Why are conservative women so sane and good company?
Why aren’t there more of them?
(Thank god for the female friends I have.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 17:33:00 UTC
Why are conservative women so sane and good company?
Why aren’t there more of them?
(Thank god for the female friends I have.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 17:33:00 UTC
(speculative uncomfortableness)
—“What do you think is the evolutionary reason for Jews exhibiting relatively poor spatial aptitude when compared to European gentiles? I understand the basis for the selective pressure within Jewish communities for a certain level of verbal and math prowess, I’m just lost why that didn’t carry over to visuospatial ability?”—
The only theory that makes any sense and corresponds with the data, is that they selected for feminine traits in men: memory for memorizing the doctrine, and verbal acumen for arguing Jewish laws, and interpreting scripture, and dealing with contracts – as well as perception in judging character. This is probably why they have such a high percentage of homosexuals, and even heterosexual often Jews exhibit what we think of as feminine traits: hence the (admittedly exaggerated) principle: “All Jews are female”.
Imagine that out of every 150 people we got the smartest guy to have as many kids as we could afford, to pay for, as long as he would teach us his knowledge in exchagne, and act as a judge in matters of dispute? How many generations would that take? It takes a lot fewer than you’d think. Humans evolve quickly under intentional selection. In just two hundred years the affect would be dramatic.
So Jews started out as a Semitic people, meaning with higher alertness (which is interesting) and higher aggression, and then some moved to the west, married western wives, within just a generation or two started inbreeding, and use extremely (good) eugenic reproduction, but selected for what we call feminine traits: memory and excellence at expression.
Why do jews pursue a female reproductive strategy? (rallying and shaming, running, and … well, not engaging in the most productive of businesses so to speak). Becuase it’s high return.
So, they evolved themselves to do so. The reason is lost in history, but pastoral sheep herders from arid regions tend to have many competitors and demonstrate (high) particularlism. The group has NEVER been able to hold a decent military, nor hold property for long periods. Nor form a durable, advanced, centralized government.
We evolved to pursue a relatively balanced relationship between males and females for reasons that I think we understand. Scarce populations in cold climates are more dependent upon one another.
The asians we do not know the reason for their skill set, other than they have dramatically lowered their testosterone and sexual maturity and obtained longer lives for doing so.
Muslims chose a more masculine one. Exaggeratedly so, and did so LATE in history, so like any technology they have the most recent.
(each group’s history is pretty interesting in this regard).
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 15:07:00 UTC
Property, Family, Clan, Tribe, and Nation are unnatural to women.
They are the means by which we domesticated them.
And they rebel against them whenever given the opportunity.
We evolved to kill competitors to capture, herd, and domesticate women so that we could control our reproduction.
Women are universalist for the simple reason that they are always captors, and so they seek the most secure captor.
Why does this matter? Because we are exceptionally good at domesticating males – they’re much more dangerous in the short term. But we forget that while we developed many institutions to domesticate males, we created just as many to domesticate women.
It is also true that the purpose of monogamy was to domesticate undesirable males.
This asymmetry between women and men and marriage is the institutional problem we have not yet solved.
Many more men are undesirable than women are undesirable.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 14:37:00 UTC
NOT BEATING THE DOG, WOMAN, PROLE, INVADER
I don’t beat a dog for licking its ass. It’s a dog. I train it to stop doing it in my presence.
I don’t beat a woman for short sighted solipsistic moralism. She’s a woman. I ask her to stop doing it in my presence.
I don’t beat a prole for his impulsivity. It’s a prole. I demand by threat of force, that he stop doing it in my neighborhood.
I don’t beat a minority here for pursuing its interests. It’s a minority with competing interests. I demand by force of exit, imprisonment, or death it to stop doing it in my territory.
I don’t beat my fellow warriors for letting dogs, women, proles, and minorities act uncivilized it in our nation. They’re fellow warriors. Instead, I criticise them for their laziness in suffering the licking of asses, the solipsism of women, the impulsivity of proles, and the conquest by minorities of our nation.
Rule at high cost, and profit from it. Or be ruled at your cost, and suffer from it.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-25 10:13:00 UTC
The bias for SELECTING an ideology that advances one’s reproductive strategy IS genetic. And, that’s what we do.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-24 16:18:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790588322871668737
Reply addressees: @SemperLiberum @RotCleanse
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/790586505668337664
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/790586505668337664
WOMEN vs MEN : DIVISION OF PERCEPTION AND COGNITION
………………..CONCEPTUAL….MORAL……..FRAME?
WOMEN =…Generalists……….Specialists….The Present
MEN = ……..Specialists………..Generalists…The future
WOMEN: Cooperation at temporal distance requires consensus on consumption. Females seek agreement.
MEN: Calculation at inter-temporal distance requires specialization and competition between outcomes. Men seek Truth.
Brains are limited in their capacity. Genders specialize in the near and the far. It’s really that simple. Are they distributions? Yes. But distributions illustrates averages and medians.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-23 14:32:00 UTC
LIMITED OVERLAP BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN
—Q&A “Men outnumber women 9:1 on my FB account. I wonder why?”— (a male friend)
It’s because women have interests that are only 10% of an overlap with the interests of men. If the overlap is greater than 10%, then either women are trying to attract men, or men are trying to attract women – either not necessarily for just mating, but for social, economic, and political reasons.
That’s the answer, we aren’t equal in any respect other than our ability to cooperate despite our limited overlap in interests.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-23 10:19:00 UTC
RT @sapinker: The sociological religion of no biological differences between the sexes « Why Evolution Is True https://goo.gl/TJG8Tr
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 10:50:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/789056265498595328
https://t.co/pYojn9neOXRetweeted Steven Pinker (@sapinker):
The sociological religion of no biological differences between the sexes « Why Evolution Is True
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-20 06:54:00 UTC
STRATEGIES NOT STEADY STATES
Communism
…. (lower class – short term – consumption – r-selection )
…. (mandatory consumption)
…. (reproductive offense – distribution of assets )
…. (strength in numbers)
Market Government
…. (middle class – medium term – production)
…. (mandatory exchange)
…. (productive offense – market exchange of assets)
…. (strength in adaptation/evolution)
Fascism
…. (upper class – long term – preservation – K-selection)
…. (mandatory production/contribution)
…. (organizational offense – concentration of assets)
…. (strength in ability[resources])
Innovative < —————- > Defensive
…. …. …. Communism (universalism) (impossible)
…. …. Socialism (competitively impossible)
…. Social Democracy (possible as long as competitive)
Market Government (Trade) …. Anarchism (impossible)
….Classical-Liberalism, (competitively possible)
…. ….Christian Monarchism (competitively possible)
…. …. ….Fascism (particularism)
We alter between these strategies as our prosperity allows.
—Curt
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-15 16:03:00 UTC