We’re the cavemen, not Neanderthals



Humans never admit they wronged another species.

Some argue that before they were replaced, Neandertals had cultural capabilities similar to modern humans, while others argue that these similarities only appear once modern humans came into contact with Neandertals.

Better than ‘humans’ of the time, clearly.

 “Lissoirs like these are a great tool for working leather, so much so that 50 thousand years after Neandertals made these, I was able to purchase a new one on the Internet from a site selling tools for traditional crafts,” says Soressi. “It shows that this tool was so efficient that it had been maintained through time with almost no change. It might be one or perhaps even the only heritage from Neandertal times that our society is still using today.”


They know we non-Africans have their genes, they hope we don’t know.

Maybe human genius is just higher percentages of Neanderthal. It would explain NW Europe’s incredible ingenuity and science, even compared to other Whites.

Haven’t you wondered why they want your DNA? (Before whites die out, ofc).

And the companies privately researching never find/report Neanderthal DNA, unlike real geneticists?

You know how they acted like this is a vague finding?

Left until right at the end, where only nerds read:

The results place the Pech-de-l’Azé I bone tool to approximately 50 thousand years ago.

This is well before the best evidence of modern humans in Western Europe, and it is much older than any other examples of sophisticated bone tool technologies.

Negative evidence of ‘human’ superiority.

Link: Amazon Women and why men exist


Mostly correct but I must point out the hypergamy thing is bullshit. Hypergamy is based on a higher social status of (in the manosphere) men that women try to borrow or steal. This tries to argue it’s still hypergamy when women have the high social value. WTF? That makes the opposite of sense.

Sorry, no.

wrong dr house urgh shut up idiots

Hypergamy is a social science concept based in social status. It isn’t sexual. It isn’t genetic. Please stop.
It’s like the manosphere is doing a version of that feminist thing where they keep adding to the definition of rape when it suits them. Please stop and use another word for that thing.

I won’t leave you without explanation for replacement.

Babies are parasites to the mother’s body. Baby boys are worse. They are an immunological risk. The mother already suffers microchimerism of the brain and other safeguards are in place to prevent further damage or the reverse, miscarrying/naturally aborting all males to protect the mother fully, which would effectively kill off the species.

It’s a balancing act.

Stop trying to find a winner.

Quick lesson on evolution:

The Y chromosome is younger. Look it up (see n.b.). The Bible is wrong. Women came first. We were self-fertilizing (parthenogenesis) as a simpler asexual species. Much later, we became sexually reproductive as a species, diverging into a sexually dimorphic male and female, because it allowed for a greater genetic diversity and vigour (see: all sex differences) as a whole developed species allowing for faster evolution although it produces differing traits in each sex (specialization) for optimum results.


From wikipedia as a starting point;

By definition, it is not necessary that the Y-MRCA and the mt-MRCA should have lived at the same time,[4][5] even though current (as of 2014) estimates suggest the possibility that the two individuals may well have been roughly contemporaneous (albeit with uncertainties ranging in the tens of thousands of years).[6]

The idea of man coming first doesn’t make any sense, you can tell the Bible was written by bloody men trying to justify why their wives should never defy them and how God was totally a man (even the angels were sexless). The first sex would need to bear children without the divine plan for another, good luck with that guys!

Male is the sex surplus to reproductive requirement.
The desert island situation requires women or invites death.
You can still harvest sperm from a dead man.

I love the hamstering here from a man;

Quote: “It’s interesting that many human cultures place such high value on the male.”

“Yes, I think this is a product of patriarchy. In a sense that is ironic because patriarchy evolves to gain complete control of female reproduction (monopolizing a scarce resource).”

First off, female reproduction is not “scarce.” It is everywhere!

Once every 9 months versus once every five minutes. Fuck you.

“Patriarchy” is an attempt to equalize the reproductive process between males and females. It is an attempt to take those useless males and make them productive by attaching them to the reproductive process, of which they are normally rejected from. In fact, in all of nature, the only species which tries to equalize the reproduction of the male and female is the human species.

The weak men offer the comforts of civilization in return for female dependence.
You can’t square a circle. It’s a social construct, it doesn’t change the biological reality.

This pair bonding brought the males into directly provisioning benefits for both the female and the offspring she (and he) produced. Pair bonding between the male and female stopped the tendency of males to “duff each other up” and rather, enticed them to co-operate with each other by bringing them directly into the reproductive process. You can see that this process endorses the views of Robert Briffault, quoted above, who declares that males must bring a benefit to the female in order for her to associate and reproduce with him.

The rest is r/K being squished into a bullshit male/female frame.

As for Amazonian women, they existed pre-civilization.
Men provide civilization and build the home, women keep it and fill it.
Fair exchange, I think.

In the beginning, the duality of sexuality (male and female gender roles) is used to overcome environmental adversity and as the adversity disappears, so does sexual restraint and the need for gender roles… which causes the fall of the civilization and thus again creates the adversity which demands gender roles be enforced.

You need to read some Biohistory, man.

Woman holds the future card, a genetic future, men build it, the cradle.

Negatively intelligent or positively intelligent?


I like this idea.
I suppose it’s a tradeoff from optimum functioning to directed specialization.
The genetically well-endowed (good structure) needn’t apply it to anything special. That’s the special in specialization, and as much as I abhor the modern over-reliance on it, there it is right within the word, bold yet demure.
And it is the latter character where the Great Geniuses are to be found, as in their case, there is likely something to overcome (average or below-average structural bequeath). Is this why we respect them more than the high IQ with great, yet unfulfilled potential?

Paper: Entrepreneurship and the Jack-of-all-Trades

Click to access Lazear_entrepreneurship.pdf


The theory below is that entrepreneurs must be jacks-of-all-trades
who need not excel in any one skill but are competent in many. A
model of the choice to become an entrepreneur is presented. The
primary implication is that individuals with balanced skills are more
likely than others to become entrepreneurs. Using data on Stanford
alumni, the predictions are tested and found to hold. Those who have
varied work and educational backgrounds are much more likely to
start their own businesses than those who have focused on one role
at work or concentrated in one subject at school.
I rarely post business materials (most aren’t exactly Drucker) but this pertains to the psychology which should be nourished to provide a firm intellectual basis for a startup. Could be of use.

Why “Haters” might be more successful

article coverage;

“That curmudgeonly selectiveness is a net positive for skill development, study authors Justin Hepler of the University of Illinois and Dolores Albarracin of the University of Pennsylvania argue.”

Warning: psychobabble incoming.

“… likers may adopt a jack-of-all-trades approach to life, investing small amounts of time in a wide variety of activities. This would leave them somewhat skilled at many tasks. In contrast, when haters find an activity they actually like, they may invest a larger amount of time in that task, allowing them to develop a higher skill level compared to likers.”

Wasn’t that called taste?

“This same pattern could also be relevant to attentional control. For example, likers may have more difficulty sustaining attention on a task because they perceive so many interesting and distracting opportunities in their environment. In contrast, because haters like so few things, they may be unlikely to be distracted when they are doing a task, and thus their generalized dislike may actually benefit their attentional control.”

When you ignore the BS of idiots, things get better. I can attest.

“But it’s still quite interesting to have research that takes a behavior that we tend to judge as “bad” — that of being a hater — and shows its more positive qualities, in the same way that neuroticism can be channeled into critical thinking.”

These traits developed and remained for positive reasons.
Overall, if you disapprove of something, you’ve probably put enough thought into it to have reasons. I think that’s the true cause.