Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

The very act of giving power away is a microsubmission. When men give power to their women, they give a piece of their dominance away. Women then react to this act of generosity aka submission in a very predictably womanish way — they betray their benefactor.

It is in the nature of woman to spite men who show weakness, even when that weakness directly empowers women. This is because women, deep down, don’t really want to be empowered. Empowerment is manly, and women don’t want to be manly, so women resent the men who foist empowerment on them.

***

Lichthof, on Jacinda Ardern, the Kiwi Prime Catlady,

Reading the NZ prime minister’s bio…all cliche
Socialist, agnostic, gay rights, pro refugee, pro abortion, her cat became a celebrity…had a [single] baby at 38….

Thankfully, given her advanced years, she is unlikely to have another child. The shitlib parents will not replace themselves.

***

I read an analogy from somewhere I can’t recall, that the Jacinda Ardern cuntopia is the natural consequence of prosperity and easy living. Anglo New Zealanders have had it good for a while, and voting a rabid horse-faced, virtue-sniveling cunt like Ardern into the Prime Catladyship is akin to voting for the dog catcher to be mayor of your town, just because you can and there’s no real responsibility for the mayor anyhow so you don’t have to worry about him fucking up on the job.

But then, when shit hits the fan and you’ve got a dog catcher/catlady in charge, you suddenly realize this joke figurehead is way in over her head and liable to do something stupid like censor the internet, ban books, and ban guns, while wearing a hijab to commiserate with people who hate you and your kind and are always plotting against you.

Currently, that’s what’s happening all over the West. We are ruled by petty tyrant catladies who are out of their leagues and are too fucking stupid or mule-headed to understand they are lighting the fires that will consume their nations in civil wars.

Read Full Post »

Merde passed along a funny news blurb about one of the rich Hollywood ladies, Felicity Huffman, charged with bribing her kid into an elite college.

This is interesting.

According to the Today Show, William H. Macy and Felicity Huffman “dated for 15 years before they finally tied the knot in 1997. Sofia was born in 2000, Georgia in 2002.”

Felicity told TribLive that marriage once terrified her. “I was so scared of marriage that I thought I would’ve preferred to step in front of a bus,” she told the newspaper, adding: “Bill Macy asked me to marry him several times over several years. And I was finally smart enough to go: ‘I’m going to marry this guy or really lose him for good.’ And it was after we broke up for four or five years when he asked me again, I knew I couldn’t say no.”

So marriage to William Macy was less appealing to Huffman than being killed by a bus until he won acclaim for Fargo in 1997. Suddenly she couldn’t risk losing him.

Female hypergamy is always sniffing about for alpha maleness, even in the same man. If a man comes into a fortune or experiences a big positive change in his social prestige that raises his SMV, his girlfriend will suddenly stop having “headaches”, start cooking more often, quietly throw away her 2016 pussyhat, let her hair grow out, and stop bragging about her slutty past. That same man she broke up with for five years will, after starring in a blockbuster movie, seem like a real catch.

Naturally, such a man, if he were smart, would toss the foot-dragging bitch and upgrade to a younger, hotter, tighter prospect.

FYI Felicity Huffman has a huge manjaw. Yeech.

Read Full Post »

This has been a banner week for feminism, if you like the idea of feminists committing mass hara-kiri. (I do.)

When “Gender Studies” professors and Jezebel shrews are hardest hit, America wins.

Hot off the presses, a new study finds that sex-based brain differences are evident IN UTERO (long before culture or social constructivist poopytalk can plausibly have any influence on the sexes).

Sex-related differences in brain and behavior are apparent across the life course, but the exact set of processes that guide their emergence in utero remains a topic of vigorous scientific inquiry. Here, we evaluate sex and gestational age (GA)-related change in functional connectivity (FC) within and between brain wide networks. Using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging we examined FC in 118 human fetuses between 25.9 and 39.6 weeks GA (70 male; 48 female). Infomap was applied to the functional connectome to identify discrete prenatal brain networks in utero. A consensus procedure produced an optimal model comprised of 16 distinct fetal neural networks distributed throughout the cortex and subcortical regions. We used enrichment analyses to assess network-level clustering of strong FC-GA correlations separately in each sex group, and to identify network pairs exhibiting distinct patterns of GA-related change in FC between males and females. We discovered both within and between network FC-GA associations that varied with sex. Specifically, associations between GA and posterior cingulate-temporal pole and fronto-cerebellar FC were observed in females only, whereas the association between GA and increased intracerebellar FC was stronger in males. These observations confirm that sexual dimorphism in functional brain systems emerges during human gestation.

As the study’s conclusion notes, neonatal sex-based brain differences exert lifelong effects on behavioral sex differences:

The study of brain development in utero is imperative for understanding typical and atypical brain development trajectories and achieving optimal long-term neurobehavioral outcomes. The present study demonstrates for the first time that development of fetal brain FC varies with sex. The differential development of FC over gestation in male and female fetuses likely acts as a precursor to sex-related brain connectivity differences observed across the lifespan. Further, the fetal brain networks observed in the present study likely serve as the building blocks for nascent neonatal, toddler, and adult networks.

Colin Wright points out…

Also keep in mind that this study measured *functional* connectivity, not merely differences in brain anatomy.

Feminists and soyboy enablers are being force fed the truth about male and female differences: “society” has nothing to do with them. The source of sex differences is in the brain and begins in utero.

Biology über alles.

Feminist Indoctrination Kommissars BTFO.

***

PS Amazog just banned Kevin MacDonald’s seminal book The Culture of Critique.

Luckily, you can still buy the book here…for now.

That famed liberal tolerance is quite a thing to behold, eh?

There should be a Banned Books Reading Club. That would make a great summer reading list.

***

PPS One of the few memes I laugh at with every return visit:

Read Full Post »

An explosive 2014 paper authored by (from the look of the names) three White Gentiles finds that female economic independence or female dependence on the state as substitute beta provider husband decreases the stigma against and moral opposition to female promiscuity.

In environments in which female economic dependence on a male mate is higher, male parental investment is more essential. In such environments, therefore, both sexes should value paternity certainty more and thus object more to promiscuity (because promiscuity undermines paternity certainty). We tested this theory of anti-promiscuity morality in two studies (N = 656 and N = 4,626) using U.S. samples. In both, we examined whether opposition to promiscuity was higher among people who perceived greater female economic dependence in their social network. In Study 2, we also tested whether economic indicators of female economic dependence (e.g., female income, welfare availability) predicted anti-promiscuity morality at the state level. Results from both studies supported the proposed theory. At the individual level, perceived female economic dependence explained significant variance in anti-promiscuity morality, even after controlling for variance explained by age, sex, religiosity, political conservatism, and the anti-promiscuity views of geographical neighbors. At the state level, median female income was strongly negatively related to anti-promiscuity morality and this relationship was fully mediated by perceived female economic dependence. These results were consistent with the view that anti-promiscuity beliefs may function to promote paternity certainty in circumstances where male parental investment is particularly important.

[…]

Conclusion

Results of both studies were consistent with the theory that opposition to promiscuity arises in circumstances where paternity certainty is particularly important and suggest that such opposition will more likely emerge in environments in which women are more dependent economically on a male mate. Attempts to replicate these results in other cultures will be necessary in order to determine the robustness of this model under diverse social conditions. Further research will also be necessary to illuminate the psychological mechanisms that underlie the observed association between female economic dependence and opposition to promiscuity (e.g., the cues which shape individual perceptions of the local environment). One plausible mechanism is that people living in environments characterized by higher female dependence are more likely to learn about negative consequences associated with promiscuity (e.g., difficulties faced by parents and offspring in situations of high paternity uncertainty), a process which could generate a cultural opposition to promiscuity that is founded on biological concerns.

Now where have you read independently arrived meditations on this theme before? Oh yeah.

Here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

When women are economically self-sufficient (aka “leaning in”), or their needs are met by the State (i.e., welfare queens), the value of a beta provider husband goes down. Consequently, the value of paternity certainty drops. If women don’t need to convince a man to stay, they don’t need to convince a man the kid is his. And unconvinced men are less likely to want to stay, completing the dystopian circle.

Women who don’t need a man for his provisioning and protection are the backbone of the “slut pride” movement. Big State, Big Capitalism, and Big Slut reinforce each other. Moral opposition — itself a derivative of the disgust reflex — to sluttery decreases in gynarcho-tyrannies in which women can fend for themselves and can therefore survive as single mommies should they get pregnant by one of their fly by night lovers. Men adapt to this new reality of economically empowered women by emphasizing seduction and pump and dumps at the expense of monogamy or dependability signaling.

Women and alpha men benefit from this system, while beta males are left in the lurch. Predictably, what you’ll see in a gogrrl sexual market is the culture coming to be dominated by women extolling the slut lifestyle and alpha men happily obliging them, as beta men simmer. Women who can financially support themselves [cf, special ladies] will agitate for more sexual freedom and the relaxation of social norms that regulate female hypergamy. These women are making the subconscious calculation that if paternity assurance is passé because they don’t have to economically rely on a man to survive and vault the jobscareersgoals status ladder, then they’d be better off in a system that celebrated and encouraged cock carousel riding. Women get their cad chads without the worry of penury caused by abandonment.

Charming jerkboys are making the calculation that it’s better to drink the milk than to buy the cow, especially if the cow has a lot of miles on her and doesn’t inspire chivalrous adoration or romantic respect.

The Big State-Big Slut nexus is where we find the opposite of the debt-free virgins without tattoos maiden paradise.

Interestingly, the recent PleaseMeToo societal extrusion can be viewed as a clumsy reaction to the decades’ long primacy of Big State Big Slut. The flavor is still man-hating and exculpatory of female responsibility, but underneath the surface feminism one can see the faint outline of a female backlash against slut glorification and the destruction of paternity certainty and monogamy that it leaves in its wake.

Ultimately, Big State and to a lesser extent Big Capitalism will have to be dismantled and reined in to reverse the social trend toward Big Slut. Localism, decentralization, and if necessary secession and segregation, will be the cures that herald a return to Based Damsels.

Read Full Post »

So what does it mean? Are 92% of men really smarter than the average woman?

Maybe.

Mr. Thompson explains,

However, cognitive tests show an effect size of only 0.2 in favour of men, just 3 IQ points. In consequence, at IQ 130 70% are men and at IQ 145 80% are men.

It is possible that, in a rush to ensure that men and women’s mental ability scores can be presented as equal, men’s stronger subject areas have been under-sampled. Test producers are under pressure to minimize sexual and racial differences.

In defence of any group who think that their specialist strong points have been ignored, we should set the sampling frame for cognitive tests as wide as possible. There may be a small but real male advantage in intelligence which a broader scope of tests would reveal.

Bigger brains are associated with bigger bodies, but the very large male-female brain size discrepancy suggests something else is going on besides correlated brain-body size dimorphism.

From Thompson’s article on the study over at Unz:

Broadly the same effect of male advantage can be found in all the brain region sub-comparisons. Male brains are both larger, and also vary more in size. Greater male variability seems a fact of nature. If there were a direct relationship between brain size and cognitive ability, there would be many, many more bright men than bright women.

The cognitive test was limited to a 13-item verbal-numerical test to be completed in 2 minutes, which ought to be enough to grade the general population.

[…]

The test might be a little crude if the purpose is to detect sex differences across the broad range of different cognitive tasks, and also a bit limited if the volunteers are, as one might expect of this database, somewhat brighter volunteers interested in contributing to science. However, these are minor quibbles. All intellects can be evaluated in 2 minutes.

[…]

Sure enough, Table 2 shows that the cognitive tests are only an effect size of about 0.2 in favour of men. Where did all the male brain size advantage go? 0.2 of a standard deviation works out to 3 IQ points. Nothing much, you may say, considering that the test-retest reliability of the Wechsler is 4 IQ points, but if this is a true representation of male-female differences, then we can calculate what it would mean for the male/female balance at the higher levels of ability. As you may have seen in previous posts, if men are really 3 points brighter than women, and women’s standard deviation is narrower than men, say 14 rather than 15 points, then this makes a big difference at the higher reaches of intelligence.

Here are the estimates, if one assumes men have an IQ of 102, (sd 15) and women an IQ of 99, (sd 14).

At IQ 130: 69.8% men
At IQ 145: 80.3% men

[…]

This is a very substantial paper. It shows a massive sex difference in brain size of 1.4 d, and when one factors in that brain size relates to intelligence at a correlation of about 0.28, then the predicted intelligence difference will be a large 0.39 d, but the observed difference is only half that. Paradoxical. One implication is that there are sex-linked differences in brain structure and dendritic arborization which overcome pure size differences. If so, how is this balancing act achieved? Why don’t all people have the smaller, more craftily wired version of the human brain, which presumably requires a smaller blood supply. On the other hand, it might be that the cognitive testing has not been wide enough, and has ignored tasks in which males have an advantage. By the way, if one sex has an advantage in one skill, this is not an error of testing, it is a triumph of testing that a real difference has been revealed.

Speculatively, it’s not just cognitive tests that could be ignoring tasks which favor men. Colleges could be selecting students based on criteria that likewise ignore areas in which men have an advantage.

In honor of International Whambamthankyoumaam Day, here is a picture of misogyny:

Read Full Post »

A paper written by what sounds like three micks inebriated on decades of academia femcunt poopytalk has, in a roundabout way, corroborated the classic CH description of the sexual market as a barter system between cheap sperm and expensive eggs (or, more poetically, between expendable men and perishable women).

The expendable male hypothesis

Matriliny is a system of kinship in which descent and inheritance are conferred along the female line. The theoretically influential concept of the matrilineal puzzle posits that matriliny poses special problems for understanding roles of men in matrilineal societies. Ethnographic work describes the puzzle as the tension experienced by men between the desire to exert control over their natal kin (i.e., the lineage to which they belong) and over their affinal kin (i.e., their spouses and their biological children). Evolutionary work frames the paradox as one resulting from a man investing in his nieces and nephews at the expense of his own biological offspring. In both cases, the rationale for the puzzle rests on two fundamental assumptions: (i) that men are always in positions of authority over women and over resources; and (ii) that men are interested in the outcomes of parenting. In this paper, we posit a novel hypothesis that suggests that certain ecological conditions render men expendable within local kinship configurations, nullifying the above assumptions. This arises when (i) women, without significant assistance from men, are capable of meeting the subsistence needs of their families; and (ii) men have little to gain from parental investment in children. We conclude that the expendable male hypothesis may explain the evolution of matriliny in numerous cases, and by noting that female-centered approaches that call into doubt assumptions inherent to male-centered models of kinship are justified in evolutionary perspective.

Authors: Siobhan Mattison, Robert Quinlan, Darragh Hare

It’s a reflex in me now to check the names and phyzzes of the authors of feminist-friendly studies for an accurate gauge of the veracity of the study in question.

Siobhan Mattison. Vicious man-hating catlady face. Defying expectation, she claims to be a “wife and mother”, which she listed third in her profile bio, behind “demographer”.

The authors are of course framing their hypothesis as “strong empowered wahman don’t need no man!”, but the truth is far darker than that.

The worst societies in the world are marked by rampant polygyny (one man, multiple women, bitter incels). Black Africa is a prime example. In all societies, though, men are generally more expendable than women, because at the finest granularity of reproductive fitness, it only takes one man to impregnate a lot of women. The remaining men can go fuck off, evolutionarily speaking.

On a practical level, it’s easy to grasp the significance of this sex difference by noting how easy it is for societies (aka tribes) to rebound after a war in which mostly prime aged men are killed. A war which took the lives mostly of women would have a hard time repopulating, because wombs are the limiting factor.

That said, women have their own darwinian curse. Their precious eggs have a shorter shelf life than men’s abundant sperms. Post-menopausal women are useless as population regenerators, but one 70-year-old man could conceivably repopulate an entire tribe decimated by a conflict of attrition. This reproductive reality plays out at more concrete, higher levels of interpersonal dynamics, in everything from men’s better earning power later in life to the longevity of male actors’ careers in contrast to actresses’ careers.

Concerning the hypothesis of this paper, where women are economically self-sufficient, as in the modern West, beta male providers are rendered more expendable. And where sluttery, cheating, cuckoldry, and single mommery are rising, male parental investment declines because men are no longer confident in their paternity with any one woman.

We see both trends rising in Western strongholds that have existed the longest within an industrial and then post-industrial system. Naturally, what follows from the “expendable men, perishable women” hypothesis is a de facto if not yet de jure polygynous sexual market exemplified by women waiting longer to get married, spending a decade or more chasing degrees, paychecks, and cocks, and being freed from societal constraints on their ability to dupe men into cuckoldry or to soak men they have sexually abandoned with onerous child support garnishments, which is a form of institutionalized cuckoldry.

Men, for their part, are responding as would be expected in a sexual market returning to a primitive pareto-guided allocation of sexual rewards. 20% of men (alphas) are hoovering up 80% of prime nubility females, while 80% of men (betas) are left to romantic isolation or settling down with a road worn and tossed away wet aging slore.

Into this gynarchic efflorescence, we see men abdicating any trace of authority over women and losing interest in resource accumulation to attract women, while simultaneously women are actively encouraged to sexually roam and shun marriage and motherhood. It started in the lower classes, but is rapidly winding its way to the upper classes.

Feminist cunts may titter and preen and think an emerging matriliny is all fine and dandy, a blow for the sisterhood, until civilization collapses into an r-selected rabbit warren punctuated by a retreat from evolved beauty and bouts of incomprehensible violence.

Read Full Post »

Don’t use sunscreen. It’s really bad for you. So bad, it could justifiably be classed a toxin. The decrease in sunburn risk is outweighed by the big increases in risks of many types of cancer, including melanoma.

• Research has not validated the claim that the sun is not safe because it causes melanoma.

• Sunscreen use actually promotes skin cancers.

• Sunscreen chemicals are toxic to all systems in the body and to all life on the planet.

• Sunscreen chemicals mimicking the shape of our hormones bind to the body’s hormone receptors, disrupting estrogen, testosterone, progesterone and thyroid hormones.

• Sunshine provides many benefits for the whole body.

• Blocking UVB radiation leads to low vitamin D3 levels due to the inability to produce this essential vitamin in the skin, which results in a multitude of health problems.

• Consumers should avoid products that have a SPF rating or foods or clothing that contain titanium dioxide.

• Eating, taking or using antioxidants on the skin are natural, safe ways to protect the skin from solar radiation. Feeding the skin antioxidants provides nature’s best solar radiation protection.

***

Although UVB rays are what cause the typical sunburn, and blocking UVB does stop the skin from turning red, the sunburn is the body’s warning sign that it is time to get out of the sun because you have run out of your natural protective nutrients that prevent damage from the sun. Blocking the sunburn is just as dangerous as cutting the wire to the red warning light on the dash of your car.

***

A study with human volunteers who applied BP-3, OMC and 4-MBC for two weeks detected all three sunscreen chemicals in blood and urine, along with alterations in reproductive hormone levels. Observing the amount of these ‘‘estrogenic’’ sunscreen compounds in the blood, the researchers expressed concern for children who have not reached puberty, because they are more sensitive to low levels of reproductive hormones. Young children are also less able to eliminate drugs and have a larger surface area per body weight than adults, which can result in greater absorption and build-up within their bodies. The researchers concluded that sunscreens “might have adverse effects in children.”

***

This report on HMB also found that the chemical caused reproductive toxicity, with a lengthened menstrual cycle and decreased sperm count.

At least nine studies of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in mice and rats show reproductive harm, including problems that could result in impaired fertility.

***

Many young people today are stating that they are confused as to their sexual orientation. It is no wonder! The use of estrogenic and anti-testosterone sunscreen chemicals for the last forty years could be one reason that males and females are experiencing gender identity confusion in ever greater numbers. It is known that testosterone secreted by fetal testicles plays a key role in the permanent organization of the developing central nervous system toward masculine patterns. This means that males exposed to these chemicals in utero are subject to disruption of the development of normal masculine character traits.

***

The alterations to the cerebral cortex suggest that titanium dioxide exposure should be considered as a risk factor for autism, as autistic brains show abnormal cellular arrangements in the cerebral cortex.

***

Studies also show that titanium dioxide disrupts the body’s ability to perform its continual DNA repair, which is essential to maintain good health. All these alterations of chemicals within the brain cannot help but lead to alterations in behavior.

Is sunscreen the primary environmental insult causing the late-stage degenerate freak parade craziness?!

All the biosocial depravity plaguing the West — weak, gimp sperm…low fertility…tranny lunacy…autistic screeching…GOP cuckery…pussyhat hysteria…mental illness…depression…diabetes — might be the consequence of sunscreen lotion and the associated reduction in naturally-produced vitamin D.

If it is, then going out in the sun “unprotected” will be the next pro-White dog whistle.

***

Science is a work in progress. These findings may not hold up, or they may. The title of this post was obviously glib, but not untrue. We are discovering more every day that the Big Chem revolution of the 20th Century has had unforeseen consequences, which could be affecting us in small and big ways. It isn’t a reach to speculate based on the new information coming out that industrial modernity has had hugely negative impacts on social organization and could in fact be a main culprit in the depravity and suicidal ideation sweeping the West.

Which is why I, and others like PA, have predicted that the 21st Century will be the story of Westerners (European Whites) repudiating the modernity of the 20th Century. We are going back to our roots, in all senses of the word. Our roots with nature, with family, with kin, with neighbors, with nation.

I’m not saying it will be the equivalent of Ludditism. There will still be amazing discoveries, particularly in biology and genetics, but the way we live will change to be more in tune with our primal rhythms than with the autissimo world foisted on us by Big Tech, Big Usury, Big Chem, and Big State.

Globohomo will be defeated by blood and soil.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: