodline?

With every modern advantage

I know this has been pointed out by others, but given every modern advantage, our “artists”, celebrated in the media, are still producing inferior works compared to the average in ancient times.

Behold, amygdala atrophy.

This is the full-size image, fitted to blog requirements.

Source here:  disenchantedscholar.files.wordpress.com +

/2018/08/gemcarving.png

I’m as good with actual art as I am with faces. Without going through everything because that would be harsh, a reproduction does invite comparisons. Gem quality on right superior, shape even and smoother (just worn at top), border is perfect with some gaps, modern border wobbles and varies, While both leg pairs seem muscled, the right is in keeping with the figure and the left on the man would tauten as lifted, a knowledge of anatomy. On the modern, the legs are fat because the left is as big and the upper torso shrunken, the right arm (his right) is shriveled compared to the antique and the left attempts to compensate with fat, almost out of socket from body compared to the antique, where the arm is held close to the body, in joint, in pose to stabilize weight. Left figure seems to have visible spine whereas on the right he has defined muscles including possibly abdominals. The flat hair on the right is fashion but correct for side of head, the left misinterprets this design and there’s no hair almost, the head seems almost to cave in at the back and touch the border. Facial details show the difference the most though. The antique smiles.

With modern microscopes, electronic tools and an example to imitate, this wouldn’t pass muster back then.