Genes do not control us directly; they only control us indirectly.
We individuals are a selfish machine programmed to do whatever is best for its genes as a whole. To a survival machine, another survival machine (which is not its own child or another close relative) is part of its environment, like a rock or a river or a lump of food. It is something that gets in the way, or something that can be exploited. It differs from a rock or a river in one important respect: it is inclined to hit back. This is because it too is a machine that holds its immortal genes in trust for the future, and it too will stop at nothing to preserve them. Natural selection favors genes that control their survival machines in such a way that they make the best use of their environment. This includes making the best use of other survival machines, both of the same and of different species.The logical policy for a survival machine might therefore seem to be to murder its rivals, and then, preferably, to eat them. Although murder and cannibalism do occur in nature, they are not as common as a naive interpretation of the selfish gene theory might predict.
But there are other ways in which the interests of individuals from different species conflict very sharply. For instance, a lion wants to eat an antelope's body, but the antelope has very different plans for its body. This is not normally regarded as competition for a resource, but logically it is hard to see why not. The resource in question is meat. The lion genes 'want' the meat as food for their survival machine. The antelope genes want the meat as working muscle and organs for their survival machine. These two uses for the meat are mutually incompatible, therefore there is conflict of interest.
this conflict of interest is what allowed us to evolve in the first place. Predators drive evolution forward. In a way, it forces prey to become faster, stronger, smarter, quicker than its predators in order for its biological survival machine to preserve its immortal genes into the future. and all the weaker or less genetically fit (incels) die off as a result of natural selection. so there is an evolutionary premium on building efficient survival machines of which to preserve its genes into the future in its particular environment.
The gene pool is the long-term environment of the gene. 'Good' genes are blindly selected as those that survive in the gene pool. This is not a theory; it is not even an observed fact: it is a tautology. The interesting question is what makes a gene good. As a first approximation I said that what makes a gene good is the ability to build efficient survival machines-bodies. We must now amend that statement. The gene pool will become an evolutionarily stable set of genes, defined as a gene pool that cannot be invaded by any new gene. Most new genes that arise, either by mutation or reassortment or immigration, are quickly penalized by natural selection: the evolutionarily stable set is restored. Occasionally a new gene does succeed in invading the set: it succeeds in spreading through the gene pool. There is a transitional period of instability, terminating in a new evolutionarily stable set: A little bit of evolution has occurred.
the way genes influence the central nervous system are far too complicated for us to comprehend, they involve tens of thousands of genes that can influence and determine individual traits and even more thousands of epigenetic influences. vastly too complicated for a human mind to decipher but I think in the future we may be using AI to understand these processes just a little bit better maybe even by only 1% but understanding the human mind just 1% is unprecedented progress.
and to give you a perspective on this, gene therapy can only replace or add a gene, or they can turn off genes and insert new genes. This therapy can cost up to $1 million or more and can be used to try to cure or treat genetic diseases. Now we still don't even remotely understand the genes that influence the development of the central nervous system LET ALONE do we even understand how the brain fully works. so, while gene therapy can be used to modify or change a single gene that causes a disease, it has nowhere near the capacity to functionally modify tens of thousands of genes to give a certain trait that influences the development of the central nervous. It is by far more complicated. and if not then impossible to do right now.
and even if we can functionally modify tens of thousands of genes there is no telling what side effects come with doing so. It could have tremendous side effects that we dont know of yet. for example, there are genes that remain dormant for long periods of time and we dont know what it does, if we decide to just "delete" that gene it could lead to fatal side effects if those genes are responsible for something very important.
A lot of things like personality and psychological traits are affected by genes. however, genes do not directly control the behavior of their survival machines, but indirectly like a computer programmer. All they can do is to set it up beforehand; then the survival machine on its own. This is due to time-lag. Genes take a lot of time to actually express. So, YOU fundamentally control your own behavior and the idea that the biological imperative or genetic predeterminism is at fault here would be incorrect.
The reason why they cannot manipulate our actions directly is the same: time-lags. Genes work by controlling protein synthesis. This is a powerful way of manipulating the world, but it is slow. It takes months of patiently pulling protein strings to build an embryo. The whole point about behavior, on the other hand, is that it is fast. It works on a time-scale not of months but of seconds and fractions of seconds.
Humans have evolved enough as a species to not be affected by psychological and biological predeterminism the same way it does to a lion and its own natural instincts, in a sense human are given the ability to exercise a limited amount of free will to do things. Animals, unlike most humans, are slaves to their instincts and reactions and simply cannot help themselves. If instinct says run, they run whether they are making a conscious choice to do it or otherwise. Instincts make it difficult for an animal to consider choices rather than just acting out which limits their own free will.
if you are an incel but your parents are normies; that means that you suffered from a genetic defect and poor prenatal development, and you can blame your parents.
if you are an incel and your parents are incels; then I guess you could blame society and women however, it's not really their fault because women are just expressing what their genes and brain has been biologically hardwired to express; The reason women feel disgust when they look at your face is because from an evolutionary point of view if a woman breeds with a subhuman incel that will lead to subhuman offspring (dysgenics) so there is an evolutionary premium on women finding your face utterly appalling and its only due to virtue signaling and societal conditioning that they do not outwardly express their hate and disgust towards you (which its not your fault that you are incels)
beauty is not subjective, beauty is just indicators of genetic fitness quality according to the good genes hypothesis. (The good genes hypothesis is a model of sexual selection that claims mate preferences for particular traits, e.g. for beauty, have evolved because these traits are reliable indicators of overall health and other 'good' genetic traits)
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9p2F2oa0_k
A Pottenger's cats study proves good genes hypothesis via transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of genetic diseases and disorders that are influenced primarily through diet and nutrition.
Have you ever heard of the quote "you are what you eat"? well, not only are you what you eat, but you are what your parents ate, and what your grandparents ate. Nutritional deficiencies lead to physiological degeneration and genetic diseases and disorders that are inherited transgenerationally. These compounding affects over 5 generations have led to dental deterioration, Neurological deterioration, mental illness, dental abnormalities, skeletal and bone structure changes, poorly developed zygomatic arch, and less athletic fitness AND THEY EVEN SHRUNK IN SIZE after eating cooked meat.
Surprisingly after each generation the pronunciation of physical malformities, impaired coordination led to sterility, size changes, weaker skull calcium density, weaker nasal development, smaller skulls, smaller brains, smaller penis, homosexuality (which is a mental illness not a sexuality) While the raw meat fed cats on the raw meat diet over 5 generations had stronger skeletal development, firmly developed bone structure on the face (kind of like a chad version of the cats) , stronger jawline, increased cognition, stronger bone structure, more athletically fit, stronger skeletal structure, sharper eyes AND THEY EVEN GREW IN SIZE.
this process of transgenerational physiological deterioration is reversible but only under great difficulty. I have no doubt that this same study could be conducted on humans and see how this affects bone development and even inceldom in humans.
so in theory it could affect the development of the zygomatic arch in humans and even jaw structure. It would be too inhumane and cruel to conduct these experiments on humans.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvQ5F6GCfgI&t=1s
he explains it well too:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ll4WkT3Bk
even in twin studies it shows that a large amount of things you do in your life are influenced by genetics:
"Two men who were identical twins and separated at birth first discovered each other's existence in their late 30s. Despite having no knowledge of each other, there were a striking number of similarities between the two. Both of these men were named Jim; one was Jim Lewis and the other was Jim Springer. Both of them had a first wife named Linda from whom they got divorced, and both remarried women named Betty. They both decided to make this second marriage work by leaving their wives love notes around the house. Additionally, each Jim had a son named James Alan and a dog named Toy. The similarities didn't stop there. They both enjoyed woodworking, stock-car racing, driving their Chevys, and drinking Miller Lite beer. They both had vasectomies and had gotten overweight but shed some of the pounds. They even shared the same health problems and bad habits, such as chain smoking, high blood pressure, and occasional half-day migraines.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdxj4-h2U2Q
good genes and bad genes exist
For most of human history, the genetic top selection was normal. Now it isn't. The industry needs workers, and numbers beat quality. The industrial revolution called for population increases and produced enough for that to be possible. However, the waste byproduct of 7 billion people is irreparably damaging. The human race is fat and overweight, and we need to lean out. Only the top people should pass on their genes as the collective humanity goes down in birth rate.
Obviously. It's not just intelligence (80% of your IQ is determined by genes
), it is in general genetic fitness. Genetic fitness is determined by the physical and mental capacity to do work, be compassionate and empathetic, and express what humans innately find most attractive. We should have for the next 100 years, no one who is obviously genetically ill be allowed to reproduce. Then in the next 100 years after that, only people who can keep up with average IQ and average healthy fitness markers can reproduce, then the next 100 years after that only the next standard deviation up from those markers should be allowed to reproduce. Because obviously good genes exist and bad genes exist.most of the genetic mutations that really need to get washed out are in the brain, but we don't even know what they are exactly. Only death or not reproducing can fix the problem of genetic mutations in the brain until we fully understand the brain and develop the technologies or therapies to cure them.
Nobody should support genetically ill people having children, and they should go out of their way to criticize it. It should be illegal for someone who is genetically ill to have children.
most people already believe in eugenics and genocide. It's not meant to be evil or mean. Eugenics happens when organisms don't want to reproduce with another organism. 1 out of 2 of your ancestors were men, the rest obviously women. The reason it is not an equal ratio is that a lot of men did not reproduce and had to die to have those shitty traits eliminated from the gene pool. Men are mainly the ones being selected for by evolution, and that is ok.
there are countless examples of people that exist that have no useful genes and it is because of mutational load. mutational load is determined by selective processes. HUMANS NO LONGER HAVE A SELECTIVE PROCESS. anytime that selective process dissolves, less capable animals are permitted to exist. genetics have been chiseled away by death for millions of years. it is undeniable. now we don't let death take the people who are genetically unfit. And they reproduce with one another. Only the most genetically fit people should reproduce. Its not meant to be mean. We can do it nicely. We don't have to kill anybody
IQ is undeniably influenced mostly by genetics. poverty causes a difference of roughly 15 IQ points on average. Race is irrelevant. there is not enough evidence to suggest any one "race" is inferior to another.
and we dont have to genocide people to do this, nowadays with modern day human genetic engineering which can change or remove genes to prevent diseases, cure diseases, or improve your body in a significant way, The potential health benefits of human gene therapy are staggering since many devastating or life-threatening illnesses could be cured. Tens of millions of people suffer from diseases that we could fix using gene therapy. In the future inceldom will be considered a disease the same way we consider an autoimmune disorder a disease.
TLDR:
so at the grand scale of things, genes are very powerful and are very important and can determine a lot of things about you in life, unfortunately (if your an incel) and fortunately (if your a chad)
poor diet = nutritional deficiency = poor prenatal development = Asymmetrical face = poor genetic fitness indicators = ugly face
“Nature has appointed that the propagation of the species shall be the business of men who are young, strong and handsome; so that the race may not degenerate. This is the firm will and purpose of Nature in regard to the species, and it finds its expression in the passions of women. There is no law that is older or more powerful than this." - Arthur Schopenhauer
IT doesn't want to admit, that genetics matter. And you're not at fault for your inceldom, much of this is out of your control and dont let them gaslight you into thinking that you really can do anything about your inceldom (besides jaw implants and Limb lengthening). It's just how mother nature has made it out to be, and it's probably how it intended to be for a reason (dysgenics)
it's just how it's meant to be and if women dont want you or you can't get a woman to date you despite trying very hard then you need to learn to take the
whitepill and accept that some things just aren't meant to be in life and find other copes or find another reason to live. I do not condone going ER or misogyny as it does nothing to change this problem and it probably will only add fuel to the fire.the whitepill is that you can't hate woman for being hypergamous and finding incels disgusting, because if you were in the same position as them then you would most likely do the same thing (selecting stacy only). And its just biologically hardwired in their nature to do so, the same way you are biologically hardwired to find an attractive female attractive.
