We have lost a full standard deviation of intelligence above the Hajnal Line in the past 150 years due to reversal. We’re just about to cross the line of 97 in the USA, and evidence is that 95 and 93 are cliff effects that are unrecoverable. That’s before personality trait diffs.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 17:24:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229094235783258113
Reply addressees: @drjulie_b
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228972722061021184
Julie you are a typical product of the feminist postmodern pseudoscience movement.
(a) Eugenics would work.
(b) So would many other things we don’t do. Even genocide works – it’s the most effective historical means of evolutionary competition.
We don’t do it.
SO STOP LYING.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 17:20:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229093241041145857
Reply addressees: @drjulie_b
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228950726598168576
Breakfast. Couple. Twenties. Man clearly lifts big and often. Women, very scary hot feminine. I feel need to do my thing (talk him up). Put my hand on his shoulder. Look at her “Now THIS is a man.” Look at him. “You know man, you’re looking good. But you make short guys like me feel like we can’t compete. It’ hard on us man. Mercy?” Him: “We’re all men”. (I am thrilled at this man-tier response). Me: “Well, you two need to have lots of kids. Do the world a favor. We need you to help us out.” (thankful laughter). I move on quickly without waiting for a response.
Breakfast. Another couple. “Damn you two are good looking. Do the rest of us a favor. Have lots of kids. Make the world a beautiful place”. Girl: (blush). I move on. Guy: to my back “I’ll get working on it”. (laughter)
Breakfast. Two little old ladies. (70’s or 80’s). Dressed for church. Me: “Well, I didn’t realize there were so many good looking women around here. How are you today?” (smiles) One: “I know your mother. I lived around the corner on — street.” Me: “And you’re talking to me? You can’t know her very well.” (more chit chat).
Attention, kindness, compliment, and humor are the cheapest means of contributing to the commons and it always works as long as you are dressed well and aren’t looking for confirmation or attention in return. It’s got to be charity.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 14:36:00 UTC
A central premise of my work is that the two successful civilizations – east and west – practiced soft (farm, manor, credit) eugenics, and that this explains the (vast) differences in the levels of domestication of the racial subracial and ethnic groups. Ending it ended civ. https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1228943686953664512
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 14:10:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229045294286999556
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1228943686953664512
Who produced pseudoscience and sophistry for the academic market? Are women the source of, or market for, academic pseudoscience and sophism?
Math: Cantor-Bohr-Einstein, Man: Boas-Freud, Econ: Marx-Mises, Culture: Adorno-Fromm, Philosophy: Derrida, Feminism: Friedan, Neocons: Trotsky-S…-Crystal and Rothbard/Rand are the innovators – but Europeans readily jump on the opportunity for advancement by pseudoscience and sophism.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-16 12:36:00 UTC
RT @JayMan471: But, as others have noted, much of modern feminism is neuroticism (and good old misandry) masquerading as victimhood.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-15 22:18:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1228805875286102018
https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/biologists-wsj-only-two-sexes-male-and-female-there-no-sex-spectrum?fbclid=IwAR2oA7JRn2db9DyI5Hkjlv3UcO3NZgqdJxr2CIZ7wMhC61zTu_OkkCARw2A#utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_campaign=b-WSJ2BiologistsSayOnly2Sexesby @[100042296131950:2048:Predmetsky Rosenborg]
There is atypical variation in unusual cases like Klinefelter’s syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities, but these are rare, and they rarely impact phenotypic presentation significantly, and they are objective rather than having anything to do with subjective “identification”
===
CD: the constitution states that there are only two sexes. It also states the difference between marriage (insured for the production of children) and partnership (personal consumption).Updated Feb 15, 2020, 8:13 AM
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-15 08:13:00 UTC
THE LIMITS OF P IN MATE RELATIONSHIPS
—“I’ve falling in love with the phrase, “Baiting into hazard”. I use it on my wife almost daily. She looks at me funny. That’s ok, she can’t help it. It’s genetic.”—@EricLiford
[W]omen function by seduction of men by sex and affection; women by attention, cooperation, alliance, and insurance; and children by affection, information, care taking, dependency, and protection. So trying to get women to stop using seduction will just masculinize them and lose all their value as the central unit of family and social cooperation. The question isn’t whether women are seducing you, but whether the promise offered by their seduction is true. Just don’t lie to each other. It’s not complicated. You will find both men and women who make false promises in order to obtain discounts on acquisition of experience, information, cooperation, consumption, or capital. Men have only loyalty and strength women have only devotion and seduction. Let women be women. Encourage them to be women. The more seduction in the world the more wonderful it is. The only question is whether it’s a false promise or a truthful reciprocal, warrantied offer of exchange.
THE LIMITS OF P IN MATE RELATIONSHIPS
—“I’ve falling in love with the phrase, “Baiting into hazard”. I use it on my wife almost daily. She looks at me funny. That’s ok, she can’t help it. It’s genetic.”—@EricLiford
[W]omen function by seduction of men by sex and affection; women by attention, cooperation, alliance, and insurance; and children by affection, information, care taking, dependency, and protection. So trying to get women to stop using seduction will just masculinize them and lose all their value as the central unit of family and social cooperation. The question isn’t whether women are seducing you, but whether the promise offered by their seduction is true. Just don’t lie to each other. It’s not complicated. You will find both men and women who make false promises in order to obtain discounts on acquisition of experience, information, cooperation, consumption, or capital. Men have only loyalty and strength women have only devotion and seduction. Let women be women. Encourage them to be women. The more seduction in the world the more wonderful it is. The only question is whether it’s a false promise or a truthful reciprocal, warrantied offer of exchange.
Feb 13, 2020, 2:38 PM by James Dmitro Makienko [M]y wife is an aspie, and she is in a fashion industry, which is rife with GSRRM. She tried everything, until she “read Doolittle” (c) and learned some P-concepts. Mainly she uses a meta-term “manipulation” as a catch-all for GSRRM and other feminine cognition shit they use. She calls them out on manipulation. They usually respond with more GSRRM. Then she says “you are using ORRGSM+M(manipulation) to manipulate me into going against my interests, and I am not falling for it”. Then they try it again. She repeats herself and adds “and since you use manipulation, instead of logic and reason, you are a bad person, with a dark agenda, who is trying to take me for a fool, but I am not falling for it”. She keeps repeating it until manipulators run away – when you expose them they run out of options they can use. She also read up on dark triad traits on manipulative behaviors of sociopaths and narcissists and found things like “Framing” – (“if you are a good girl/christian/X you will do Y and go against your interests to serve my interests”) which are also used with GSRRM. Calmly exposing manipulative tactics with a precisely defined technical term works for her to disarm those who use GSRRM.