As I have said, as far as I know I’m the existing expert on the sex differences in perception cognition and speech – particularly in deception – and I recognize that the ashkenazim are employing the female means of sedition. The question is whether like women it’s genetic (neurological) or cultural or both. I assume it’s both since it doesn’t dissipate with outbreeding.
Regardless, I do not see the world lacking women, nor the absence of the feminine cognition in other populations.
I just want to know what to do about their sedition in an era where we have hyper-regulated male anti-social and anti-political behavior but enabled and encoursaged the female versions of it.
The present civilizational crisis is the result of the combination of the introgression of jewish thought combined with the introgression of women into the franchise and the economy.
It’s simple really. The question is what do we do to accomodate evolutionary differences that may be almost impossible to regulate?
Core Sex Differences: Female Hyperconsumption in Time vs Male Hypercapitalization Over Time
Below is an operational list of female hyperconsumption in time versus male hypercapitalization over time.
I treat these as strategy clusters under different constraints: short-horizon status/security optimization (consumption) versus long-horizon control/optionality optimization (capitalization). Both sexes do both; the claim is about modal tendencies under typical mating/coalitional incentives and market affordances.
1) Appearance → social leverage (fast depreciation, constant refresh)
Cosmetics, skincare stacks, “routine inflation” (new actives, devices)
A SAD INSIGHT INTO MARRIAGE While women will be attracted to men of agency (power) that provides them with security and consumption, the degree of that asymmetry of ‘power’ determines how the degree of defensiveness to hostility she will treat you upon breakup or divorce. Like most men I love all my ex’s. The opposite isn’t true. And if it is, then the asymmetry of power wasn’t and isn’t present. How do the sexes manage to get along without the need for reciprocal caretaking? We know ‘marriage’ is a product of agrarianism and it’s demand for property (assets) as a guarantor of survival. But will we continue to regress to serial monogamy and destroy the institution of the family that is necessary for the high investment parenting that makes a complex civil society possible? Because it turns out that children from single mothers are effectively a danger to that order of civilization. Whereas single fathers will almost certainly remarry and restore the family order.
“IT JUST MIGHT BE THE CASE THAT WOMEN ARE MORE DISCONTENT THAN MEN ARE.” (relationships, divorce, the family) –“dissatisfaction that women experience is rooted in inappropriate expectations. Women have been sold a bill of goods about work and relationships. And when they find that dating and jobs don’t live up to these expectations, they tend to believe that there is something wrong with that particular relationship or with that particular company or with that particular culture or that particular worldview in which that particular relationship or company are operated rather than with their unrealistic expectations.”–
We’ve know it’s female neuroticism for decades. But the use of false promise in order to use women for political purposes against their own interests is not only the technique used by women – it’s the one used most against them. The combination of neuroticism, female pursuit of hyperconsumption (attention, novelty, consumption), and resulting dysregulation in the absence of social limitation (external regulation) has almost destroyed our civilization from within.
1) Women in the workforce 2) Women in universities consuming largely gut courses. Partly to do with the prohibition on IQ and personality tests for admission to jobs, which are trivial costs and produce the same selection process. 3) Creating debt sufficient to cover a house purchase. 4) To provide sufficient surplus to tax to pay for elites, to discourage saving, and to create dependency upon redistribution, that is close to bankrupting us because we are not producing sufficient children to pay off the debt. 5) The increases in mortgage duration raising housing prices and total costs. 6) Unnecessary concentration of population in cities creating spatial costs (housing) in order to access lower opportunity costs (proximity), made possible by debt both both personal and governmental. 7) Immigration suppressing entry level and low skill employment that effectively shift lifetime earnings for the natural population downward. 8) All suppressing the capacity to bear children. ANd while we think the cost of children has increased, it’s not meainingful. the increase has been about 16%. It’s the cost of everything else from housing, mortgages, appliances, cars, to taxes, and now to food and electricity that has increased while real wages (purchasing power) have remained stagnant. 1979 earnings equate to ~$1,039 weekly today—barely enough for one person’s modern living costs, let alone family expenses like child-rearing. To compare affordability, a 2025 family with two median earners (~$39,000 annual each, pre-tax) faces tighter budgets than in 1960, when one earner often sufficed.
Since 1960, the real (inflation-adjusted) total cost of raising a child to age 17 has increased by about 16% (from ~$202,000 to ~$234,000 in 2015 dollars), but this masks stark shifts across categories. Basic necessities like food and clothing have declined as shares of the total budget due to technological efficiencies, global supply chains, and economies of scale. In contrast, service-oriented categories like child care/education and health care have surged, driven by structural changes (e.g., more dual-income families needing child care, medical inflation) and rising expectations for child outcomes.
The bit ‘hits’ have been: – Health care: +155% – Child Care and Education: 1,175%
We have also passed the ‘solve consumption’ phase of the industrial revolution. We have entered the ‘signaling phase’ as consumption of goods and services has been exhausted even by the poor who have dishwashers and televisions and cars, despite that it makes us unhappy. We have made a future with our present benefits impossible by doing so.
The net net is that the total economic contribution of women to the work force, on top of spending 70% of household income, and consuming 70% of government services, has resulted in debt provision for education, radical expense inflation for children, destroyed dating, marriage, and the family, while married white men over 35 are the only net contributors to taxation (consume less than they produce).
We can’t afford women in the workforce at the cost of bearing children because it’s all consumed by taxes and child and healthcare.
Sharon, I am not only a fan of intelligent women, I’ve dated or married them. The problem is, you are, as a woman, neither educated nor trained, since you are demonstrating one of the most common female cognitive biases which is inverting the true for the preferable.
You do this because you resist adaptation. You resist adaptation because it would force you to rely on reason instead of instinct and intuition. Your instinct and intuition are female.
As far as I know I’m the world’s foremost expert in sex differences in cognition applied to deceptive negotiation. You don’t even know you’re engaged in magical thinking.
The origin of our bias is the instinct to give children time to adapt rather than be ostracized, left behind, or worse. You just think it’s reason. Its not. Mostly it’s the organization of the female brain in favor of in-time empathizing instead of over-time systematizing combined with a healthy dose of oxytocin. You would notice a significant change in you upon your third or fourth child, and certainly the more traditional fifth or sixth – at which time the resolution of conflicts between your children would force you into the male systemizing frame of reference.
Trump might be whatever unpleasant term you label him with – the fact is that he’s correct in just about every policy he implements. FWIW: You are simply demonstrating the female cognitive bias by concerning yourself with his likability instead of his policies. And if you disagree with his policies you’re either wrong or immoral or both. Mommy-instincts exist for the survival of fragile children and do not scale to social, economic, political, or geostrategic ends. The fact that you don’t know this and/or can’t internalize it is a failure of either your upbringing or education or both.
1) IQ is the most accurate measure in psychology 2) Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science. 3) Neoteny is the most accurate measure in biology.
