Jan 29, 2020, 10:48 AM by Sysy Carolina Muñoz If my husband has too many boxes open, I have learned to leave him alone and see what I can solve on my own. Usually, I can do more than I initially think and he appreciates getting to work on things without my interference/interruption. I can tell when he has plenty of boxes open because he has to ignore me for a while. I used to take it personally, now I know it’s just his multiple problem-solving mode. The sooner I leave him to it, the sooner his attention comes back. And if I absolutely need him to work on a certain box, it’s true, I just have to get his attention and to do that I have to be feminine and direct. Works every time.
Theme: Sex Differences
-
Genetics Are All That Matters: Murray, Plomin, Reich, Cochran, and Gobineu
by Tom Creo Prof Robert Plomin, best behavioral and population geneticist on the planet, summarises 40 years of behavioral and population genetics in his wonderful book “Blueprint” last year. Despite being a massive leftist he states that it is definitive that, in the West at least, it is genetics that makes us who we are and that the environmental contributions to each of us are random noise; unknowable, unpredictable, and uncontrollable in principle. There are essentially no systemic or institutional environmental effects on individual’s in the West. If there was this research would have found it by now – and as we all know leftist geneticists are highly ideologically incentivised to look for it. Genetics is indeed all that matters. THE FOUR MOST USEFUL BOOKS Charles Murray’s Human Diversity Blueprint: Robert Reich Who We Are And How We Got Here Greg Cochran’s 10000 Year Explosion Of Course The Book That Was Right All Along: THe causes of war: the inequality of the races.
-
Genetics Are All That Matters: Murray, Plomin, Reich, Cochran, and Gobineu
by Tom Creo Prof Robert Plomin, best behavioral and population geneticist on the planet, summarises 40 years of behavioral and population genetics in his wonderful book “Blueprint” last year. Despite being a massive leftist he states that it is definitive that, in the West at least, it is genetics that makes us who we are and that the environmental contributions to each of us are random noise; unknowable, unpredictable, and uncontrollable in principle. There are essentially no systemic or institutional environmental effects on individual’s in the West. If there was this research would have found it by now – and as we all know leftist geneticists are highly ideologically incentivised to look for it. Genetics is indeed all that matters. THE FOUR MOST USEFUL BOOKS Charles Murray’s Human Diversity Blueprint: Robert Reich Who We Are And How We Got Here Greg Cochran’s 10000 Year Explosion Of Course The Book That Was Right All Along: THe causes of war: the inequality of the races.
-
Jan 30, 2020, 2:59 PM Women don’t romance, they seduce, and they desire to be ro
Jan 30, 2020, 2:59 PM
Women don’t romance, they seduce, and they desire to be romanced. Romancing is the human male version of displaying peacock feathers.
-
Jan 30, 2020, 2:59 PM Women don’t romance, they seduce, and they desire to be ro
Jan 30, 2020, 2:59 PM
Women don’t romance, they seduce, and they desire to be romanced. Romancing is the human male version of displaying peacock feathers.
-
Mating criticism
Jan 31, 2020, 1:42 PM Mating criticism from both sides is caused by the same problems. It overstates the sex maybe, underestimates the entertainment, friendship, and economic qualities – and how temporary entertainment, and social goods are compared to economic and friendship. Then, because of the overweight average, the lack of exercise, the safe-i-fication of sports, the suppression of male dominance play, and agitation of female victimhood, the percent of moderately desirable men and women has decreased. Yes, high performance women are of no value to men and they have to settle. Yes, low value men are not valuable to women (or men). And women ride the c–ck carousel as the article suggests only to discover it lowers their chances of successful relationships, and their value to quality men. Frankly? too many men and too many women are undesirable for very obvious reasons. This leaves high performance men holding all the cards.
-
Mating criticism
Jan 31, 2020, 1:42 PM Mating criticism from both sides is caused by the same problems. It overstates the sex maybe, underestimates the entertainment, friendship, and economic qualities – and how temporary entertainment, and social goods are compared to economic and friendship. Then, because of the overweight average, the lack of exercise, the safe-i-fication of sports, the suppression of male dominance play, and agitation of female victimhood, the percent of moderately desirable men and women has decreased. Yes, high performance women are of no value to men and they have to settle. Yes, low value men are not valuable to women (or men). And women ride the c–ck carousel as the article suggests only to discover it lowers their chances of successful relationships, and their value to quality men. Frankly? too many men and too many women are undesirable for very obvious reasons. This leaves high performance men holding all the cards.
-
The Use of Art
by Tim Beckley
RE: —“What do you mean by meeting the demand of female preference ourselves?”—
The short answer is that there’s a natural demand for art among all people, and particularly those with a strong feminine cognitive bias. But the subversion of the West by Marxism/Feminism/POMOism in our very recent history involved the relinquishing of our arts to our enemies. They also happen to have a strong feminine bias and so it’s not surprising that they gravitate toward the creative industries, and given their other strengths, are quickly overrepresented. Predictably, most of the art (pseudoart) that they produce is either unintentionally or intentionally subversive. What’s worse is that they’ve successfully monopolized the markets in film, music, fiction, visual arts, performance, all of it, and are now busily making art of the news, science, history, politics, and law as well. That our women and others in our cognitively feminine classes should become hostile in response to the increasingly hateful and dishonest representations of our cultural shouldn’t be too surprising either. My suggestion is that we recognize the importance of the arts and invest accordingly. I see them as an essential means of information exchange, one that not only reveals the psychological (or spiritual, in archaic parlance) condition of our various populations, but also provides a highly effective way of influencing their behavior. The female brain evolved a highly empathic capacity that seeks connection and group cohesion. The arts evolved to help meet this demand. Properly functioning, they unify the group and make the cognitively feminine feel secure. Arts in the hands of our enemies do the opposite, largely by design.
—“Outstanding thanks. Of course the first question that comes to mind is something like, “How do people with hard-wired masculine thought processes adjust to the world of making dramas that have enough of the soap opera element to keep women interested?” Good music actually has always had a sort of right-wing undercurrent because the reality principle applies ruthlessly: People only listen to it if it’s not just good but GREAT. Hence so many of the best 60s guitar players gradually oozed into becoming right wingers.”—Michael Churchill
-
The Use of Art
by Tim Beckley
RE: —“What do you mean by meeting the demand of female preference ourselves?”—
The short answer is that there’s a natural demand for art among all people, and particularly those with a strong feminine cognitive bias. But the subversion of the West by Marxism/Feminism/POMOism in our very recent history involved the relinquishing of our arts to our enemies. They also happen to have a strong feminine bias and so it’s not surprising that they gravitate toward the creative industries, and given their other strengths, are quickly overrepresented. Predictably, most of the art (pseudoart) that they produce is either unintentionally or intentionally subversive. What’s worse is that they’ve successfully monopolized the markets in film, music, fiction, visual arts, performance, all of it, and are now busily making art of the news, science, history, politics, and law as well. That our women and others in our cognitively feminine classes should become hostile in response to the increasingly hateful and dishonest representations of our cultural shouldn’t be too surprising either. My suggestion is that we recognize the importance of the arts and invest accordingly. I see them as an essential means of information exchange, one that not only reveals the psychological (or spiritual, in archaic parlance) condition of our various populations, but also provides a highly effective way of influencing their behavior. The female brain evolved a highly empathic capacity that seeks connection and group cohesion. The arts evolved to help meet this demand. Properly functioning, they unify the group and make the cognitively feminine feel secure. Arts in the hands of our enemies do the opposite, largely by design.
—“Outstanding thanks. Of course the first question that comes to mind is something like, “How do people with hard-wired masculine thought processes adjust to the world of making dramas that have enough of the soap opera element to keep women interested?” Good music actually has always had a sort of right-wing undercurrent because the reality principle applies ruthlessly: People only listen to it if it’s not just good but GREAT. Hence so many of the best 60s guitar players gradually oozed into becoming right wingers.”—Michael Churchill
-
Lumping Abrahamic Religons
Jan 31, 2020, 8:37 PM by Anne Summers with Curt
[That collection of posts on Christianity] only explains / compares female/r capacity and ethnic judaic group strategy. I still don’t see what exactly Christianity is in this. On the one hand Christianity is founded by a pretty alright dude (Jesus) who, for the most part got things right. His teachings seem a bit too radicle for his Semite Bros and are accepted into (found compatible enough for the [female] population of Europe).
( CD: Correct. )
You seem to lump all three religions together in tone as well as origin. I see the origins a little different… Judaic was K and converted to r and subterfuge for survival. Islam started out r and turned feral (Mohamed is very r) and Christianity is (In my opinion) full on K. Human individualism is a constant act of sin against the commons. It takes self sacrifice to correct the damage done to the commons. I grant that there are a lot of christians who are r, or deeply poisoned by Marxist culturalism. I can’t speak for them. And maybe, in a way my questioning you and partially answering my own questions has clarified my own take on Christianity. Thanks for such an opportunity of the thought dive.
Very, very, good Anne Summers Damn. Impressed. As for this quote:
—“You seem to lump all three religions together in tone as well as origin. I see the origins a little different… Judaic was K and converted to r and subterfuge for survival. “—
Because I disambiguate the method of arguing the religion with the content of it. The content is fine. But the abrahamic method of deceit that is used to create the monotheistic religions is the same method used to create the false promises and undermining of marxism, cultural marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and politcal correctness (denialism). So if I want to end that category of lying and protect our people from undermining by the false promise of abrahamic deceit, then I am sort of stuck with scientifically explaining christianity, following jefferson’s example of the Jeffferson Bible ( thin new testament) and discovering some way of combining our ancestral religions so that we get the benefits of them without the cancer of abrahamism. So that is what you’re not seeing. And that’s why it’s not making sense to you.