Liars lie

Liars hiring liars leads to corruption? NO. I thought they were pure moral virtuous people better than us and smarter who can never be wrong! Saints in different robes!

Fix their hiring practices, criminal charges for fraud. Done.

no more tenure

it’s an ideological dictatorship

As I’ve covered most of the lies are in social psychology, which is heavily politically biased. It’s propaganda at this point e.g. Islamophobia bullshit.

human rights violations from experimenting on wider society

ban ‘think tanks’

Racist vegan white men countersignalling

It was all in the title but OK, click.

When women have a special thing, we hate when men steal it.


doing our hair

painting our nails

wearing dresses

wearing makeup.

That’s our thing. It’s characteristic. It’s disturbing to see men in our clothes.

Imagine a woman in a Kiss the Cook apron. Something is off there.

Men don’t do well on vegan diets obviously but the countersignal of “I can afford to” is a genetic signal to personal adaptiveness. The study is correct but the conclusions too PC to apply to real life. It’s the dietary equivalent of a peacock. Only a person without a real job (some desk jockey in media) would be able to afford the caloric drop and the nutrient loss (and the expensive food). It’s the middle class white man’s diet.

This writer doesn’t know how to write about science but I won’t bother punching at him. e.g. For this, the sample size is actually large in the field. Shh.
There are no blanket critiques, we have equations.

Click to access samplesize1.pdf

That ^ was on the first line of the first page of Google. STFU with that one.
I tend to kick sociologists, admittedly but I hate loud idiots. We all do.

Stop copy pasting criticisms of one study off reddit and randomly trying to stick it on another. Fake intellectuals keep doing this and it’s annoying. Each study is unique, like the wrinkles on your balls.

It would be like pointing at every painting and calling it a Picasso.
We call tell you’re wrong instantly. Please stop.

The problem with the internet is there will always be someone smarter than you reading your bullshit. Usually me. Angry tea-drinking.

But the study is basically angry that men still think like men even when they’re acting like women. It’s like they’re mocking us as stupid but also milking the virtue signal we own for male status points. It’s true and it is unfair but so what?

If something is the smart thing to do, the reasons don’t really matter. But it’s a way of framing their diet as an achievement of intellect, holding themselves up while pushing emotional people down, as if all humans aren’t emotional. There’s a good point in there.

Emotional reasoning exists, it isn’t an oxymoron. You could call it morality.

We are not machines, being purely rational is called being a monster. We shouldn’t be sociologically rewarding very cold people for being nice when it suits.

The study is correct. I don’t like it, but there’s solid reasoning.

I don’t care but there are always those sad people who view everything as a battle of the sexes when we all live in the same society.

It isn’t a sexed choice, it’s food. That’s the point.

It’s like vegan men are saying to vegan women “anything you can do, I can do better.”

No, it’s the exact same thing.
You come at it from opposite sides: animal welfare and scientific consumption.

Both are important but the men are trying to over-value themselves and mansplain for a sexual edge, I guess? That’s annoying. That’s really insulting, when you think about  it.

Like, “don’t worry, kitten, I know why you should eat that better than you do.”
For an opposite comparison, imagine if a woman told you that you were crying wrong.
We don’t do it, we could.

The obnoxious men are putting new people off, like tumblr fans ruining Sherlock.

“I’m a better vegan than you.” No veganer than thou intellectualizations. This isn’t a sexual thing, stop trying to make it a sexual thing.

I disagree with the practice of veganism but cannot fault the logic of this study.

Socialists in science trying to avoid being scientific

You picked the wrong fucking field to have feelings.
Especially if those feelings involve censorship of facts you disagree with.
Do you know how many people continue to object to evolution?
Still true. We can see a fetus undergo the stages of evolution in real time.
It’ll never not be true.
We’ve found plenty of Missing Links, and Creationists move the goalposts.
That’s crazy, like suppressing crime and IQ data.

Scientism isn’t real, whatever your false idols tell you. They’re false by nature.

Nurture, as you call it, is mostly measurement error.

You are wrong in MATHS.

Only now, at the end, do they understand.

The multicultural experiment (official media term) was always going to fail because their core premise was that human nature itself could be controlled and experimentally manipulated.

Yeah… people rebel against that.

And it was just colonialism in reverse, instead of going to the poor people to feel superior (missions), they come crawling to you.

“What’s interesting about Haidt’s alternative interpretation of the liberal progress narrative is that he mentions two elements central to the narrative—private property and nations. And what has happened to a large extent is that as the failures of communism have become increasingly apparent many on the left—including social scientists—have shifted their activism away from opposing private property and towards other aspects, for example globalism.”

There’s no such thing as globalism, it’s a void of values. Like there’s no one language, a single language would be the starting point.
Empires unite nations, that’s why the British Empire taught everyone English.
It’s the best language, so you’re still using it.
Globalization has failed because the East has outcompeted the West. A world without white people will not be dumb enough to hand the enemy in various wars your very factories for slightly cheaper Nikes.
In real terms, they bred more, we paid for it and called it ‘aid’ and the future belongs to them barring famine.
Accept your death began with manufacturing. You gave away future prosperity, that’s gonna affect the birth rates.

“But how do we know a similarly disastrous thing is not going to happen with globalism as happened with communism? What if some form of national and ethnic affiliation is a deep-seated part of human nature, and that trying to forcefully suppress it will eventually lead to a disastrous counter-reaction? What if nations don’t create conflict, but alleviate it? What if a decentralised structure is the best way for human society to function?”



jesus my sides

genophilia is a dictionary word

ingroup preference is a well-studied phenomena

genetic diaspora exist, ask HBD chick

they’re so close to the pendulum of r/K, aren’t they?

nations formed of genetic tribes to alleviate conflict when weaponry advanced and made mass slaughter possible but, duh, undesirable, ask a forensic anthro or any evo biologist

hell, ask sacred cow Dawkins if supranationalism, the true name for globalism, is even genetically possible
chimps can’t do it, softy peaceable chimpanzee frequently murder one another for literally no reason than territory
it’s been filmed, I’ve seen it

“What if the type of mass-scale immigration

dictionary definition of invasion met but ok

even without weapons, you can ‘rape’ a nation’s women and state coffers (“economic migrants” literally invaders) and that is their intention

search weapons cache European mosque or something like it
happens all over
just the ones we find

currently occurring in Europe,

meanwhile, Christian genocide in MENA too

Look! A distraction!

containing relatively large amounts of people with different nationalities, cultures, and religions, is going against some of the core features of human nature?

Show me one place multiculturalism in history hasn’t involved a genocide at some point.
Look up Neanderthals, it’s now in our blood because it’s the reason we’re here and they’re not.

Maybe it isn’t, but if it is, do we have to wait until after the fact to say ‘well, globalism doesn’t work’, as we did with communism? Surely there is a better way.”

Picking up a fucking history book?

The burden of proof was on the pushers. They never did. Not even in their neighbourhoods or schools. The People never consented. When asked (see Brexit), they reject it.

Like the Unis in general, the social sciences only have a shit reputation now liberals are running it.

Coincidence, this is not.

The Parenting Effect and Nurture Myth

Instead, genetics. This jives with other findings.

Personality? Genetic.

IQ? Genetic.

Political Party Identification? Genetic.

I sense a pattern here.

It's cute in a backward co-dependent way that you cannot distinguish self and subjective opinion

You know what is real?

Propaganda and peer influence. This includes teachers. Let that sink in.
Learning cultural lessons is important (how to speak, hold cutlery), but it won’t change who you are. You can undo false beliefs but not false behaviours, and the high criminal recidivism proves this. Rehab proves this. Our soft treatment of bad behaviour has produced – more bad behaviour. The brain is a learning machine but there is only one way it can unlearn a bad lesson – pain.
As we say, dating back centuries, Bad Blood Will Out. 

Want quantifiables? Your family affluence stabilizes over the generations.

White Governments want to parent new arrivals into acting like First World citizens. Magic Dirt is the 21st century Appeal to Magic Beans.

Avoid the Sociologist’s Fallacy, folks. You can’t replicate it because bullshit is unique.
Within a ‘narrow’ normal band of keeping the child physically/mentally healthy, and relatively happy, parenting doesn’t matter. He dirt child, you dirt parent. He Evil Jr., You Evil Sr.

The academic focus on parenting style was intended to damage the nuclear family via the Patriarch. It lectured like a Sunday Pastor about the evils of being authoritarian, and called it the Authoritarian Personality. You know, like not wanting your child to spend time around thugs or stay out late vulnerable to rape, which counts under the peer influence proven to be a decisive factor in their life. That was called terrible parenting because r-types don’t want the Ks to compete against their own rugrats by investing in their own future K-spawn? The sole response is to shame them for it.

The doom of social science

That social scientists have applied the mindset and methodology of physics in areas of study to which they are completely unsuited; that once social science became convinced that it was a “hard science” it became arrogant; that this has caused a disconnect from reality and a prioritization of abstract theory over practical results. Yet, abandoning social science altogether seems unwise. For one thing, good social science is needed in order to combat bad social science, which despite the reproducibility crisis retains tremendous influence. For another, with the power of faith and tradition broken or nearly so throughout the West, something is needed in order to guide us forward (even if its goal is to eventually lead us back to faith and tradition). Lastly, a full documenting of what went wrong with the West and how it happened is necessary so that we can (hopefully) avoid making quite exactly the same mistakes again in the future.  …

2 things.

  1. The Narrative for PC is based on social sciences. It’s the entire pseudoscience justification. Hence the shrieking.
  2. Cutting out the political would constitute most of those papers incurred, politics isn’t a science. They use “publish or perish” as an excuse to overwhelm and dilute anti-PC papers.

In short, while the left’s social science takes physics as its model, the right’s social science should take engineering as its model.

They’re abusing the word phobia, so for starters……

Video: Charles Murray on IQ, Race and Gender | The Bell Curve

Stefan seems to be on a one-man mission to redpill the internet. He’s been getting really redpill recently.

How the hell did he get the big CM on?

I love that guy. I love them both. I love that this is happening.

His fair argument about high IQ female fertility is somewhat echoed in:

Considering we all complain geniuses don’t have enough kids, I don’t think we can criticize those women smart enough to know “the future belongs to those who show up” by contributing multiple copies of their genius DNA into the future, some of which must be male and not constrained in the same way.

For most women, the best job in the world is motherhood:

In few other avenues would we *generally* have the same control over the future (the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world) and raw ability to further the human horizons.
However, this doesn’t discount the rare few who should use their extreme outlier skills, if possible:

Usually, the woman’s best claim to fame in history is as “Mother to (VIP)”.
What a compliment that must be! Hey, you not only made life, you raised it better out of practically all other examples of your sex on the planet at the time.

BLESSINGS on the hand of women!
Angels guard its strength and grace.
In the palace, cottage, hovel,
Oh, no matter where the place;
Would that never storms assailed it,
Rainbows ever gently curled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world….