Serious Rape is eugenic, hypergamy is dysgenic [studies]

[SEWER_MANCER]

Shalom IT

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

certainly wouldn't even be allowed to be discussed by normies

Thus it shall be forced into their throats.

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

careful

What do you mean boyo?

 

[SewerPolarKoala]

There's for some reason a widespread belief that hypergamy is eugenic and seizing femoids is not. However, the order here is exactly opposite. Femoids' choces are ex definitione harmful not only for society, but also for a genepool. How, would you ask?

Due to Runaway Selection, mean of reproduction, when given freedom, will always select for traits which concentrations they're aiming for are dysgenic. This shall lead to extreme overgrown in these traits and degradation of specie; and, eventually, to its extinction. That's how R. A. Fisher, greatest biologist after Darwin, describe this process, although with some flaws:


Fisher's article „The evolution of sexual preference” in The Eugenics Review, p. 187, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2987134/?p

Species that are living (or not, on what we shall focus later) proofs of his thesis are to be infinitely counted. There are few examples, however, that portray this law the best.

View attachment 1621655
The most obvious bastard of sexual selection dysgenicity is, what's clear, a peacock. Its tail, longer than the animal itself, made of flashy, bright leathers, alarming every nearby predator of easy pray, finally making difficult not even merely flying, but every movement can cause only rightful disgust and reflection upon it in observer. Similar feelings to this, for Fisher's main object of observation were birds, were undoubtedly what impelled him to give his discovery a scientific grounding. It's also to be noted that Darwin shared similar opinion; "The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me feel sick", he said.



View attachment 1621658
View attachment 1621659
Yet another victim of runaway effect is Babirussa. Its tusks are what the tails is in peacock, that is, are the trait which is selected for. As one can see, due to this their growth is so big, that they at first become useless, then finally impale the skull of the animal. Such a wonder of hypergamy!



View attachment 1621664
View attachment 1621665
Next specie to be found most physically degenerated thanks to sexual selection is strap-toothed whale. Its tusks, like in babirussa, are caricaturally overgrown, but in other way; they're making it almost impossible for this beast to open its jaw.
Beaked whales show remarkable sexual dimorphism in that only the males retain functional teeth. Male strap-toothed beaked whales begin to develop a large flat tusk from each lower jaw as juveniles, growing at a 45° angle back towards the head and over the rostrum (beak). Reaching up to 34 cm in length,[6] the teeth may overlap at the tips, restricting the gape size of the animal. Two stranded adult male strap-toothed beaked whales were recorded as only being able to open their mouths 3.2 cm and 4 cm wide, compared to females and juveniles that had a gape size of 6.5 cm. It is thought male beaked whales use their teeth to compete for mating access to females, as evidenced by scars and scratches on the bodies of males. However it is unlikely the whale uses the whole tusk for such aggressive interactions, instead, it is probable that only a small denticle found upon the upper surface of the tooth is utilised.



View attachment 1621673
View attachment 1621674
And crème de la crème of sexual selection, showing what's its final effect; species that got extinct because of it. Fisher, as we saw in his quote, argued that this mechanism will regulate itself at some point. However, modern sciences have shown that there in fact are kinds that extincted because of it, thus proving him wrong. Sexual selection is against natural selection.


Irish elk, one of the Pleistocene's biggest land mammals, got doomed because of its extravagant features, which were the result of hypergamy.

Source: https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/artio/irishelk.html



Finally, ostracoda depicted on the picture above is prime example of it. Blue area, taking one third of animal's body, is overgrown genitals. Because of this extreme dimorphism, in the past many kinds of this crustacea went extinct; modern ones are seemingly following their path.

Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7482269/ (I cite abstract because it's not my goal to explain here smallest details to a reader, but to give him rather broad perspective.)



But — one could say — traits select for in these animals are particular and situation is different within our kind. I agree. It's truth that there's no singular trait in humans that foids desire as such. But it's the end of nuances; traits are always considered in relations to each other. So is a lenght of a leg in proportion to lenght of another leg, these are in proportion to hips, torso; these are to each other, etc. There's one proportion of human qualities, including proportions that include height and facial traits, considered the most attratictive. Every deviation from the ideal result in lower attractiveness. However, this ideal proportion can multiplie its attractivnes in eyes of femoids by incrasing actual numbers in its particular proportions. Therefore physical human traits as a whole are the same as peacock's tail. To make humans dysgenic, fragile-leged, unsupplied in blood giants, and ultimately to doom our kind – would be result of hyperamy.




Yet there's the soltion to this problem: rape, this philosophical stone, the panacea for cancer consuming humanity. By seizing means of reproduction, truecel reverse dysgenicity of hypergamy and implements eugenics. With his free will, man stops rot of his kind and negate femoids' want of its degeneracy. This negation of runaway effect is thus physical bettering of our kind.

This is an effort post and it should be pinned

 

[stsaturn]

This is an effort post and it should be pinned

 

[TellMomImGone]

What do you mean boyo?

i alrdy told you darling

 

[FoidsEnshittifyAll]

i agreee. hypergamy is decrepit.

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

i alrdy told you darling

You say so boyo?

 

[TellMomImGone]

You say so boyo?

ohh yess i doo

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

i agreee. hypergamy is decrepit.

It's a necessity for hypergamism to fall.

 

[esdeathlover]

good thread

 

[Cosmicsdorito]

Hashem help us

 

[Cosmicsdorito]

It's a necessity for hypergamism to fall.

Youre still here defending this, it's been an year. Rape isn't gonna be legal anytime soon so u need to IMPROOVEE

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

Youre still here defending this, it's been an year. Rape isn't gonna be legal anytime soon so u need to IMPROOVEE

I didn't aimed for hypergamism to recognize it; I simply showed nature of hypergamy here.

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

good thread

Aye.

 

[esdeathlover]

Aye.

I also think this applies to neural states of humans far more than height, because we know women select for dark triad anti-social behaviour, the data is clear on this, so women will end up breeding more angry males who have these dark triad traits I mean we saw the effect of female selection in the mid 2010s because they voted for egoist policies like trangenderism and faggot marraige and to expand the welfare and noodlewhore foids select for mates which sobotages their offspring ER good exsample of this

 

[tired as fuck]

I don't mean to refute your claims because I haven't read the linked publications (yet), but it appears to me from the quoted passages that these are models and theories and it isn't ascertained by studies on genetics and mutations? I could be wrong though. I do know the story of the Irish Elk and the Strap Toothed Whale, but is it possible to generalize this from animals to humans? Humans are indeed animals and (in my opinion) cannot separate themselves from their instinctual side, but there is an element of soul/spirit/consciousness/whatever other synonym which would go unaccounted in a generalization of this sort.

nice effort post tho. mogs me.

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

I don't mean to refute your claims because I haven't read the linked publications (yet), but it appears to me from the quoted passages that these are models and theories and it isn't ascertained by studies on genetics and mutations? I could be wrong though. I do know the story of the Irish Elk and the Strap Toothed Whale, but is it possible to generalize this from animals to humans? Humans are indeed animals and (in my opinion) cannot separate themselves from their instinctual side, but there is an element of soul/spirit/consciousness/whatever other synonym which would go unaccounted in a generalization of this sort.

nice effort post tho. mogs me.

You're right for rejecting naturalism when considering humans. But femoids aren't human. Their purely mechanistic nature can be derived from their perfectly universal reaction to chads.

 

[ConvertedAryanSpic]

Even if somehow the offspring that came from women’s unlawful selection won’t suffer the physical consequences of gynocentrical hypergamy, I’m 100% positive that this offspring is gonna retardmaxx to the point of extinction because of the “hollow breed”

 

[TBIcel]

Extremly high IQ take and a conclusion I've reached just would say yeah rape is eugenic historically as you had to put organize or compete the other tribe it was men fighting each other on desirable traits and what foids thought was moot men fighting for foids like we do for today with their opinions mattering just lead to retarded looksmaxx shit.

 

[esdeathlover]

I don't mean to refute your claims because I haven't read the linked publications (yet), but it appears to me from the quoted passages that these are models and theories and it isn't ascertained by studies on genetics and mutations? I could be wrong though. I do know the story of the Irish Elk and the Strap Toothed Whale, but is it possible to generalize this from animals to humans? Humans are indeed animals and (in my opinion) cannot separate themselves from their instinctual side, but there is an element of soul/spirit/consciousness/whatever other synonym which would go unaccounted in a generalization of this sort.

nice effort post tho. mogs me.

(copy and pasted): I also think this applies to neural states of humans far more than height, because we know women select for dark triad anti-social behaviour, the data is clear on this, so women will end up breeding more angry males who have these dark triad traits I mean we saw the effect of female selection in the mid 2010s because they voted for egoist policies like trangenderism and faggot marraige and to expand the welfare. noodlewhore foids select for mates, which sabotages their offspring. ER, a good example of this is his noodlewhore mom wouldn't have dated ER(if they weren't related ofc) . And for height, it's a major thing that taller people live far shorter lives on average and have worse problems especially in modernity. The Japanese have the longest life spans on the basis they are smaller thus their organs have less strain, and they are mostly sedentary so it isn't exercise.

 

[tired as fuck]

You're right for rejecting naturalism when considering humans. But femoids aren't human. Their purely mechanistic nature can be derived from their perfectly universal reaction to chads.

Are males not mechanistic? What differentiates them? What do you mean by "human"? I presume it has to do with the lack of consciousness? But how can one know whether consciousness is a property of females or not, without incurring in post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, like the one you mentioned seem to be?

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

Are males not mechanistic? What differentiates them? What do you mean by "human"? I presume it has to do with the lack of consciousness? But how can one know whether consciousness is a property of females or not, without incurring in post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, like the one you mentioned seem to be?

I already explained it somewhere else, but nonetheless I will answer you very shortly; but please don't push me to elaborate for I did it already, in a work I decided to remove from here due to some changes I made in it.

What do I mean by human? A being capable of changing its highest drive, that's imperative. Femoids universal reactions to chad prove that their imperative is inherent and unchangeable. Their direct reactions to him thus can be perfectly predicted.

In case of humans, even though they're born with imperative, they are capable of changing it under some circumstances; so are martyrs and those who purposely kill themselves, of what foids are incapable and all such acts are merely badly calculated path for fulfilling their highest goal.

The change of imperative is not a reaction to empiric, since said reaction is determined by imperative. It's therefore transcendental. And here one can appeal solely on physicality, or with the same weight rely on pure freedom of subject. Thus arises what you had asked for.

 

[tired as fuck]

I already explained it somewhere else, but nonetheless I will answer you very shortly; but please don't push me to elaborate for I did it already, in a work I decided to remove from here due to some changes I made in it.

What do I mean by human? A being capable of changing its highest drive, that's imperative. Femoids universal reactions to chad prove that their imperative is inherent and unchangeable. Their direct reactions to him thus can be perfectly predicted.

In case of humans, even though they're born with imperative, they are capable of changing it under some circumstances; so are martyrs and those who purposely kill themselves, of what foids are incapable and all such acts are merely badly calculated path for fulfilling their highest goal.

The change of imperative is not a reaction to empiric, since said reaction is determined by imperative. It's therefore transcendental. And here one can appeal solely on physicality, or with the same weight rely on pure freedom of subject. Thus arises what you had asked for.

peculiar definition. I won't ask you to elaborate further dw. I don't think humans are capable of changing their highest drives though, especially in a deterministic framework.

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

peculiar definition. I won't ask you to elaborate further dw. I don't think humans are capable of changing their highest drives though, especially in a deterministic framework.

It remains true independently of metaphysics. Yet its no place here to explain it further.