Well, we are in new territory, because we have not been in a situation where women are able to produce sufficient income that they can pay other women to raise their children before, rather than depend upon men for income (and defense). It’s just never happened before. There is no means of producing that kind of male leadership for approximately two thirds of males. Without the compromise of marriage and the family and the division of labor, under contemporary technology, women basically do not need men whatsoever, unless they can capture one of the top third of men. And that is what is happening. It’s working out for about half of men and the other half are basically screwed. There are means of fixing this problem so that we nullify the ancestral family in accordance with the new economic and biological reality. (Which in turn restores our pre-agrarian relationships to their evolutionary state: serial relationships where women are heads of ‘households’. And men rotate through them as desired. with brothers and uncles providing ingroup care rather than husbands providing that care. That’s what we did prior to agrarianism and agrarian marriage. The first is to end redistribution so that we account for the higher demands of men in slower maturity, greater cellular damage, greater illness because of it and greater care needed in old age because of it. And he second is we end redistribution due do children so that men can trade income for affection. The third is that we restore all male institutions that have existed throughout history, for the caretaking of excess males. The fourth is to separate male and female education again so that males can learn in a highly competitive environment. Fifth is to create separate houses of government for men and women so that the tendency of women to welcome invaders that will destroy the productive potential of men, and male’s tendency to want to subordinate women. Otherwise we get what we see is men creating a civil war, which is what ALWAYS HAPPENS when there is an excess of unsatisfied men. This basically ends the experiment with universal marriage as a means of defending the polity against women bearing children and forcing the cost upon the group/tribe/village/polity. This is no problem any longer because women are, in large part, doing do. Furthermore divorced single mothers prefer to not divide their attention between men and children. (data). So we can reverse the (relatively recent) male centered household, and create the mother centered household with the males transiting in and out of households as desired by the women. None of that asks anything of women other than to end income provided my men to women, and end political domination of one sex over the other. If men are economically unnecessary then they are. That is what has happened because of modernity and the pill. So marriage is only valuable to 1/3 of men and women, and the rest of the time, men are merely gene contributors. So what are we going to do with those extra men – if they don’t have anything to care about? ‘Cause history is very clear on this subject
Category: Human Behavior and Cognitive Science
-
New Territory Or Return To Normal
Well, we are in new territory, because we have not been in a situation where women are able to produce sufficient income that they can pay other women to raise their children before, rather than depend upon men for income (and defense). It’s just never happened before. There is no means of producing that kind of male leadership for approximately two thirds of males. Without the compromise of marriage and the family and the division of labor, under contemporary technology, women basically do not need men whatsoever, unless they can capture one of the top third of men. And that is what is happening. It’s working out for about half of men and the other half are basically screwed. There are means of fixing this problem so that we nullify the ancestral family in accordance with the new economic and biological reality. (Which in turn restores our pre-agrarian relationships to their evolutionary state: serial relationships where women are heads of ‘households’. And men rotate through them as desired. with brothers and uncles providing ingroup care rather than husbands providing that care. That’s what we did prior to agrarianism and agrarian marriage. The first is to end redistribution so that we account for the higher demands of men in slower maturity, greater cellular damage, greater illness because of it and greater care needed in old age because of it. And he second is we end redistribution due do children so that men can trade income for affection. The third is that we restore all male institutions that have existed throughout history, for the caretaking of excess males. The fourth is to separate male and female education again so that males can learn in a highly competitive environment. Fifth is to create separate houses of government for men and women so that the tendency of women to welcome invaders that will destroy the productive potential of men, and male’s tendency to want to subordinate women. Otherwise we get what we see is men creating a civil war, which is what ALWAYS HAPPENS when there is an excess of unsatisfied men. This basically ends the experiment with universal marriage as a means of defending the polity against women bearing children and forcing the cost upon the group/tribe/village/polity. This is no problem any longer because women are, in large part, doing do. Furthermore divorced single mothers prefer to not divide their attention between men and children. (data). So we can reverse the (relatively recent) male centered household, and create the mother centered household with the males transiting in and out of households as desired by the women. None of that asks anything of women other than to end income provided my men to women, and end political domination of one sex over the other. If men are economically unnecessary then they are. That is what has happened because of modernity and the pill. So marriage is only valuable to 1/3 of men and women, and the rest of the time, men are merely gene contributors. So what are we going to do with those extra men – if they don’t have anything to care about? ‘Cause history is very clear on this subject
-
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/40468510_288780981718799_72105922384
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/40468510_288780981718799_7210592238433206272_o_288780975052133.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/40406718_288781251718772_5349829599112986624_o_288781245052106.jpg photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/40390788_288781041718793_8816571091267878912_o_288781038385460.jpg NO MORE LIES ON RACE
RACES EXIST, ARE MEANINGFULLY DIFFERENT, AND IMPORTANTLY SO.
THE IMMATERIALITY OF RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION (LIE) TO DESTROY GREAT CIVILIZATIONS
1 – The Four Major Races: Caucasoid (West Eurasian), Mongoloid(East Eurasian), Australoid (Pacific), and Negroid (African).
2 – The West Asian (Caucasoid) Macro Race: Includes the (extinct) peoples of north africa, the levant, and the steppe.
3 – The Indo European Major Races (European – Iranic – Indian ): Includes the (extinct) peoples of india, the Iranic and what we consider the turkic branch (as well as others)
4 – 750M: White “Loosely” European Peoples (Subrace) means ‘european christendom’ which includes southern europeans: southern spain, the boot of italy, the byzantine balkans who are of anatolian rather than russo-ukrainian origins.
5 – 450M: White “Narrowly” Northern European Peoples (Minor Race) means descendants of atlantic, germanic, and slavic europeans from france to the urals, of aristotelian(atheist), protestant, catholic, and Orthodox backgrounds, who are primarily the descendents of russo-ukrainian, and built their civilization in the cold.
White nationalists, and white identitarians use the narrow definition. When the rest of us refer to european civilization we use the looser definition.
BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD BEFORE
I’ve answered this question before (it’s a repeat). There are about 450M Northern European ‘white’ people. (atlantics, germanics, northern and eastern slavs) If we include earlier generations such as southern europeans (anatolians), and old europe (balkans) are about 750M white people. (FWIW: The white population of the united states is around 190m.)
Quote from a specialist:
—“The truth is that anyone who can read a PCA-plot will know that Europe is genetically divided into two different categories and that is North and South European, with the latter being less homogenous and closer to the Middle East in terms of FST-distance, which strengthens the idea that Southern Europe has received gene flow from West Asia. This becomes more evident when you see that Sardinians do not express this pattern (pulling toward the Middle East) despite having no Steppe ancestry.
With that being said, you should take a look at the plot I attached by Lazaridis et al (2016) which showcases the intra-European division. Ignore the non-European clusters. What you will see is that Chris’ theory of Italy and Spain being supposedly half-White is null and void, although admittedly there is South-North cline within Italy (since Italy is the country with the highest genetic diversity in Europe).
The point is that even the northern part of Italy is well within the Southern European genetic continuum. The only country which has a legitimate North Europe-South Europe crossover cline is France.”—
EUROPEAN GENETIC PLOT
(Attached)
WEST EURASIAN GENETIC PLOT
(Attached)
WORLD GENETIC PLOT
(attached)
THE PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC ATTACK ON CIVILIZATION.
The curse of postmodern pseudoscience in most of the other answers. Postmodernism like Marxism was designed, like Abrahamic Religions, as an attack on European Peoples (civilization), to eradicate our civlization in the modern world just as Abrahamic religion was used to eradicate the five great civilizations of the ancient world: Roman New Europe), Byzantine (old europe), Anatolian, Persian (Iranic), Egyptian, and North African. All those civilizations were destroyed by the last attempt at cultural destruction.
Why? Marxism/Postmodernism in the modern world, and Abrahamic Religion in the ancient world foster dysgenic rapid reproduction of the underclasses reversing genetic domestication under small farm mixed agrarianism, effectively weaponizing reproduction and ignorance and superstition against civilization.
There are reasons that the Han, Koreans,Japanese and Europeans succeeded and other civilizations failed to maintain rates of innovation. The reason is that the Han, Koreans and Japanese remained insular and homogeneous, and whites succeed as long as they also remain homogeneous and practice eugenic reproduction through manorialism (meritocracy).
The rest of the world did the opposite and the sizes of their underclasses pose such a burden that they cannot produce sufficient middle and upper classes to produce high trust commercially successful political orders.
THE REALITY OF RACES, SUBRACES, MINOR RACES
Races, Subraces, Tribes, Clans, Families and Classes can interbreed, but differences matter. The primary differences are the degree of neoteny (white and east asian) vs deeper maturity (semites, iranics, africans, and australoids), the more feminine or masculine structure of the brain (yes really), and the size of the underclass due largely to winter climates, manorial farming, and close cohabitation in winters while caring for animals. (Or in the european and chinese cases, aggressive use of criminal punishment – particularly european hanging of large portions of the underclasses every generation).
Using size of class, degree of neoteny or maturity, and balance of masculine and feminine traits, each of the Races, Subraces, an sometimes Tribes, has evolved (adapted) for certain excellences that are geography, climate, means of production, and method of socialization dependent.
Human domestication like animal domestication, uses neotonic selection to suppress sexual maturity and preserve the features and cooperative intuitions of youth. The goal for any polity is to increase intelligence, industriousness, and trust. Counter to our assumptions the San (the oldest continuous tribe) were more gentle, and humans appear to have become increasingly AGGRESSIVE in some regions and increasingly GENTLE in other regions, which is easily measurable by group testosterone distributions, rates and ages of maturity, and ‘hardiness’ of features (deeper maturity). By the upward redistribution of reproduction (china, europe, and jewish) you increase the distribution of neoteny in the public largely by the reduction of rates of reproduction of the underclasses. The simple fact is that many people are a harm to their fellows simply because they are a drag on norms, laws, traditions, values, and institutions, literacy, technology, and the work force capacity – perhaps most importantly making a sufficient middle class to produce a voluntary organization of possible impossible, and forcing the dependence upon familial corruption (india, south america, south europe, all of islam) despite access to trade routes.
THE OPTIMUM POLITICAL ORDER
The optimum political order is homogenous – diversity is always and everywhere bad for obvious and well documented reasons. It trades short term profits for long term costs that destroy the political order and reduce it to levantine, south american, and indian levels of poverty and corruption.
The optimum political order is Small – The only value of scale military power to exploit others. The only value of federations is to produce defense of trade routes and prohibit rent seeking (corruption) on those trade routes.
THE EUGENICISTS WERE RIGHT.
And any group of size (the east asians) who succeed will leave the rest of the world behind. The europeans managed by the late middle ages to nearly eliminate their underclasses. This is why european intelligence is dropping (the flynn effect is reversing). Not because of individuals. But because of restoration of their underclasses. If Norway can lose IQ (they have) then any group can.
Smarter people are more moral – simply because they can afford to be.
“NO MORE LIES”


Source date (UTC): 2018-08-30 20:05:00 UTC
-
Women are disloyal to the tribe. period. The reasons for this are evolutionary
Women are disloyal to the tribe. period. The reasons for this are evolutionary.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-30 02:04:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034985153167335425
Reply addressees: @SmashMarxCult @jboschredux @BlackDawning
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034778561088053248
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034778561088053248
-
Of course. wealth and lack of enforced norms allow us to explore the extremes of
Of course. wealth and lack of enforced norms allow us to explore the extremes of our intuitions. Women never satisfied with last month’s fashion will always innovate in order to attract attention and feel they are ‘giving’ somehow.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-30 02:03:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034985036737597440
Reply addressees: @SmashMarxCult @jboschredux @BlackDawning
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034778561088053248
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034778561088053248
-
The Mythology that We Have Constructed to Justify Marriage as A Norm, No Longer Holds
—“Darn it, women are just awful, aren’t they? Still, chin-up, boys…wont be long until you lean, mean, problem solving machines successfully master artificial wombs and then you can be rid of the dead weight of womanhood.”— Lisa Outhwaite That’s not true. Women are WONDERFUL. It’s just that the MYTHOLOGY that we have constructed to justify marriage as a norm, no longer HOLDS, and the postmodern and feminist mythology is FALSE. Ergo, given our different reproductive strategies, different moral and preferential intuitions GIVEN those different and competing strategies, and the amount of agency we have in the interpersonal and political-military spheres of cognition, then we must find a means of cooperating now that the family has been destroyed by marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and the leftist (marxist-postmodernist) attack on western civilizations institutions of truth duty reciprocity, family civil society (voluntary production of commons). I mean, women have no idea that they are giving judaism and islam a foundation in this era just as they did in the ancient world, and are in the process of destroying the civilization in this era just as they did in the ancient. Men vote red. non-whites vote blue. and most white women defect blue. The only defectors are white women. Yet we have the only civilization that blues are trying to invade and be a part of.
-
The Mythology that We Have Constructed to Justify Marriage as A Norm, No Longer Holds
—“Darn it, women are just awful, aren’t they? Still, chin-up, boys…wont be long until you lean, mean, problem solving machines successfully master artificial wombs and then you can be rid of the dead weight of womanhood.”— Lisa Outhwaite That’s not true. Women are WONDERFUL. It’s just that the MYTHOLOGY that we have constructed to justify marriage as a norm, no longer HOLDS, and the postmodern and feminist mythology is FALSE. Ergo, given our different reproductive strategies, different moral and preferential intuitions GIVEN those different and competing strategies, and the amount of agency we have in the interpersonal and political-military spheres of cognition, then we must find a means of cooperating now that the family has been destroyed by marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and the leftist (marxist-postmodernist) attack on western civilizations institutions of truth duty reciprocity, family civil society (voluntary production of commons). I mean, women have no idea that they are giving judaism and islam a foundation in this era just as they did in the ancient world, and are in the process of destroying the civilization in this era just as they did in the ancient. Men vote red. non-whites vote blue. and most white women defect blue. The only defectors are white women. Yet we have the only civilization that blues are trying to invade and be a part of.
-
Left(F) -vs.- Right(M) Behavioral Differences
The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a pack. Furthermore we choose our pack leaders, and we choose our packs, and our pack propaganda (signaling) and strategy (directness) by what we perceive as actionable and voluntary. And as such we form packs by class, and by class within age groups although they appear to be only younger(direct and tactical) and older(indirect and strategic) – as our energies (direct) and experience (indirect) warrant But whereas the left can be opportunistic, and the herd will follow opportunities. The right can be opportunistic, but will seize fewer opportunities, requiring more momentum and urgency for critical mass. And whereas the left herd follows opportunities they are opportunities against the right. Whereas the right packs seek only those opportunities to resist the left’s parasitism. So this is why I am still struggling with the Natsoc, WN, working classes – and for no reason. They need an opportunity to obtain what they want. But they can do nothing other than fight. So we are in a much harder position than the left. We are operating from a position of defense, and we have a harder time pulling together enough allies on critical mass, unless there is an event that provides possible movement for all. The herd all speaks the same language. The packs don’t.
-
Left(F) -vs.- Right(M) Behavioral Differences
The more left(feminine) we intuit the more we seek conformity with the herd. The more right (masculine) we intuit, the more we seek allies in a pack. Furthermore we choose our pack leaders, and we choose our packs, and our pack propaganda (signaling) and strategy (directness) by what we perceive as actionable and voluntary. And as such we form packs by class, and by class within age groups although they appear to be only younger(direct and tactical) and older(indirect and strategic) – as our energies (direct) and experience (indirect) warrant But whereas the left can be opportunistic, and the herd will follow opportunities. The right can be opportunistic, but will seize fewer opportunities, requiring more momentum and urgency for critical mass. And whereas the left herd follows opportunities they are opportunities against the right. Whereas the right packs seek only those opportunities to resist the left’s parasitism. So this is why I am still struggling with the Natsoc, WN, working classes – and for no reason. They need an opportunity to obtain what they want. But they can do nothing other than fight. So we are in a much harder position than the left. We are operating from a position of defense, and we have a harder time pulling together enough allies on critical mass, unless there is an event that provides possible movement for all. The herd all speaks the same language. The packs don’t.
-
ORIGINS OF THE “INFANTILE GENERATION” As far as I know: 1) The last generation e
ORIGINS OF THE “INFANTILE GENERATION”
As far as I know:
1) The last generation educated under pre-postmodern teachers and professors has been exiting participation (people are now in… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288310805099150&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 15:41:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034828395807424512