Short and tall women are slutty

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/147470490900700405
h/t Dutton

I wish they’d look racially, but this explains the r-selected LBFMs.

https://www.academia.edu/32121636/Height_among_Women_is_Curvilinearly_Related_to_Life_History_Strategy
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.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297657116_Mutation_and_Human_Exceptionalism_Our_Future_Genetic_Load

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,

Non-uniform.

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.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291734415_Mean_household_size_in_mid-Tudor_Englandclackclose_hundred_Norfolk

cites
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313794802_Mutation_Accumulation_Theory

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.

RITES OF PASSAGE. TOUGH ONES.

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?

so

7.5%

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.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

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.

Spiteful mutants

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0084-x
Social Epistasis Amplifies the Fitness Costs of Deleterious Mutations, Engendering Rapid Fitness Decline Among Modernized Populations

Deleterious mutations are typically understood exclusively in terms of their harmful effects on carrier organisms. But there are convincing reasons to think that such adverse effects are not confined to the individual level. We argue that in social species, interorganismal gene-gene interactions, which in previous literatures have been termed social epistasis, allow genomes carrying deleterious mutations to reduce via group-level pleiotropy the fitness of others, including noncarriers.

Personally I think that’s nature’s IQ test, but go on.

(If you can be talked out of your instincts, you don’t deserve to breed).

This fitness reduction occurs by way of degradation of group-level processes that optimize the reproductive ecology of a population for intergroup competition through, among other mechanisms, suppression of free-riding.

If you can be talked out of it by people who hate you…

Such damage to group regulatory processes suggests a hidden role for the accumulation of behavior-altering “spiteful” mutations in the dynamics of the demographic transition—these mutations may have contributed to the maladaptive outcomes of this process, such as widespread subreplacement fertility.

Hmm. Not really. Multi-factorial.

A structured population model is presented describing aspects of this social epistasis amplification model. This phenomenon is also considered as a potential explanation for the results of Calhoun’s mouse utopia experiments, which provide an opportunity to directly test a major prediction stemming from the model.

Discouraging breeding is spiteful mutant if the host does it themselves, particularly from their own inability (no mate) rather than true choice. Picture all the women running round babying tranny feels.
If not, could be eugenic if encouraging the unfit only to abstain OR environmental, as desire for a family drops for group survival temporarily based on crime level and as high trust society becomes low trust; although GDP is an important consideration, for men as provider, moreso than women.

There’s also a connection to solar cycles and crops/food availability. Nobody’s sure if white people can sense it. Needs a study. But birth rate is tracked quite well to solar cycle, if you look.

Related papers:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0470870850.ch10
Is There a g Factor for Fitness?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.97518.x
Fitness Decline under Relaxed Selection in Captive Populations

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311841253_Mutation_Accumulation_Theory

Genetic culture (collectivism, individualism) paper

https://academic.oup.com/scan/article/5/2-3/203/1664339

Over the last 30 years, social psychologists have documented an impressive array of psychocultural differences. For example, in East Asian cultures the self tends to be defined in relationship to the group, or collective, whereas in Western cultures (e.g. Europe and the nations of the former British Commonwealth) there is a greater proclivity for the self to be viewed as unique, stable and independent of the social group (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). A critical question raised by such findings is how do such cultural differences arise? Why do some groups tend towards collectivism, while others tend towards individualism?

Answering this complex question will require integrating many levels of analysis including ecological, sociological, demographic, economic, psychological and biological. A helpful means of integrating these diverse influences is to adopt a cultural neuroscience perspective (Chiao and Ambady, 2007), because the brain is the central hub where each of these influences converge. Accordingly, genes affecting brain function are likely to influence the adoption and formation of cultural norms and, conversely, culture may also shape the expression and selection of genes.

The second part is like saying horses evolved to run in front of carts.

No.

People build on their homeland. Look at architecture. Anglo is quite specific, Germanic, France/Italian/Romantic again, specific. That’s just WEST Europe.

I know some nerd in the future will write their dissertation on how you could predict multiculturalism’s failure by America’s inability to agree on one architectural design aesthetic and I hope I’m here to read it.

Although the study of psychological genetics is in its infancy and much is still to be learned, in this article, we present data suggesting that variation in several genes known to affect brain function appear to influence the degree to which one is emotionally responsive to the social environment. We then extend this social sensitivity hypothesis to the cultural realm and present evidence indicating that it may be of relevance to the cultural construct of individualism–collectivism. Although the vast majority of genetic variation exists within populations (Lewontin, 1972), a measurable proportion of human genetic variation does exist between populations of different ancestral origins. Therefore, we examine below the relationship between population differences in cultural orientation and the relative frequency of several genetic variants thought to affect sensitivity to the social environment. In addition, we also explore potential psychological processes that may explain the effect.

They’ll catch up.

https://ambadylab.stanford.edu/pubs/2007Chiao.pdf

Cultural Neuroscience chapter

see page 3 or 239

“The neuroscience of culture versus race”

e.g.

Cultural neuroscience: parsing universality and diversity across levels of analysis (2007)

Stop straining, sub-species (better known as race) is as real as species and genus.

Arguing for Darwin in biology is common sense, like men and women EXIST (sexual dimorphism).

Even the Creationists don’t question that.

So again, for the cheap seats:

no magic dirt, no magic equal economic cogs and no, cuckservatives, you can’t talk Asians into “acting white” and voting for small gov. They don’t even view themselves as an individual person. Stop projecting libertarian 115IQ white guy reasoning onto the entire planet. You are wrong.

And whatever their upbringing, foreigners NEVER share exactly the same culture.

Even a host culture of a hundred plus years, like blacks had in America to “integrate”.

Never gonna happen.

They’re not like a petri blank.

Fuck, look at Chinatown. In American cities or London, it’s more alike than the host nations.

Over a hundred years. What’s your excuse?

[White culture is also the easiest and nicest to integrate into, so WTF.]