It’s actually K-shift

The Left’s death rattle. Their cultural hegemony is failing.

Don’t use “far Right”, it’s a dog whistle for Christian.

The world is getting more difficult again, we reached peak r some years ago.

The left cannot fight crop failures (vegan people die in famines) and it cannot fight its own abortion rates (including ‘black genocide’) so they think they can ‘flip’ or brainwash Christians out of it. The state agents at school and college level are essentially political grooming gangs (but they also sexualise the kids).

They want a target to aim at, even when they’re forced to make it up (fake graffiti, fake crimes, calling everyone and their dog a Nazi).

This is why I said, some years ago, the new plan is to lie low in person. The r-type does not know they’re outnumbered. They cut tall poppies. Do not be one in person, be grey man. This has forced them to turn on one another, because they did not evolve for cooperation.

While xenophiles, they’re disgusted by being forced to live around foreigners, so by diverting immigrants to trendy lefty areas, they’re forced to confront the backwards practices they justify and defend. The gay BFF is too 90s, the new BFF must be Muslim.

Extreme rs are in 3 categories, which sometimes overlap:

gay, pedophile, (overlap is twink or loli/”hebe” fetishes) and harem.

Gays aren’t breeding much, and those that do tend to have abuse stories come out later. Pedophiles produce more pedophiles by rape with the ‘cycle of abuse’ and that’s why most pedos are male on male. The bi or “pan” pedophiles have always bred by rape (to steal fertility without marriage) but nowadays the legal system blames the victim as a ‘prostitute’ (trafficking victim) or ‘girlfriend’ (can’t prove a negative re consent). The multi-spouse houses are reliant on welfare, without that synthetic allowance of relief to selection pressure, they’d all die. They have negative fitness, if anything and can only exist in times of high r. Low IQ/aggression combined with sexually selective male breeding gives us an Indian or Pakistanian situation of bickering bachelors, bitter at doomed marital prospects. Many MGTOW are secretly non-white and feel entitled to white women. This won’t happen. Women are the valuable sex, evolutionally.

r is NOT resistant to environment, they need an ever-increasing condition of ease. No amount of gibs is enough.

They are impossible to please as they are feckless. If the kid couldn’t be an ATM, they’d let it starve.

With such a bandwagon-type burden, society has already tipped into spending impossible money on these people, from white Boomers to Indian great-grandcousins and down. It’s no longer out of tax revenue, they are insupportable. I find the delusions of grandeur in Muslims funny because at say 5% of the population, 10% tops, they’ve already toppled the financial system. When white people get hungry, they deport the useless eaters.

Kipling’s Saxon poem explains the soft line (guest right) and the hard line.

Will we bring back the poorhouse? Where you had to hand over all worldly goods (including smartphones) and surrender your wife and children, to enter? Probably.

There’s no charity without Christianity. All we’d need to do is leave them in the cold one winter to starve, or barricade a No-Go and place the Army there, letting nobody out. We could fix the arrogant immigrant problem within a year, with the will.

Do not confuse numbers with strength, that’s how you can tell he’s r.

Numbers are a weakness in times of need and hardship, force multiplier of mouths to feed.

We could have a war with China, that’d be nice, we have plenty of immigrant cannon fodder. That’s why no civilized society selectively breeds men. It’s short term thought. There’s only one thing you can do with them. They took passports, a military document, so they can/will be drafted to die for us. Fine by me.

White people in Europe are returning to pre-WW numbers, almost as if we sense hard times in the solar minimum. When your neighbour is building an ark or battening down the hatches, maybe don’t stand around and laugh?

r-types are weaker, the quantity approach to children exposes that.

Ks are healthier in general, except where a genetic fault produces greater intelligence e.g. Tesla’s visions.

White people have superior averages on health, IQ etc because we’ve been selected through Europe’s history. Any pandemic or war or hardship would cull the immigrants most purely because they’re not evolved for here. They are evolving to be here. It’s ongoing. It’s not about whites per se, many do-gooders in Africa got culled too.

It isn’t our fault.

It’s evolution.

“Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.” ― Robert Heinlein

If they want a fitness advantage: go home!

It applies to everyone.

Medicine cannot change your genome. People will still die. Stupidity is the most common cause of death.

You go outside in Arabian clothes at -5C in January? Yeah, you’re gonna get pneumonia.

Can’t blame the White Devil for that one.

I can confirm the religious people are better-looking thing though.

At parties I like to play “spot the atheist”. I recommend it.

You spot them to avoid them. Asymmetry in the face, blocky/dumpy or muscular women, gamine-bodied (dancer body) or disharmonious limbed men, kinda like lesser-known print error searching (Downies being a major case).

It’s weird the Asians get lid surgery to look more like Downies. Another piece of evidence that you cannot perceive the out-group as well as people in that group.

r-types have a bias for novelty, explaining sexual fetishes like xenophilia.

There’s a cruelty and contempt in r-types, especially for in-group. With no ability to compete, cruelty/trickery is their tactic.

But lookism is real. R-types age like shit, K-types age well. Personally, I was a late bloomer.

The maturation curve of Ks is longer and flatter.

R-types I knew of both sexes peaked at around 15. It was sad.

Men don’t age like wine, K-types do. R-types age like milk. The most K people I’ve known aged like vinegar, they basically stayed the same until about 60, and were still very energetic-looking. Rs got about five good years and every five after that seemed to age 10. I saw a random social media photo of a guy younger than me and he now looks about 40-42. The men look pudgy or puffy on the face and sprout old man hair/lose it before 30.

R-types have to over-spray perfume because their skin stinks – from STDs (which affect immunity and looks) and their own genome. You smell like your genome. MHCC.

Ks naturally smell… fine, but perfume only enhances that, r-women get pissed off when perfumes smell better on me than them but “body chemistry” prevails. We only smell rank if ill/stressed/poor hygiene, which is normal.

Law is based on K justice: reward/punishment for various ‘sins’ against the in-group.

Anonymous Conservative would understand that bit better than me.

IQ and looks correlate strongly as religion, due to the brain coding Dutton mentions.

I prefer the other Dutton, psychopath researcher.

Spiteful mutants cannot understand equal yoking. It’s the contempt insecurity.

Degenerates encourage the corruption of others. Corruption should be a crime.

Grooming is a type of it.

Men are more sensitive to degeneracy than women, actually. More men in the club than women.

Far Left are NOT K-strategists, he’s totally wrong on that. They are inept and low investment.

Look at CHAZ, they can’t do anything K. All talk.

They claim to be Ks, while pushing for STD and abortion clinics. Fake Ks. Virtue signallers, not real.

Far Left = Cultural Marxist.

Right is the new Left

repost but a prescient one, evobio signalling:

And my theory is that in a world where the upper class wears black and the lower class wears white, they’re the people who have noticed that the middle class is wearing black as well, and have decided to wear white to differentiate themselves.

White people were increasingly blocked and stymied from progressivism/postmodern politics, so a surge against it was inevitable, as I imagined (e.g. best post). You can’t really replace us, we’ll just do something else.

Right Is The New Left

I’m annoyed by the fake Ks trying to pretend all the degeneracy isn’t cultural death, still. Have your cake or eat it, man up?

With friends like that (and a wealth of evidence to the contrary that some things are, in fact, Evil….) the true enemy is becoming a new brand of cuckservative, sneakier, faux patriots, a new fifth column, just as dyscivic and anti-natal as the last/Left.

Cultural Marxism is a cancer, remember: it mutates.

How to spot?


Anything to put white people off celebrating their own culture, privately, and forming in-group families and loyalties.

Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny

Let’s actually read this thing:


Physical attractiveness and its relation to the theory of sexual selection deserve renewed attention from cultural and biological anthropologists. This paper focuses on an anomaly associated with
physical attractiveness-in our species, in contrast to many others, males seem to be more concerned than females with the attractiveness of potential sexual partners, perhaps because humans show far more age-related variance in female than in male fecundity. The resulting selection for male attraction to markers
of female youth may lead incidentally to attraction to females displaying age-related cues in an exaggerated form.

sounds like a justification for pedophilia waiting to happen, men actually desire sexual maturity first

men also like averages better than mutants

This paper reports cross-cultural evidence that males in five populations (Brazilians, U.S. Americans, Russians, Ache, and Hiwi)

no Europe in this study, so worthless, two nations minimum are mongrelised

show an attraction to females with neotenous facial proportions (a combination of large eyes, small noses, and full lips) even after female age is controlled for. Two further studies show that female models have neotenous cephalofacial proportions relative to U.S.

Anorexia does that, called a bobblehead.

Undergraduates and that drawings of faces artificially transformed to make them more or less neotenous are perceived as correspondingly more or less attractive. These results suggest several further lines of investigation, including the relationship between facial and bodily cues

biology looks at WHR already

and the consequences of attraction to neoteny for morphological evolution.

Problem 1 America is not a country with a genetic history, they aren’t even homogeneous.

Problem 2 I had to correct numerous spelling errors in the abstract alone, so paper is trash.

Feminine face traits are already neotonous, Marquardt (pictured) measured this with computer models.

That’s the most feminine female face possible.

Who cares what Brazil thinks?

The theory of sexual selection has advanced so far in recent years that it may be time for renewed attention to the relationship between sexual selection and standards of physical attractiveness in our species.

SS is conducted by women in this species.

It hasn’t changed at all. These guys are intellectually dishonest.

Men don’t have standards. At least, it’s rarer.

In many animal species, male reproductive success is more dependent on mating success than is female reproductive success, so sexual selection commonly acts with greater intensity on males than on females (Trivers I97I, Williams I975, Clutton-Brock and Parker i992, Andersson I994). The result is that in many species, males more than females show a syndrome of traits associated with intense sexual selection.

true, women don’t have the urgency to reproduce that men do

men are selected by women though

This “sexual selection syndrome” includes behavioral traits: males are more likely than females to resort to violence against sexual rivals and to force copulations on resisting partners;

rape is only r-selected, poor quality men, high quality men compete and win

males cpmmonly expend more time and energy and take greater risks than females in courtship;

women don’t court, they are courted

these guys are hacks

males will generally court and attempt copulation with a wider range of partners then will females.

no, that’s r/K already

The sexual selection syndrome also includes life-history traits: males commonly take longer than females to attain sexual maturity

no, untrue in humans

because of the sexual competition that they face from mature males; males commonly have higher mortality rates than females as a result of intrasexual competition;

no, stupidity, the low IQ doing dangerous things

males commonly senesce more rapidly than females because higher mortality rates reduce the selection pressure for longevity.

yes men age faster

might be genetic, as recently covered

Finally, the sexual selection syndrome includes morphological traits: males are more likely than females to display anatomical specializations for intra- and intersexual aggression, including horns, antlers, enlarged canine teeth, and body sizes in excess of the ecological optimum; males commonly show greater development of sexual advertisements, both tactile (complex genitalia) and visual (elaborate and brightly colored adornments)

selected by the females

Among humans, considerable anatomical and behavioral evidence suggests that males have been subject to stronger sexual selection than females

women are the ones doing it

these people are idiots

Human males are larger than females. Human males attain sexual maturity at a later age than human females

false, women don’t finish developing physically until the twenties

miscarriages and stillbirth is higher in teen mothers compared to women in their 20s, that’s the reason we married in the 20s in the middle ages

and senesce more rapidly

logically impossible given your prior claim

men age faster because they sexually mature faster, their system is simpler

they don’t need to carry a baby, duh?

Polygyny is much more common than polyandry.

No. Citation very much needed. You can’t just claim that based on current Third World religions about a time preceding those religious legal structures.

In one respect, however, human beings reverse the usual pattern of differences between more and less sexually selected sexes-men are more concerned than women with the physical attractiveness of a potential sexual partner.

Men are more shallow, yes. Doesn’t mean they have good taste.

Although women race mix less so maybe women are shallow in different ways.

This sex difference is not limited to Western society.
Buss (i 989) reviews survey data from 37 population samples from 33 countries and finds that in every sample males are more concerned than females with the physical attractiveness of a potential mate. The average sex difference is more pronounced among the non-Western populations in his sample.

Again why care?

The attractiveness of the man usually depends predominantly upon his skills and prowess rather than upon his physical appearance.”

You didn’t ask the women. Ugly researchers claim women don’t care how they look.

It’s pure cope.

Gregersen (i983) reports similar findings in a more recent review of nearly 300 societies,
mostly non-Western and nonurbanized. In other words, human beings seem to be an exception
to the general rule among animals that male attractiveness matters more than female attractiveness. The importance attached to female (as opposed to male) physical attractiveness in our species stands in need of an explanation.

Yeah this study doesn’t apply to Europeans whatsoever, only the bad faith actors are using this.

Male attractiveness does matter more. Third Worlders aren’t sexually selecting, they’re trying to survive or forced to marry. That isn’t evolutionary, it’s societal modern pressure.

Men wouldn’t go down the gym if they weren’t competing on looks.

Many anthropologists believe

not science

that human behavior is so radically different in its ontogeny from that of other organisms that the theory of sexual selection is not applicable to human physical attraction.

….or you’re wrong? And bad at your job?

Anthropology is mostly BS, they are not evolutionary biologists.

Polhemus (i988:8) probably expresses the attitude of a whole school of anthropology of “the body” concerning the human irrelevance of the theory of sexual selection when he writes:
A male baboon has a fixed idea of what a desirable female baboon should look like…. The same general principle is true of any animal that reproduces by sexual selection. But there is an important difference between baboons and ourselves. For other animals the physical ideal is ioo% instinctively determined. Thus all baboons of a particular species pursue the same ideal…. For humans, on the other
hand, ideals of beauty are learned….

This is not science.

In a worldwide and historical framework, there is no such thing as natural human beauty.


So they’re debunking their own paper.

If beauty isn’t objective, I needn’t continue. A little, then.

If this view of the difference between human and nonhuman psychology were correct,


the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species might be merely one more consequence of our having freed ourselves from the instinctive constraints that hobble the lives of other animals. This view, however, is doubly wrong.
First, learning often plays a large role in the acquisition of standards of attractiveness among nonhuman animals. An immense literature demonstrates that early experience influences later mate choice via imprinting (Immelman I972). Imitation, too, plays a role in mate choice among nonhuman animals, and social transmission of mating preferences can even result in “fads” in mate choice that change from one breeding season to the next (Pruett-Jones i992).

Mixed race ad propaganda explained.

Second, physical attraction in humans cannot be entirely a product of enculturation. This is shown most
dramatically by the experiments of Langlois et al. (i987).
In these experiments, infants between the ages of two and three months were exposed to pictures of women rated attractive and unattractive by adult raters; infants spent more time looking at faces rated attractive. This held even across racial/cultural boundaries: for European-American infants looking at faces of AfricanAmerican women rated by African-American men and for African-American infants exposed to EuropeanAmerican faces rated by European-American men.

Everyone knows.

Thus students of physical attractiveness are asking for trouble if they start out assuming that nonhuman
animals are creatures of instinct and humans constructions of culture. A better starting point regarding the role of learning in behavior is suggested by several decades of research in comparative psychology: as a general rule, organisms have relatively “hard-wired” or canalized responses to stimuli that have had relatively unvarying fitness consequences over evolutionary time and relatively flexible learned responses to stimuli that have been associated sometimes with positive fitness consequences and sometimes with negative. In other words, given that learning entails costs, in terms of trial and error, organisms are expected to adapt to selectively important invariants in their environments with corresponding behavioral, cognitive, or motivational invariances (Seligman I970, Johnston 1982).

These people are morons.

How can we apply this principle to the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species? Let us define the mate value of a potential sexual partner, A, as the expected reproductive success from mating with A divided by some baseline expected reproductive success. The baseline expected reproductive success might be the expected reproductive success from mating at random or from mating with an individual of maximum mate value.

r v K

As a general rule we expect that human beings, and other animals, are likely to have both relatively canalized, “hard-wired” responses to visual stimuli that have been consistently associated with high mate value throughout the evolutionary history of the species and relatively flexible learned responses to stimuli that have been associated sometimes with high mate value and sometimes with low. In other words, standards of physical attractiveness are likely to have both species-typical and population-specific components, and variation in these components may be predictable given knowledge
of human biology and local circumstances (Symons I979). For example, since fat stores may be selectively advantageous in environments subject to episodic food shortage and disadvantageous in environments requiring considerable physical movement, one might expect that esthetic responses to fatness would vary between populations depending on social learning and on individual assessments of the consequences of being fat or thin, rather than developing in a uniform fashion within the human species.

Pro-fat argument.

By contrast, one might expect human beings to have a relatively invariant, species-typical emotional response to signs of aging, because age has a relatively invariant association with fecundity and thus with mate value.

association is weak, not causation

distinguish aging from maturation, you cannot

In a classic article Henry (i96i) reviews data on age-specific fertility rates in a wide range of “naturalfertility” (noncontracepting) populations. The levels of fertility in these populations range from a lifetime average of 6 to i i children per married female, but the shapes of the curves of fertility versus age are remarkably similar across all populations. For all populations, female fertility rates at age 30-34 are around 85% of rates at age 20-24, with further declines to around 35 % for women aged 40-44 and o% for women aged 50-54.

They don’t count teens because they are not mature to breed.

More recent work suggests that the curve of natural fecundity (potential reproduction) differ somewhat from the curve of natural fertility (actual reproduction) because the latter is influenced by such variables as age of spouse and frequency of intercourse (James I979, Menken, Trussell, and Larsen i986). Studies that control for the latter variables suggest that the decline in female Fecundity between 20 and 35 is less pronounced than the decline in female natural fertility-but the overall shapes of the two curves are fairly similar.


Most drop in conception is the men aging, paternal age.

That’s why older woman/younger man couples are more fertile.

The shape of the curve of fecundity versus age is very
different for males. Goldman and Montgomery (i989),
reviewing data from several traditional societies, report
Eertility declines to about 90% for men between 45 and
50, relative to younger men, and to about 8o% for men
over 55, after controlling for age of wife and duration of
Fecundity versus age curves thus have two important

characteristics that may help to explain the anomaly of
female attractiveness:


the curves (i) are relatively invariant in shape across populations

no, relatively means you’re wrong

and (2) show an earlier and more pronounced decline in fertility among females than among males.

Paternal age studies debunked this.

Given the general rule that organisms commonly have invariant responses to stimuli that have had relatively invariant fitness consequences over evolutionary time, the first characteristic
suggests that human beings are likely to have relatively invariant esthetic responses to signs of aging. The second characteristic suggests that these responses are likely to be stronger in males’ evaluations of females than in females’ evaluations of males.


Men are too weak to be judged on their looks by women. Too triggered.

This does not add up to a complete theory of physical
attractiveness, of course, or even a complete theory of
age-related changes in physical attractiveness. Fecundity
is only one component of mate value. Other components
include the ability and willingness to provision offspring
and heritable viability or attractiveness (“good genes”),
and these components of mate value may also vary with
age, while sensory bias will ensure that attractiveness
does not track mate value perfectly. Nevertheless, agerelated changes in fecundity are likely to be a particularly important component of age-related changes in physical attractiveness, especially in females, both because these changes have been relatively invariant over the history of the species and because other components of mate value such as provisioning ability and inclination may be more readily assessable on the basis of behavior than on the basis of physical appearance.
There is one alternative explanation for male attraction to youthful features in females that requires a more extended treatment.

Extended? You’ve done nothing so far. This paper is filler.

Gowaty (I992:23I-40) writes:
There should be strong selection on males to control
females’ reproduction through direct coercive control of females….

It’s called marriage.

Evolutionary thinkers, whether informed by feminist ideas or not, are not surprised
by one of the overwhelming facts of patriarchal cultures, namely that men … seek to constrain and
control the reproductive capacities of women…. Juvenilization decreases the threat some men may feel when confronted with women;


many men are comfortable around women whom they can clearly dominate and are profoundly uncomfortable around women whom they cannot so clearly dominate.

r-types, not real men

The hypothesis that femininity signals ability to be dominated through juvenilization is an alternative to, but not necessarily mutually exclusive of, other evolutionary hypotheses that posit that femininity signals, sometimes deceptively, reproductive value and fertility.
Several findings seem to be at odds with this hypothesis.
Berry and McArthur (i986) presented subjects with a series of outline profile drawings representing individuals ranging from juvenile to adult and collected ratings of
perceived social characteristics of each drawing. The
drawing rated weakest and least threatening was the
most juvenile-looking. (Subjects judged this drawing to
represent a 4-year-old.) The drawing rated sexiest was

intermediate in juvenility. (It was judged to be 23 years
old.) In other words, the level of juvenility that maximizes perceived vulnerability does not maximize perceived sexiness.

Because only pedophiles like children sexually.

Real men like sexually mature WOMEN.

Kenrick and co-workers (Kenrick I994)
show that for teenage males the ideal sexual partner is
older than they are-again, more consistent with the
hypothesis that males are concerned with cues to female
fecundity than with the hypothesis that males prefer
younger, more easily dominated females. Thus current
evidence suggests that female attractiveness cannot
simply be equated with powerlessness and that something more than changes in perceived vulnerability is involved in age-related changes in physical attractiveness. However, nothing in evolutionary theory rules out the possibility that markers of female submissiveness may be attractive to men, and the topic certainly deserves more research.


There may be room for argument about why attractiveness changes with age, but, in spite of a considerable literature devoted to the claim that human sexuality and standards of physical attractiveness are culturally constructed, there does not seem to be any evidence from any society that seriously challenges the proposition that physical attractiveness is perceived to decline from
young adulthood to old age, especially for females.

Yeah, funny that? Especially but not only. Men hit the Wall too, it’s called being human.

Because women are the ones selecting, idiots. Beggars can’t be choosers. Men are sexually desperate, overall.

“The correlation of female age and sexual attractiveness is so
intuitively obvious

not science

also not causation

when is the actual study? this waffle is nauseatingly wrong

that ethnographers apparently take
it for granted-as they do the bipedalism of the people
they study-and the significance of female age tends to
be mentioned only in passing, in discussions of something else” (Symons I979:i88). Symons cites passing references to the effects of aging on female attractiveness
in ethnographies of the Kgatla, pre-revolutionary China,
the Yanomamo, and the Tiwi. Additional references can
be found in ethnographies of Trobriand Islanders (Malinowski I987 [i929], Weiner I976) and Gawa (Munn
I986) of Melanesia, Mende (Boone i986) of Sierra Leone,
and Mehinaku of Amazonia (Gregor i985), to name just
a few.


Why is this being applied to white people?

Who is this intellectually dishonest?

A number of social psychological studies (reviewed in Jackson i992) have documented such agerelated declines in physical attractiveness and demonstrated the expected sex differences as well.
Let us summarize the argument up to this point. Human beings are anomalous among sexually selected species in the importance attached to female (relative to
male) appearance in mate choice.

unproven, not science

Human beings are
anomalous in another respect as well: female fertility
commonly declines to zero long before the end of the
life span.

Biology explained this.

As a result of menopause there is considerably
more age-related variance in fecundity among adult females than among adult males in our species. The second anomaly may explain the first: the importance
attached to female attractiveness in our species may reflect the operation of adaptations for assessing agerelated changes in fecundity, a component of female
mate value.

Men aren’t the peahens of the species! LIES.

Whether for this reason or another, social psychological and ethnographic evidence provides overwhelming support for the proposition that human beings have relatively invariant esthetic responses to signs of males’ aging and that these responses operate more strongly in evaluations of females than vice versa.

“overwhelming support for the proposition” WHERE

you are making that up

Women assess men all the time. We’re more realistic. They try to call us fussy but a lot of fuggos survive under dysgenic conditions, it’s realistic to think most men look like a dumpster fire compared to the WW2 gen. Look at photos!

Thus far we have been exclusively concerned with changes in attractiveness with age rather than differences in attractiveness between individuals of the same age. However, if age-detecting mechanisms do not operate with perfect accuracy, then adaptations for choosing a mate of a particular age may lead incidentally to nonadaptive biases in the choice of mates from among individuals who fall within a particular age-class. In other words,


non-adaptive adaptations are impossible

clue’s in the name

what mental midgets wrote this shit?

given that attractiveness varies with age, individuals may be more or less attractive than others of the
same age in part because they have facial proportions associated with younger or older ages.

no attractiveness is lower genetic load, stfu

there are young ugly people and older hot ones

Because the retention of traits from early stages of the life cycle into later stages, relative to ancestors or to other members of the population, is known as neoteny (“holding on to youth”), the proposition above may be rephrased: given that attractiveness varies with age, neoteny may be a component of facial attractiveness.


That wall of text for MAY?


This proposition may hold with particular force for female facial attractiveness: a by-product of the human male’s attraction to markers of youthful fecundity may be an attraction to adult females presenting markers of youth to an exaggerated or “supernormal” degree.

No, we call those sexual predators.

This is now the Pedo Paper.

Beginning with the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species, we are led to the hypothesis that neoteny may be a component of female facial attractiveness.

aka we guessed

not science

and there is no anomaly

The remainder of this paper will be given over to testing and elaborating this hypothesis.

I doubt it.

These scribbles are not scientific. You need computer models like Marquardt to measure it!

There is no breadth of jaw variation, no round or narrow eye shape, no flat or pointed nose, no mouth breadth or narrowness!

A shape subject to positive cardioidal strain (k > o) shows a downward and outward expansion in features located toward the bottom and a downward and inward contraction in features located toward the top.

aka manjaw

while the transformed faces were redrawn from the original face with the assistance of polar coordinate graph paper.

This is not a paper. It’s a joke.

These affect the relative sizes of eyes, noses, ears,
and lips. “Beginning at age 25, the eyebrows steadily
descend from a position well above the supraorbital rim
to a point far below it; sagging of the lateral aspect of
the eyebrows make the eyes seem smaller” (Larrabee
and Makielski I993:I4). Cartilaginous tissues grow
steadily throughout adulthood: ears get bigger, and
noses get longer, wider, and more protrusive with increasing age. With the loss of connective tissue, the vermilion or red zone of the lips gets thinner (Enlow I990,
Larrabee and Makielski I993, Susanne I977).
As a result of changes in hard and soft tissue with age,
it is possible to estimate ages of adults using information about the relative sizes of eyes, noses, and lips

I dunno, gamines exist as do old-looking young people.


Gould also argued “that the whole enterprise of ranking groups by degree of neoteny is fundamentally unjustified” (Gould, 1996, pg. 150).[21] Doug Jones argued that human evolution’s trend toward neoteny may have been caused by sexual selection in human evolution for neotenous facial traits in women by men with the resulting neoteny in male faces being a “by-product” of sexual selection for neotenous female faces.[22]

MAY – no proof, but it MAY! I may sprout a dick and call myself Charlie! I MAY!

so the pedo-bears are only finding this shitty paper from the 90s thanks to wikipedia [22]

talk about cherry-picking, all evobio is against this

anthropology is nothing

He’s right, Gould, but Marquardt already measured this.

Neotony – large round eyes (down to almond) – MOST important feature for this trait

Peramorphic – slanted, narrow eyes

Neotony – large forehead (3rd)

Peramorphic – short forehead

Neotony – soft gracile jaw (2nd most important feature for the trait)

Peramorphic – square or manjaw

The actual studies have been done, in computers. By real scientists.

Women also have a narrower mouth than men to match the jaw, also dimorphic.

Comparing races using ONE trait is ridiculous.

One paragraph on wikipedia is all it gets for human neotony, and doesn’t actually list the traits, distinguished from pedomorphic ones.

It doesn’t even study white countries, let alone compare European nations to one another!

Who uses this and doesn’t bother to actually read it? Mental manlets, mostly.

“My own observations in Brazil corroborate his account of sexuality in China. “

Brazilians often suggest that men in such relationships are especially vulnerable to cuckoldry and
economic exploitation.

because the WOMEN are the sexual selecting sex!

Cuckoldry wouldn’t happen without it!

What sort of weeb would cite this?

. But Symons’s (I995) recent work on this subject has persuaded me that we need direct tests of the possibility that estrogen/androgen ratios and parity have effects on facial attractiveness over and above the effects of aging.2

This is very simple. Measure women on every race in their native continent and test their saliva for T and E. No Pill users allowed, they cheat. Dare any weeb to do that study because manjaw women are higher T.

Even Asian men are reported to prefer white women!

A classic example is reported by Wagatsumc
(in the paper Jones cites). On first contact, Japanese mer
perceived white Western women as less physically at
tractive than Japanese women in most features, includ
ing skin texture, facial hair, and eye color. But the men
perceived Western women’s typical skin color as more
attractive, because it was a bit lighter than the adult
Japanese female average and, hence, close to their ideal

Oestrogen causes paler skin. That’s why they bleach.

From the Latin lover trope, even among whites, S Europeans have slightly higher T but this only works best within a race.

If there is significant interpopulation variation in fa
cial proportions, the perception of neoteny may be anal
ogous to the perception of skin color. That is, human
males may have been selected to prefer female faces:
features that are relatively neotenous, by local stan
dards, rather than to prefer certain absolute facial pro
portions. If so, males will not necessarily prefer female
features that are neotenous by the standards of every
human population.

those are pedophiles

Surely it is possible for a woman’s eyes to be too large, her lower face too short, her nose
too small, and her lips too full (imagine Betty Boop as a real woman). In fact, Jones’s data imply a ceiling effect for the attractiveness of facial neoteny even within populations.

Their example of neotony is a white woman, study ignores Europe.


So the add-on admits you can’t apply between races nor use one trait to judge everything.

That’s literally the conclusion in their own anthro paper. Do not cite this, creeps.

A species-typical male psychological mechanism that instantiates the rule “Prefer female skin that is a bit
lighter than the adult female average” (in ancestral populations relative lightness probably signified nubility, nulliparity, and high estrogen levels) would result in very different absolute skin color ideals in Nigeria and Norway

Yeah Nigerians are rejecting all the Norwegians girls as “too light”. That’s reality.

Nigerian men would perceive Norwegian women as much too light

Yet high androgen levels in women are positively correlated with reproductive system dysfunctions, and observable indices of high androgen levels-such as acne, hirsutism, and a high waist-to-hip ratio-seem to be systematically perceived as unattractive. To my eye, the faces in Jones’s figure
appear to differ more in “masculinity” than in age.

Maternal bone formation rates are elevated during pregnancy, which may permanently lengthen the mother’s face, and a growth hormone (hGH-V) is expressed in the placenta and secreted in large amounts into the maternal circulation which may permanently “coarsen” her facial features.

What is this paper. No, that doesn’t happen.

If the human male’s preference for neotenous facial features is merely a by-product, it presumably would have entailed at least some costs in ancestral populations. For example, assuming that Jones’s hypothesis is correct, an ancestral male given the opportunity to choose between two potential mates of the same age one of whom (A) had a more neotenous face than the other (B), would have been willing to pay a higher bride price for A because of her more attractive face, although B, at a lower bride-price, would have represented better value; or he might have failed to acquire B’s superior weaving skills, which would have contributed something to his fitness, and instead acquired A’s more gracile jaw, larger eyes, smaller nose, and fuller lips, which according to the by-product hypothesis, would have contributed nothing; or he might have chosen an older female with neotenous features over a younger female (higher mate value) with average features.

Genetic load explains that.

Narrow mouths are also neotony, look at babies. That’s why the lips look full.

” While this paper has emphasized the “biological” side of physical attractiveness, with the modern
theory of sexual selection as a starting point, this theory will undoubtedly have to be expanded and revised to allow for the unique importance of social learning in our species”

Nurture applied to biology, that’s why it’s wrong.

Early male death isn’t sexism

-because of course it fucking isn’t, hysterical windbags of the MRA forums, it’s basic evolution.
More male babies die too. Their genome is weaker, more fragile. Sorry Mother Nature doesn’t coddle delusions of invincibility.

“suggesting the second copy offers a protective effect.”
known for decades
how many blues would you want to build a house? fewer or more?

“which could point to pathways for extending life” not for men
it’s like anything genetic, the people in a stronger position just win harder

HBD hates men? lol no

Imagine if immortality was possible but only for women?

Because it might be so.
Maybe doppel genes are required for it. We dunno.

Women existed in the genetic record prior to men, men are the mutants of the species. As abnormal, they’d be likelier to die. It isn’t personal, narcs.

Women can self-fertilise, men aren’t technically needed. Our cells can mutate into sperm, it’s biologically possible. The cell types that can mutate are called polar bodies.

“The idea that a second copy of the same sex chromosome is protective has been around for a while, supported by the observation that in mammals – where females have two of the same sex chromosomes – males tend to have shorter lifespans. In birds, males live longer on average and have two Z chromosomes, while females have one Z and one W chromosome.”

10/10 correct

God hates men? Would explain the proclivity to violence and why in Genesis Adam was told he needs a woman. One woman.

He did not tell women they need a man.


Any claim to that effect adds to the Word and is un-Christian.

“The results reveal that individuals with two of the same sex chromosomes live 17.6% longer, on average, than those with either two different sex chromosomes or just one sex chromosome.

The team say the findings back a theory known as the “unguarded X hypothesis”. In human cells, sex chromosome combinations are generally either XY (male) or XX (female). In females only one X chromosome is activated at random in each cell.

As a result, a harmful mutation in one of the female’s X chromosomes will not affect all cells, and hence its impact can be masked. By contrast, as males only have one X chromosome, any harmful mutations it contains are far more likely to be exposed.”

Part of genetic load. Maybe why men defend their mother so?

In degenerate times, even more men would die. This explains male interest in politics, which will influence their own epigenetics in society. Good conditions/rules – more likely to survive.

“The team found that in species where males have two of the same sex chromosomes, these males live on average 7.1% longer than females. However, in species where the sex chromosome pattern is the other way around, such as humans, females live 20.9% longer on average than males.”

Mother Nature.

“But there are also other possibilities as to why the longevity gaps differ in size, including that oestrogen appears to protect the ends of chromosomes from being damaged – a process linked to ageing.”

Oestrogen also protects the brain from stress.
T-takers are literally killing themselves.

“For instance, owl monkey males live longer than females and the males play a big role in infant care in that species,” he said, noting such males have two different sex chromosomes.”

I have noted anecdotally that responsible K-type men outlive r-types of the same birth year, who often succumb to young (40-60yo) heart attacks and strokes, suddenly. If anyone has a study about r/K health outcomes in men esp. mortality, please link?

We know the children of monogamous men fare better.

I said you can’t pretend to be K, since it’s in your DNA.
Early cancer in r-types can easily be attributed to their microbiome being overloaded with STDs.

Short and tall women are slutty
h/t Dutton

I wish they’d look racially, but this explains the r-selected LBFMs.
Tall women I have noted, like Tilda Swinton seem to be left-wing in an openly aggressive, manly fashion.
Short women tend to be left-wing in a subversive fashion, i.e. infantilising rape gangs and cheating on their simp of a husband as a “poly”, the type to know they can’t play the tall woman’s game of leftism so fakes femininity to extract resources (from State, Church, simp). Assuming a short woman is more feminine is statistically wrong. She’ll be more likely to cheat from insecurity.

re Keller, M. (2013). The Genetic Correlation Between Height and IQ. PLOS ONE.
I already knew taller men are smarter and kinder to women, they’re protective. That’s why women like them, not the height per se.
Short men view women as social competition so are more likely to bully, gaslight, verbally abuse and hit them. They think domination makes up for lack of dominance. It’s moral cowardice, “pick on someone your own size” as they used to say.
Nature made taller men healthier because they’re generally better people.
Misogyny is a known factor of inferiority and most of them (with vitriol aimed in-race) are shorter than the women or average man, so subconsciously hate their mother.
Height in a man is broadly like a human’s peacock tail. It develops as a signal of genetic quality which cannot be faked and demonstrates low mutation load. There’s plenty of time before the growth plates fuse to get adequate nutrition and exercise so either their parents hate them (and parents hate more ugly children or products of other unions) or they are burdened with so many mutations it’s a small wonder they weren’t miscarried (and probably would have been without modern medicine).
One big reason modern humans are uglier is IVF, the other being maternal care for parents who simply don’t deserve it.
Read into that what you will.
Maybe the solution is more abortion, but more eugenic abortion.

Average height women have “more reproductive success” (Nettle, 2002) – cited top paper.
This also applies to the third world (they cite). Perhaps the fetish for pedomorphic women (short women, short limbs) is an r-select feature?
Men always prefer women a few inches shorter than them as a norm (so probably same class, assortative) but “markedly” short (as the paper puts it) is abnormal and suggests r-type breeding preferences (young and done, no investment).
Tall women are less symmetrical, although the way they write that sentence up is vague to spare blushes.
Medium height women have “highest mate value” – more studies needed on this. What does that actually mean? Just fertility? Beauty? Personality? IQ? What? Good family?
Jealous women were “taller or shorter than average” – damn, dare you to do a cross-racial study, that would be funny. 
So if you don’t want a harpy guys, select an average height woman (for her own race, presumably, also your own?).

If you wanna be cucked, women, marry a short man,

-or men, marry a short or tall woman.

Short is clearly a non sequitur to feminine, as it states short women are more jealous (along with tall women) of “feminine” beauty.

Average women are more repulsed by masculine women but… isn’t everyone? Can you guess my height by that?

I actually thought that was just everyone.

A few screencaps:

  • Humans are K-selected as a species, believe nobody who says otherwise. No, men are not meant to “sow oats”, it’s degenerate. The quality men don’t do that. Reputation evolved to explain this commentary on your genetic quality.
  • K-types are MORE reproductively successful in the long run, as you’d expect. Evolution is about the long run and who actually reproduces, not just “screws” in completely sterile fashion.
  • Married isn’t always better for the children if the parents (or one) are unstable, in loyalty or sanity.
  • Problem children come from problematic parents.
  • If your child is a slut, it’s your fault.
  • Sex is a physical distraction from growing up mentally, usually escaping from childhood trauma.
  • r/K isn’t really a choice, it’s mostly genetics. Posing as the other type won’t work.
  • 65% genetically heritable. Your kids will be just as slutty as you are, whoever you marry.
  • Hot women can hold out for marriage. Not – cannot.
  • Women are more than morally offended when you treat them as promiscuous (when they’re not) because you’re also calling them ugly.
  • If you want a spouse who can pair bond neurologically and raise your children as a good role model, don’t marry a former slut.
  • Better spouses are genetically fitter spouses (average women, tall men).

Cycle of White Flight

I have no credit for this. Sorry.

So much for freedom of association and indigenous rights (birth-right to homeland).

This was always going to happen, ever since the Race Relations Acts of the UK and America telling you that you can’t preferentially hire the best candidates for a job.

The r-types crave diversity as a survival strategy, much like gazelles hoping a diverse pack will make them a less likely target individually. Individualism is a myth relying on collective anonymity and easy nomadic movement. Should a CONSENSUAL (on the competent side) balkanisation of r/K occur, much like the Boomers of California now ruining Texas, they transplant and corrupt.

That’s their MO.

It’s also a cycle of degeneracy.

1.”Demand” to be let in – Trojan Horse method, later “you knew I was a snake..”

2. Cultural appropriation – we iz the British naow, look at me drinkin’ tea.

3. “Our” (anti-you) rules or you’re out – low IQ leaders, fronting. Mentacide attempted, coercion of own destruction.

4. “You can’t leave, we need you to clean up after our party!” – do not be their clusterfuck cavalry.

They’re stealing the signalled status of the original group, burning up their culture from the inside. Step 2 is not to be under-estimated. In-group members cannot communicate or socialise effectively when burdened by the group load of outsiders, like a bandwagon of fake signals.

K v r

Beauty v “Sexy”, Fertility v Sterility, Real v Fake, Sex v Whoredom/Porn.

We live in the world that men chose, they chose this degeneration. That’s the saddest thing.

Do you really think women would get implants if rich men didn’t marry them?

Do you think women would be able to sleep around, if men refused to fornicate, leading as the moral authority of society for their and their family’s honour?

Do you think women would be thots if all men quit Tinder and stopped weirdly liking photos of total strangers on Instagram?

Men had a duty to hold one another to standards. They failed.

Women respond to conditions men set for themselves, by replication.

Starve the Beast of your attention, it’s making you so tired. Men are visually exhausted by these false signal sexual displays. Hollywood is literally gaining energy from eyeballs and social media is an extension. Guard your heart but also your thoughts. Celebrities look good in part because the attention gives them a glow, it’s a known occult phenomena.

Genetic load and no, you’re not entitled to breed.

The low IQ Americans: MUH ANCESTORS
-died. Mostly died. STFU with the snowflaking outrage.

Maths below.

Although the human germline mutation rate is higher than that in any other well-studied species, the rate is not exceptional once the effective genome size and effective population size are taken into consideration. Human somatic mutation rates are substantially elevated above those in the germline, but this is also seen in other species.

What is exceptional about humans is the recent detachment from the challenges of the natural environment and the ability to modify phenotypic traits in ways that mitigate the fitness effects of mutations, e.g., precision and personalized medicine. This results in a relaxation of selection against mildly deleterious mutations, including those magnifying the mutation rate itself.

Actually, it’s anti-selection aka dysgenics. There is always a pressure in some direction, read Darwin?

You can’t have dystopia without dysgenics. That’s all a dystopia is.

The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition,


By race and subrace.

potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies,

Which metrics?

Technically you only need one truly fuck-up generation (say Boomers) to install those social policies up to 3 (living memory). This is without external group effects i.e. invasion on a genetic level, rape. So it isn’t fair to say immigration caused this, it compounds it severely. The Boomers and their outsized ingroup-gene infanticide will go down in history as mass murderers, if there’s anyone left.

and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern. Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention.

Medicine isn’t magic. It cannot do that. We already cannot afford the current population with the present and dwindling useful tax base, let alone Japan levels of old coots living to infinity and China levels of population size.

You can’t fuck your way out of this, r-types. You can’t immigrate it either, those new entries have a lower IQ, higher overall group fertility and represent a smaller usable tax base. Debt doesn’t exist to cover this medical cost, even digital money typing. You can’t even type your way out of it. Hyperinflation would occur first, long before actually. Try running the numbers, see if you’re as smart as me. The cost of quality food is the anchor point. Of all living expenses, that one actually keeps you alive?

Don’t become a doctor, kids. Medicine bubble, heard it here first.

Hell, NHS GPs are already quitting now. Retention will only get worse. The ones who stay have lower IQ and can’t find gainful employment anywhere else. This is how socialism degrades infrastructure, the first generation the NHS seemed fine but the second, it attracted parasites to become GPs for the money and by the third, the original talented ones (by private sector standards) had retired and died, leaving training downhill from there.

Other people have explained that before. That one isn’t me.

Resolving the uncertainties of the magnitude and timescale of these effects will require the establishment of stable, standardized, multigenerational measurement procedures for various human traits.

Measurement? We’re lower IQ than ingroup Victorian ancestors by reaction time.

No action?

No correction?

No control?

No standards?

No relevant barriers to entry? Say, for breeding? At least on state funding?

Shows what they think of the producers, dunnit?

Leave the leech alone! The parasites are fine!

Yeah wait a few generations, maybe a century and hope the metrics are correctly chosen to matter!

Long after the researchers are dead so you can’t kill them for being wrong.

This is Idiocracy, even academia is full of nitwits.

We used to have a breeding license, it’s called a marriage certificate.

Below a certain IQ, you can’t actually consent to get married or breed. Maybe study that first?

No, that would be both logical and responsible.

See, I don’t just sit here bitching. I have solutions but nobody listens.


nb Historians and real scientists say European, liars typically say Caucasian.

For example, among European populations in the year 1600 AD the average individual had around a 25-40 % chance of dying in infancy, a 50 % chance of dying during childhood (Volk and Atkinson 2008), and only around a 40 % chance of fully participating in reproduction (Rühli and Henneberg 2013). The average family size was close to five in 1600s England (Arkell & Whiteman, 1998) -given the high rates of pre- term, infant, and child mortality, the numbers ever conceived would likely have been considerably higher. These historical Western infant and child mortality statistics are similar to those observed in contemporary hunter-gatherer populations (Volk and Atkinson 2008)

I’ll list the maths since there’s always that one idiot who “disagrees”.

Of those born, low ball:

100 – 25% = 75
75 – 50% = 37.5
37.5 – 40% = 15
15 of 100 births eventually reproduced, at best.

Your ancestors in 1600 weren’t entitled to breed either. STFU, stupid sections of America.
Natural selection is important.


Assuming you aren’t tradlarping?

Bear in mind, that wasn’t sex-specific and those estimates are the population i.e. they have to breed with one another.*

Less conservative estimate:

100 – 40% = 60
60 – 50% = 30
30 – 40% = 12
12 of 100 births eventually reproduced, by academic estimate. The more realistic one.

Again, stop being so entitled. Considering the odds, five kids average is actually pretty low.
The entitled brats, appealing to a tradition that’s totally ignorant and imaginary, are the spiteful mutants. In any other time period, you’d probably be dead by now. Male infant mortality is higher than female overall for humans, which hasn’t been factored in. 

And WWs 1 and 2 culled the bravest genes of that millennia selection by machine gun and sniper.

At least the bankers made mo- wait, they’ve already “run out” of fake money. Less than a century later.

What was it all for?



or 7.5/100 births eventually reproduced as a couple TOPS

down to, more reasonably

6% of MEN* (or women, maybe**) compared to the grandfather’s generation.

[Father 50% reproduction as male, Grandfather 100% comparison, since all grandfathers would have bred logically.]

or 6/100 births from the total population, coupled.

Assuming 50/50 male/female birth split and flat survival, which doesn’t exist.**

Since breeding requires TWO people, America.

3 generations tops, with a 6% male survival in 1600 Europe.


6% by sex.

This doesn’t further subdivide by health, wealth, religion or attractiveness.

If one surviving guy in that 100 births total was infertile or refused marriage, you can kinda see why it was a big deal.

This is why inheritance was always conditional on religion, approved choice of spouse and vitally, children.

If the Boomers wanna do some good, write into your will your kids get nothing unless actively Christian, married, with at least one child with a spouse you approve of. They won’t do it. They’ll complain about no grandkids though. That never gets old.