Women DO NOT select the best genes for human evolution.
Women DO NOT select for compassion, intelligence, self-control, courage, philosophical or technical talent, etc. If they do, it is typically TANGENTIAL or as a means to an end.
In a society where female freedom is exercised: It is only after EXPERIENCE do they learn what makes a man "GOOD". It is only then, that they seek out a "good man" to use as an ATM, whom they later come to resent, because, naturally, the "good man" is not Chad. There is, therefore, an inherent bias against the typical "good man."
In 2019 "Progressive" "Feminist" "Modern" world:
THIS SUBHUMAN CRIMINAL IS MORE VALUABLE, RESPECTED, LOVED, ADMIRED:
THAN THIS HARDWORKING AND CIVILLY RESPONSIBLE MAN, WHO IS A SLAVE:
But we must ask why? Why would a woman turn upon a man who, while not as sexually enticing, is equally and/or moreso equipped to provide for and raise a family?
The cruelty shown towards Sub8 men has been bred into mankind.
Thousands of years ago, 'SELECT MEN' HAD MONOPOLIZED REPRODUCTION. THEY RULED BY MIGHT AND SOCIAL LAW. THEY HELD VAST HAREMS WHILE 'LESSER' MEN WERE ENSLAVED, SENT OFF TO WAR, EXILED, OR KILLED. These were naturally, the most sexually dimorphic, psychopathic, and wealthiest of their respective groups.
"The “single most underappreciated fact about gender,” he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did."
Wars and clan structure may explain a strange biological event 7,000 years ago, Stanford researchers find
Genetic data suggest there was a collapse in male, but not female, genetic diversity starting 7,000 years ago. The reason may be wars between clans structured around male ancestry.
Anthropologists and biologists were perplexed, but Stanford researchers now believe they’ve found a simple – if revealing – explanation. The collapse, they argue, was the result of generations of war between patrilineal clans, whose membership is determined by male ancestors.
The outlines of that idea came to Tian Chen Zeng, a Stanford undergraduate in sociology, after spending hours reading blog posts that speculated – unconvincingly, Zeng thought – on the origins of the “Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck,” as the event is known. He soon shared his ideas with his high school classmate Alan Aw, also a Stanford undergraduate in mathematical and computational science.
8,000 YEARS AGO, 17 WOMEN REPRODUCED FOR EVERY ONE MAN
An analysis of modern DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture.
Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man.
psmag.com
DOES ANY OF THIS SEEM FAMILIAR TO YOU? IT SHOULD, BECAUSE THIS IS THE PATTERN OF REPRODUCTION TAKING PLACE IN 2019.
This is the truth behind extreme sexual dimorphism, psychopathy, the dark triad, and why they all coincide in a woman's sexual instincts. It is only by going backwards in time, and putting the pieces together through logical inference, that one comes to this conclusion.
MOST WOMEN, GENETICALLY, ARE AN UNBROKEN CHAIN FROM THE PAST TO THE PRESENT. THEY HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE THE NEOLITHIC, BECAUSE THE FEMALE ASPECT had been constantly in contact with the men that are touted as 'Alpha' today, bearing their children. This is a DNA memory. It's all coming round in a circle. While men can detach from their instincts and select for intelligence, courtesy, fidelity, loyalty, etc. Women cannot override their instincts to want Chad. Women are unable to logically separate from their instincts, thus they are unable to breed any positive human qualities into the gene pool on their own accord.
Most women DO NOT evolve the race upwards. In this time of great privilege proffered to them by the technology developed by the very men they hate, they select for the monstrously dimorphic (Wilt Chamberlain had a harem of THOUSANDS OF WOMEN), the wealthy (uncaring of how the wealth was gained, see the degeneracy from the Dubai Princes), the psychopathic and violent (Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, Dahmer were all loved by them), and those with social power. This all says one thing: MOST WOMEN VALUE BARBARISM. These are the same traits that the so called 'Alphas' offer them! THEY ARE THE SAME BEINGS THEY WERE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
But the question remains, WHAT is the nature of these select men? What set them apart from the rest? What made them so unanimously unassailable? I have theories that must be fleshed out.
Women DO NOT select for compassion, intelligence, self-control, courage, philosophical or technical talent, etc. If they do, it is typically TANGENTIAL or as a means to an end.
In a society where female freedom is exercised: It is only after EXPERIENCE do they learn what makes a man "GOOD". It is only then, that they seek out a "good man" to use as an ATM, whom they later come to resent, because, naturally, the "good man" is not Chad. There is, therefore, an inherent bias against the typical "good man."
In 2019 "Progressive" "Feminist" "Modern" world:
THIS SUBHUMAN CRIMINAL IS MORE VALUABLE, RESPECTED, LOVED, ADMIRED:
THAN THIS HARDWORKING AND CIVILLY RESPONSIBLE MAN, WHO IS A SLAVE:
But we must ask why? Why would a woman turn upon a man who, while not as sexually enticing, is equally and/or moreso equipped to provide for and raise a family?
The cruelty shown towards Sub8 men has been bred into mankind.
Thousands of years ago, 'SELECT MEN' HAD MONOPOLIZED REPRODUCTION. THEY RULED BY MIGHT AND SOCIAL LAW. THEY HELD VAST HAREMS WHILE 'LESSER' MEN WERE ENSLAVED, SENT OFF TO WAR, EXILED, OR KILLED. These were naturally, the most sexually dimorphic, psychopathic, and wealthiest of their respective groups.
"The “single most underappreciated fact about gender,” he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did."
Is There Anything Good About Men? And Other Tricky Questions
tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com
Wars and clan structure may explain a strange biological event 7,000 years ago, Stanford researchers find
Genetic data suggest there was a collapse in male, but not female, genetic diversity starting 7,000 years ago. The reason may be wars between clans structured around male ancestry.
Anthropologists and biologists were perplexed, but Stanford researchers now believe they’ve found a simple – if revealing – explanation. The collapse, they argue, was the result of generations of war between patrilineal clans, whose membership is determined by male ancestors.
The outlines of that idea came to Tian Chen Zeng, a Stanford undergraduate in sociology, after spending hours reading blog posts that speculated – unconvincingly, Zeng thought – on the origins of the “Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck,” as the event is known. He soon shared his ideas with his high school classmate Alan Aw, also a Stanford undergraduate in mathematical and computational science.
8,000 YEARS AGO, 17 WOMEN REPRODUCED FOR EVERY ONE MAN
An analysis of modern DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture.
Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man.
8,000 Years Ago, 17 Women Reproduced for Every One Man
An analysis of modern DNA uncovers a rough dating scene after the advent of agriculture.
psmag.com
DOES ANY OF THIS SEEM FAMILIAR TO YOU? IT SHOULD, BECAUSE THIS IS THE PATTERN OF REPRODUCTION TAKING PLACE IN 2019.
This is the truth behind extreme sexual dimorphism, psychopathy, the dark triad, and why they all coincide in a woman's sexual instincts. It is only by going backwards in time, and putting the pieces together through logical inference, that one comes to this conclusion.
MOST WOMEN, GENETICALLY, ARE AN UNBROKEN CHAIN FROM THE PAST TO THE PRESENT. THEY HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE THE NEOLITHIC, BECAUSE THE FEMALE ASPECT had been constantly in contact with the men that are touted as 'Alpha' today, bearing their children. This is a DNA memory. It's all coming round in a circle. While men can detach from their instincts and select for intelligence, courtesy, fidelity, loyalty, etc. Women cannot override their instincts to want Chad. Women are unable to logically separate from their instincts, thus they are unable to breed any positive human qualities into the gene pool on their own accord.
Most women DO NOT evolve the race upwards. In this time of great privilege proffered to them by the technology developed by the very men they hate, they select for the monstrously dimorphic (Wilt Chamberlain had a harem of THOUSANDS OF WOMEN), the wealthy (uncaring of how the wealth was gained, see the degeneracy from the Dubai Princes), the psychopathic and violent (Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez, Dahmer were all loved by them), and those with social power. This all says one thing: MOST WOMEN VALUE BARBARISM. These are the same traits that the so called 'Alphas' offer them! THEY ARE THE SAME BEINGS THEY WERE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
But the question remains, WHAT is the nature of these select men? What set them apart from the rest? What made them so unanimously unassailable? I have theories that must be fleshed out.
