Feminism As Sexual Selection Strategy

There is a theory in evolutionary science called the Social (or Machiavellian) Intelligence Hypothesis which suggests that our large brains evolved to help us become more socially, and hence reproductively, successful in increasingly complex societies. In other words, manipulation and mate choice go hand in hand.

I propose, as an extension to this theory, that the absurdity of mid-20th to early 21st century feminism and all its adjuncts are better understood as progressively sophisticated emergent sexual selection strategies which act as social obstacles to filter out men who aren’t able to successfully navigate them. In essence, feminism is an advanced biocomputational Turing test; a giant social subcommunication roadblock devised and embraced by women and, at least in principle if not in practice, by alpha males intended to ensure the continuation of the hypergamous weeding out of lesser men who don’t possess the savvy to play by ever-shifting sexual market rules. Feminism is only superficially about female equality; at its core it is a ginanomicon of secrets to which only socially adroit men are privy.

Why feminism? Why now? In a word: Beta males acquired too much power. The ascendance of the beta male (and, not coincidentally, the rise of American power) through the late 19th century to the mid-20th century, exemplified by the common man seeing his income and standard of living rise and his opportunities for marriage with quality women rise in response, resulted, as is necessary in the zero sum sexual market, in a lessening of female market leverage to satisfactorily satiate their hypergamous impulse. As I wrote back in this post:

Maxim #15: Female cultural equality = male dating inequality. Female cultural inequality = male dating equality. You cannot have both. So sayeth human nature.

With more beta males in the ranks of the economically and socially empowered, and *relatively* fewer alpha males monopolizing the keys to a happy life, the expression of women’s natural hypergamous compulsion was partially thwarted. More men in the running for pussy means fewer men on the chopping block. Which in turn means a blurring of the distinctions between competing men that women rely on to make their mate choices. Women need those omega-beta-alpha male distinctions because they are programmed from cosmic conception to choose from amongst numerous suitors. Cramp their style, and women will find a workaround to indulge their style again. It is their pleasure and their punishment.

Given the endless appetite of women to date up (even though there is evidence that engorgement of this appetite makes them unhappier), this wide and deep Beta Ascendance was an evolutionarily unstable environment. New complex memes would naturally arise in reaction to assist in pushing the evolutionary envelope of what qualifies as an alpha male, and here feminism and its discontents, its counterintuitive criteria and amorphous edicts, entered the vacuum left by the absence of widely practiced hypergamy to serve as the newest iteration of female sexual selection strategy. And the winners were the alpha males who could mouth the right platitudes while practicing the dominant behavior that put the lie to those same platitudes.

During the saturation phase natural selection resulting from the costs of having large brains checks further increases in cognitive abilities.

Feminism as a meme has reached its saturation phase. Further filtering advantage for women is no longer possible, and in fact a shrinkage of the market position of men who embrace feminism is under way in earnest. Now that the era of feminism is winding down (despite its last gasp ineffectual thrashing to the contrary), what will be the next organically emergent sociosexual meme to separate the alpha wheat from the beta chaff? My nomination: Nonjudgmentalist Game.

We are entering the Era of Amoral Alpha Players. Remember ladies: You get what you give.





Comments


  1. Evidence for the women are unhappier article is real weak:

    http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1753

    What can be said is that feminism has not made females happier the way that the civil rights has increased the happiness of blacks.

    Like


  2. re: happiness gap
    do you really see anything here?

    http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004965.html

    Like


  3. Fuck em and their fuckin elitist philosophy.

    Like


  4. “ginanomicon”

    “Vaginomicon” sounds better and is easier to read.

    Like


  5. I think someone else in a comment proposed beta behavior was an evolutionary adaptation to preserve life.

    In cavemen days if a young teenager, Ug, mouthed off to gruff old Thor, Thor would bash his head in.

    If Ug cannot defend his life Ug must defer to Thor, with his tail between his legs lest Thor raise his club in anger.

    Thus beta behavior is an evolutionary advantage in preserving life.

    A corollary to this is asshole game.

    In cavemen days if Ug were to offend Thor Ug must have been as powerful or more powerful than Thor.

    Now Thug can not slit Ug’s throat on the spot because the police would come and arrest Thug. Ug is free to be as impertinent as he wishes and Thor may not respond.

    Women with cavemen genes see this and equate disrespect with power.

    Like


  6. What evidence is there of the era of feminism winding down?

    Or is it the feminized western nations, which are themselves in decline?

    Like


  7. “Roissy Maxim #15: Female cultural equality = male dating inequality. Female cultural inequality = male dating equality. You cannot have both. So sayeth human nature.”

    You really shouldn’t use words you don’t believe in, like ‘equality’. And lots of cultures are able to combine female cultural inequality with male dating inequality.

    I’d rephrase it to something like:

    The fewer opportunities for female hypergamy to be expressed, the more likely that most men can form families and invest in society (and train their sons to invest in society).

    The more opportunities for female hypergamy to be expressed, the more likely males are broken down in a de facto caste system where most men are losers and don’t invest in society and where the winners don’t either (leading to all sorts of bad results).

    In other words, Cinderella is one of the most socially destructive cultural memes going (though traditional feminists recognize this too). And I’d say the most destructive kind of feminism isn’t the traditional kind, but the post-femininist lipstick feminists who look for both professional and sexual hypergamous self-actualization at the same time. The original feminists at least had the good sense to recognize that women should choose one or the other.

    Like


  8. Great post, Roissy. Your skill at cutting through the BS of political correctness is noteworthy.

    Like


  9. Ginanomicon. Don’t lick your fingers to turn those Medici-arsenic-poisoned pages.

    Like


  10. The very idea of women vs men as an “interest group” is strange. Social and political scientists need to achieve consilience with sociobiology.

    What I think happens when we see “economic progress” coupled with “the increasing status of women” is simply emergence of de facto polygyny in an urbanized setting. Transitioning to polygyny isn’t an increase in status for women. It is an Africanization of civilization. However, one might say that the status of harem women in Africa is higher than corporate concubines in an urbanized settings since African concubines usually have direct access to food by way of their involvement in agriculture. Most don’t have to go get a paycheck from their harem master every other week in order to have food and shelter, and are less likely to find themselves homeless and hungry when they reach middle age and are “downsized” out of their subsistence.

    Like


  11. I’ve been rotating and juggling sexual relationships with women ever since I internalized game. I don’t lie about it either, I just don’t offer it up unless asked. Then I joke about it and grab her boobies or something. It is so funny to bang enlightened feminists then drop them without a second look.

    Way to go ladies. Who said men will treat women how they let them? Truth.

    Like


  12. It was alpha males who initiated and executed the economic fantasy known as globalization that has led to the emancipation of the working to middle class beta male. Feminism plays only an ancillary factor in the processes. Of course the wholesale looting economic power away from working to middle class males was going to result in some economic gain for women. Just as the alphas instigated mass third world immigration to make sure the work formerly done by beta men would be preformed most cheaply by males so repugnant to most middle to high caste women that they would not play a factor in the sexual market place. So at the end of the day the alpha class in the United States has transferred huge amounts of wealth away from working to middle class betas; they have effectively cornered the marketplace on high caste women; and they have spread ghetto culture throughout the rest of society thus lessening any ability of lower caste men to ever work their way up to alpha economic status.

    And we are supposed to cheer and emulate these guys?

    Like


  13. And the winners were the alpha males who could mouth the right platitudes while practicing the dominant behavior that put the lie to those same platitudes.

    And yet you despise (and rightly so, in my opinion) those men that “mouth the right platitudes”, dismissing them as “manginas”. Doesn’t this behavior detract from establishing dominance rather than enhance it?

    [editor: not if you do it with style. (both the mangina mouthing and the mangina hating.)]

    Like


  14. From “Race, Gender and the Frontier” by Jim Bowery

    The progress of humanity, from its earliest hunter-gatherer 
hominid groups in subsaharan Africa to the technological 
progress of Western Civilization, has been driven by 
pressures to survive in marginal habitats placed on excess 
or “beta” males by the polygamy of dominant or “alpha” males 
selected by the reproductive preferences of females.  It is 
this process of expansion into marginal habitats driven by 
the inequities of polygamy that gave rise, first, to racial 
gradients with climate and then to a moral of monogamy 
arising from the harsh necessities of northern climates.  

    Monogamy only exists where successful rearing of children to 
reproductive age requires the exclusive support of a male.  
    In benign environments, social adaptations that characterize 
polygamous cultures were prevalent including homosexual 
behavior, frequent small-scale battles and stable social 
cycles.  In more northerly climates, social adaptations 
that characterize monogamous cultures were prevalent 
including a lesser incidence of homosexual behavior, 
relatively infrequent wars of technically sophisticated 
genocide and progressive traditions.

    Northern climates also gave rise to a profound biological
    selection for morality imprinting since it was only through
    total acceptance and observance of tribal rules, adapted for
    the unique environment, that survival in such “unnatural”
    environments was possible.
     Indeed, immorality could
    threaten the fragile adaptations of the entire tribe.  
    Instinct, taking too long to evolve, was supplanted by a
    meta-instinct which allowed one’s behavior to be imprinted
    by the tribe’s moral rules for survival.

    Like


  15. I touched on feminism’s rise in my post today:

    http://chuckross.blogspot.com/2009/10/better-explanation-for-blackwhite.html

    Feminism has been shown to rise out of low sex ratio societies. It happened in the low sex ratio 1960s and after the Civil War when men were scarce. There were pushes towards female autonomy and independence that arose from the combination of male structural power and male dyadic power (male scarcity). Male scarcity led to higher male value which in turn led to female’s combining to counteract that power monopoly. First wave feminism arose out of such an environment as did 2nd wave feminism.

    So it’s not so much that feminism rose because *beta males* got too much power. Rather, I’d argue that beta males let feminism slip through the cracks as it was also a mechanism by which they could gain power relative to alphas.

    In the middle ages, the Beguines arose in France. They were a group of women who joined monasteries in the wake of the Crusades:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beguines_and_Beghards

    Also, my post points out new research from Standford that men in low sex ratio societies exhibit hypergamous behavior as well.

    Like


  16. Nah, this analysis is seriously flawed. Beta males were in control for a long time without provoking feminism and there wasn’t any noticable increase in beta power. It’s not the variable.

    Increasing prosperity is what fueled earlier feminist movements, and female behavior under conditions of widely available birth control, female financial independence, and urban anonymity needed ideological justification and gave us the current wave.

    Like


  17. Before I sign on to the proposed thesis, I require convincing that the stages of overly complex female mating strategies vis a vis sexual selection were/are indeed productive.

    If all those complicated machinations resulted in producing the current crop of society, then it was an evolutionary debacle on par with albino alligators.

    Like


  18. “Race, Gender and the Frontier” cont.

    Once imprinted, these tribal morals would be observed with 
total fidelity — even to the very point of death.  But the 
plasticity of the cultural imprinting process created 
vulnerabilities not present in the deeper cultures where 
instinct, biologically evolved over many hundreds of 
millennia, was well adapted to the more “natural” 
environments.  In those of northern climates, an erroneous 
or mutant moral imprint would, with rare exception, be 
played out to the point of death of the individual or the 
tribe if its young were so imprinted.

    Thus, access to the mechanisms of moral imprinting in 
northern tribes was jealously protected.  Alien control of 
the mechanisms of moral imprinting could be used to inflict 
genocide against a northern people just as surely as the 
highest technology weapons or gas ovens can today.

    Deep cultures are those cultures that were the earliest to 
arise within relatively benign habitats and also the first 
to be left behind by technical progress.  They are 
culturally “deep” but technically less sophisticated.  Shallow 
cultures are the later cultures which arose in increasingly 
marginal habitats, pioneered by the few surviving males with 
adaptive technical gifts.  They were were outcasts from their 
originating tribes — physically, sexually, politically and/or 
socially handicapped.  

    Women tend to be attracted to deeper cultures and all but the 
most successful males tend to be driven to the shallower cultures. 
This is simply because the larger the harem size, the less likely 
a female is to leave the security of the originating tribe.  The 
only males to stick around are the ones tough enough to fight it 
out with the harem master or those who have given up on 
their own reproduction, perhaps homosexuals opting for a kin- 
selection strategy of caring for reproductively viable relatives.

    As habitats are tamed, the necessary technologies mature, 
population density increases and trade/transport grows.  The 
deeper cultures diffuse into the now benign habitats of the 
shallower cultures and gradually come to dominance, given 
the deep culture’s social superiority.  As this occurs, the 
incidence of polygamy (de facto or institutional) and 
homosexuality increases and with it, the pressures on beta males 
to leave and open new habitats for population.  

    However, this also creates regressive pressures as the more “natural” 
but less morally rigid deep cultures come into possession of the 
technological artifacts of the shallow culture.  Thus, a contingent 
of the shallow culture population must be retained and employed by 
their socio-sexual superiors for the maintenance of the artifacts 
that render the habitat benign.

    Like


  19. I don’t agree with the conclusion. The “Social Intelligence Hypothesis” seems sound and consistent with evo-psych principles: it’s feminism as a “sexual selection strategy” that I disagree with. I can’t keep track of the various 2nd, 3rd, nth-wave feminisms, but the movement itself began in the early-to-mid 19th c., mainly in Anglophone countries (UK and US), and was predominantly an ideology of liberation, based on the preoccupation with individual rights and freedoms in that (our) culture. Its moral and legal arguments came out of the equalist thinking that is a natural result of individual-rights-based systems.

    So in that sense feminism is the opposite of a sexual selection strategy. It’s not about attraction or mating at all; it’s about insisting on equal social treatment, which works against innate biological attraction drivers for both sexes. So “feminist” behavior in women, however defined, typically has the effect of repelling men, not attracting them – as men like femininty, not females who behave like men.

    This disconnect is captured in this sentence:

    And the winners were the alpha males who could mouth the right platitudes while practicing the dominant behavior that put the lie to those same platitudes

    The “platitudes” you plainly have in mind are the feminist, equalist orthodoxies, and the “lie” being put is the traditional male-dominance model.

    But the feminist “platitudes” weren’t created to make men more interested, or make them work harder to get mates, or to serve female hypergamy, or to work against the asecnt of beta males — they were created to make women more equal to men socially, in education, the workplace, the courtroom, etc. – everywhere *except* courtship and the bedroom. The end result may be similar enoough, but the original purpose was different.

    Although I have my doubts that the more extreme feminists are interested in males or relationships at all – most of them seem prety open man-haters, lesbians, etc. The individual-rights, equalist orthodoxy has morphed under the leadership of these creatures into a raw, misandrist power grab. This may be what Roissy means when he says it can go no further.

    Like


  20. “My nomination: Nonjudgmentalist Game.”

    Roissy,

    I agree that women have pretty much picked all of the low hanging fruit from the feminist crap and will need other methods for weeding out the beta suitors.

    Elaborate on this topic though…..Do you have a hypothetical example?

    Like


  21. “Race, Gender and the Frontier” cont.

    The main technique used by the deeper cultures in this diffusion 
is the capture of the shallow culture’s moral imprinting mechanisms.  

    The language, religions, educational systems, communications media, 
political processes and all other key points of information 
dissemination in the culture are captured first.  THIS IS A 
FUNDAMENTAL STRATEGY THAT IS ALWAYS EMPLOYED SINCE THE DEEPER 
CULTURE IS ALWAYS DIFFERENTIALLY IMMUNE TO MANIPULATIVE MORAL 
IMPRINTS WHEN COMPARED TO THE SHALLOW CULTURE.  Through this route, any objective can be achieved, although the primary objective is 
usually to weaken or destroy the restrictions on the exercise of 
”natural” social and sexual behaviors — advantages enjoyed by 
the deeper cultures.  

    WOMEN ARE A PARTICULARLY POWERFUL ROUTE OF INSINUATION AS 
THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO DEEPER CULTURES AND HEAVILY INFLUENCE 
THE MORAL IMPRINTING OF EACH NEW GENERATION BOTH AS MOTHERS 
AND AS ARBITERS OF REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS.  Thus, the males of 
the shallow culture can be imprinted by the females of their 
own culture to attack the foundation of their own civilization 
and play by the rules of the deeper culture males.  For example, 
a moral attack on heterosexual males combined with moral 
adulation of homosexual males is enough, by itself, to result in 
a genocidal decimation of the shallow culture by the deeper 
culture since the shallow culture males will take on this 
evolutionarily suicidal imprint and pursue it to its logical 
end more frequently than deeper culture males.  

    Shallow culture males are particularly prone to the homosexual 
adaptation since the function of homosexuality appears to be 
to stablize the male dominance heirarchy by hormonal alteration of 
the harem master(s) and the betas.  Sociosexual status among 
males alters their endocrine systems, sex hormone levels and 
biological responses to challenges and stress.  These biological 
changes have developmental consequences which may create or 
amplify neurological differences between males living under 
different sociosexual statuses and conditions.  A male who 
continually receives the message that other males are more 
desirable and/or more sociosexually dominant will eventually 
respond by fighting, fleeing and/or by altering his hormonal 
configuration permanently.  Given a moral imprint against 
aggression and the lack of a route of escape most shallow culture 
males will find their hormone levels, and therefore their socio- 
sexual responses, becoming effeminate, although many may find 
it impossible to suppress their aggression, despite rigid moral 
imprints against aggression.  This is simply because giving up 
on reproductive success is the evolutionary equivalent of death.

    However, for the deep culture to come to dominance over the shallow 
culture, it isn’t even necessary for the majority of shallow 
culture males to take on this imprint — merely for a differential 
to exist between the cultures.  Nor is it necessary for shallow 
culture males taking on this imprint to follow its moral code — 
only that it handicap their ability to perceive and/or deal 
with reality.

    Like


  22. I propose, as an extension to this theory, that the absurdity of mid-20th to early 21st century feminism and all its adjuncts are better understood as progressively sophisticated emergent sexual selection strategies which act as social obstacles to filter out men who aren’t able to successfully navigate them.

    Agreed.

    Feminism is only superficially about female equality; at its core it is a ginanomicon of secrets to which only socially adroit men are privy.

    Agreed again. Excellent post. Thank you.

    Like


  23. “I propose, as an extension to this theory, that the absurdity of mid-20th to early 21st century feminism and all its adjuncts are better understood as progressively sophisticated emergent sexual selection strategies which act as social obstacles to filter out men who aren’t able to successfully navigate them. ”

    I figured this out when I was 12. How long did it take you?

    It’s perfect. And don’t ruin it. I’m 1000% serious here.

    Feminism is the PERFECT way of separating the alphas from the rest. The real dominant male will learn to see through it. It will take him until his mid 20s in some cases, but if he has it in him, he will learn.

    Alphas need to be born of challenge. The reason feminism is the best way of separating the alphas from betas is because it overall makes men least dangerous. If we have a society which encourages male dominance, it can be lethal to women. Look at the Arab world. Males are capable of great violence and oppression. In Sudan, they assert alpha position by slaughtering other people and raping women and keeping them as slaves. In the modern world, they go to a bar and neg a girl. But they are still just as satisfyingly alpha because alpha is a relative position, not an absolute thing. The nature of the alpha can change. He can be a legionnaire, a rockstar, a Tarzan, but the dynamic with women does not change. The alpha is the top dog, and the weaker the top dogs needs to be to be on top, the better it is for the weaker sex.

    Like


  24. “Race, Gender and the Frontier” cont.

    The shallow culture has 3 apparent defenses against such subtle 
stratagems by the deeper cultures:

    1)  Dogma of an almost paranoid nature. 

    2)  Nonsubtle counter-genocide against the deep culture.
    
3)  Abandonment of the tamed habitat to the deep culture in 
preference for the taming and occupation of a new habitat.

    The stagnation of 1 eventually works in favor of the deep 
culture.  The genocide of 2, a choice frequently made by 
shallow cultures, creates additional moral ammunition 
against the shallow culture and may, ironically, speed its 
capture.  Choosing 3 is hard on the shallow culture, to the 
point of being genocidal, even without the encroachment of 
the deep culture.  But it becomes all the more difficult as 
the resources of the shallow culture are progressively 
parasitized by the deep culture.  

    3 is the only route that results in ultimate survival of the 
shallow culture and it has the added advantage of promoting 
greater options for all in the long run, while it avoids the 
inherent evils of stagnation and genocide.  The greatest 
danger to the shallow culture is that the deep culture will 
come to such social, sexual and political dominance that it 
prohibits the shallow culture from escaping and achieving a 
new level of power in the new habitats that it opens up.   
For example, this happened to the Chinese when early merchants 
were prohibited from utilizing their, then, superior sailing 
technologies by the Emperor’s bureaucracy.

    Western civilization’s tradition of monogamy combined 
with its technological adaptations has led it to a state 
of sufficient abundance that its females can now rear children 
to reproductive age without the exclusive assistance of a 
male.  The widespread availability of birth control techniques 
created a rationale for the breakdown of these fragile monogamous 
traditions, without an understanding of their contribution to 
Western values.  We now see an explosion of de facto polygamy 
in Western civilization where sociosexual success is increasingly 
centralized in fewer and fewer males while greater numbers of males 
are increasingly marginalized.  These marginalized males 
increasingly turn to homosexuality, virulent aggression and 
desparate (and highly consumptive) courtship behavior rather than 
toward the productive nesting behavior required for Western 
civilization’s continued progress.

    The abusive behavior of the few dominant males is used as 
ammunition against the submissive shallow culture males by 
the independent and therefore sexually selective females who 
are willing to put up with great abuse from their harem masters 
(in corporations and/or personal relationships).  It is rare 
that a dominant male actually suffers for his abusive behavior 
and quite common for submissive males to be made to feel guilty 
for being a male.  On those rare occasions when a dominant male 
is brought to account, because of the blind logic of the legal 
or political system, the situation creates profound cognitive 
dissonance and controversy in the population.

    Starting with agriculture and progressing on to the 
industrial revolution and now technological civilization, 
the expansion of frontiers has transformed so much of the 
Earth’s habitats that the biological diversity of Earth is 
threatened and there are few frontiers left.

    In recent years, the white, heterosexual, Christian males of 
Western Civilization, as the pinnacle of this process, are 
blamed for its destructive side-effects.  It is almost to 
the point that to simply be a white, heterosexual Christian 
male is considered “immoral.”  Since survival in marginal 
habitats requires a profound respect for the rules governing 
adaptation to those habitats, these males are particularly 
prone to carry the morals they accept to their logical 
limits.  In this case, the logical limit is to cease being 
heterosexual or Christian or both, there being not much one 
can do about one’s race or gender.  Many of the males who 
choose homosexuality find it very difficult to give up their 
Christian faith and yet find it also very difficult to 
square that faith with their homosexuality.  Most 
heterosexual males giving up Christianity find themselves 
drowning in a sea of ruthless sexual competition, degraded 
by embittered women with sexuality short-circuited by 
birth control and abortion.

    Like


  25. i have long said in these comments that feminism is one giant shit test. i don’t know how many times i’ve been at a party and had some girl spout off feminist platitudes as if they were proven fact; only to see her eyes light up as soon as i dismissed her nonsense with some combination of valid argument and old-school archie bunker chauvanism. very little turns on a feminist as much as a guy who can put her in her place.

    i do not, however, think it’s as simple as too much equality. the real problem is that woman have been gaining an increasing amount of political freedom and economic equality while at the same time being held less and less responsible for their actions. things like no-fault divorce coupled with generous alimony and child-support and a growing welfare state have effectively socialized the negative consequences of all manner of individual behavior. while being nonjudgmental can certainly be successful in the field, it’s not a stable long term strategy. if you want equilibrium, start punishing people for their poor choices. stop white knighting, immediately.

    the longer woman are able to have their cake and eat it too, the longer social decline will continue. is it a wonder that so many women love the movie Pretty Woman? it’s the ultimate female fantasy/mating strategy: whore it up while you’re at the peak of your mating market value and then manage to snag a weathy and attractive man to take care of you through old age.

    Like


  26. Roissy managed to blame it on America.

    Like


  27. Roissy, BOTM candiate attempts revenge on alpha, fails:

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/letterman_gal_in_double_play_WA19v2rcZbudEEnXJ27V8K

    Letterman’s a dick. But still an alpha.

    Like


  28. “I was hanging out with my friend the other day who is quite a bit better looking than me (I’m not ugly, he’s just hot I guess). So he and I are hanging out with this girl from school and I decide to test something.

    Early that day I tell her a joke and she kind of laughs. So about 6 hours later, I have my friend tell her the exact same joke, word for word and she cracks up like it’s the funniest thing she’s ever heard.

    Apparently the same exact joke was funnier when told by him, just because he’s better looking. Avoid girls/guys like that at all cost. “

    Like


  29. I read this somewhere. great illustration haha

    Like


  30. “Race, Gender and the Frontier” cont.

    On the other hand, as in the case of the German people’s 
enthusiastic support of Hitler against the “international 
Jewish financial conspiracy” and “cosmopolitan decadence”, 
many have been pushed to the limit and are waking up to the 
manipulation of their moral faithfulness by the rhetoric of 
encroaching alpha males, homosexual beta males and harems 
made up of “independent” females.  The relentless demands 
for genocidal “political correctness” from these advocates 
of the deep culture is starting to create a backlash in the 
shallow culture as its populations shrink and age.  

    This is an exceedingly dangerous situation.

    As they awaken, many naturally react with violent racism, 
misogyny, gay-bashing and other pathological modes.  But since 
most shallow culture males know they need a moral system 
within which to operate, rather than lashing out chaotically, 
they tend to contain their hatred, remaining silent as they 
seethe in anger awaiting some “leader” who will provide the 
moral imprint to guide them out of their predicament.  

    Given the incredible power of modern technology under the 
control of these males around the world, this situation 
presents a profound crisis.

    White, heterosexual Christian males are profoundly 
privileged having been blessed with a technical prowess 
arising from countless generations of adaptation to harsh 
habitats.  Each time they turn away from the challenges, 
risks and opportunities of a new frontier and seek the 
benign safety and comfort of their past accomplishments, 
they deny their strength and confront an impossible 
situation in the sexual, social and political sophistication 
of the deep cultures that have diffused into those habitats.   
Given the fundamental choice of turning away from frontiers, 
their only recourse is dogmatic separatism or technological 
genocide.  

    Since shallow culture males have chosen to turn away from 
the profound challenges of exploring and expanding 
frontiers, they find their technology subjugated in all forms 
of bureaucracies, military, government and corporate.  The shallow males find their reproductive rates, as a group, plummeting, their civilizations transforming into the more technically primitive but sexually sophisticated states compatible with the deeper cultures, women contemptuous of them and the temptation to engage in genocide or murderous rampages of hate ever increasing.  The mutually reinforcing phenomena of Christianity, science and progress are replaced by the vicious cycle of polygamy, politics and stagnation.

    Like


  31. The ascendance of the beta male (and, not coincidentally, the rise of American power)

    this post is a pavlovian game intended to short circuit the reader´s mind and and proving that anything posted in this blog will generate several hundred comments

    Like


  32. “Apparently the same exact joke was funnier when told by him, just because he’s better looking. Avoid girls/guys like that at all cost. “”

    translation = avoid all humans.

    Like


  33. FeministX:

    Feminism is the PERFECT way of separating the alphas from the rest. The real dominant male will learn to see through it.

    In other words, by throwing up a dust cloud of pretty lies, women can thereby differentiate between men who are idealists (thoughtful), versus men who could give two shits about high-falutin’ social theory and just do what they want (sociopaths).

    Which goes to show women can’t respect a man who buys into their bullshit.

    Women really want sociopaths.

    And as Roissy is saying, this now means the sociopaths are no longer dismissive of feminist BS, now they ACTIVELY pay lipservice to the bullshit while still acting in an aloof, emotionally distant, Game-type behavior.

    Like


  34. Which is why when women accuse me of being a sociopath, I can onoly but take a bow and thank them for making me possible.

    This town has turned me into what I have become
    This town dresses me up like a stranger
    This town waited up in the doorway to tell me I’m late
    This town…takes us down
    – Marillion

    Like


  35. You make Karl Marx sound like a sober, rational person. How can you believe, on the one hand, that women are backstabbing bitches, and that they will all work together to work for the benifet of all females.

    It’s ironic that you use a word first penned in “The Selfish Gene”, while ignoring the conclusion of that book. Evolution drives animals to take care of themselves (and perhaps their relatives), but it does not encourage them to help others, even within their species. The idea that evolution would drive millions of women to help each other for no other reason than “the female cultural equality” is a contadiction in terms.

    Like


  36. Apparently the same exact joke was funnier when told by him, just because he’s better looking. Avoid girls/guys like that at all cost.

    That would be ALL people.

    Like


  37. “In other words, by throwing up a dust cloud of pretty lies, women can thereby differentiate between men who are idealists (thoughtful), versus men who could give two shits about high-falutin’ social theory and just do what they want (sociopaths).”

    They are not sociopaths. They merely have a stronger drive to be alphas which prohibits them from adhering to a social norm that tries to make them egalitarian minded.

    Alphas may rise to the top of the establishment, but it is also alphas that made the establishment in the first place, thus alphas will also rebel and create a new establishment. These aren’t even my thoughts alone. I am repeating what alphas tell me.

    “Which goes to show women can’t respect a man who buys into their bullshit. ”

    It’s really not all bullshit.

    Like


  38. Good God, please ban jimbo…jim bowery is a fucking crank and jimbo is a racist, barely literate fool with no original ideas of his own.

    Here’s to banning his ass…

    Like


  39. by the way, and before we start beating up on women too much, it should be noted that men also want to have their cake and eat it too.

    we want a woman who is the model of chastity and virtue on the outside but begs us to violate them in every manner conceivable behind closed doors. we want unquestioned fidelity from our woman, but would love to be able to partake of a little variety now and then. we want a woman with enough sass to keep us on our toes, but not one who tries to behave like an emasculating shrew.

    the difference is that since men are normally the purusers, we have to rationally match our wants against what we actually have the potential to get. this process forces most men to face reality and to eventually settle. one of the negative aspects of feminism is that so many woman have suddenly decided that they are too good to settle.

    Like


  40. @Feministix
    But they are still just as satisfyingly alpha because alpha is a relative position, not an absolute thing.

    I understand this and agree with it that women are better off with relatively harmelss bar negging than with Sudan-Game.

    But some feminists, like Scandinavian ones have been institutionalizing, reduce “their” men’s aggression levels to the point where these gusy are incapable of defending women. So it’s good to tame the males, per your feminist logic, but you do wanna leave them with requisite capacity for violence and not neuter them completely, lest the’y’re pushed aside by genuinely dangerous ones, who do run Sudan-Game.

    Here is where Whiskey is preparing to chime in:”but women LOVE LOVE LOVE Sudan-Game. Which is why they live in gangland parts of the city and the more discreet girls sneak off from their SWPL neighborhoods and SWPL suburbs to gangland at night only. Wait, what?”

    Like


  41. Roissy managed to blame it on America.

    Hey Gig, when I nutted with that brasileira, I chanted: “U! S! A! U! S! A!”

    (ok I made that part up)

    Like


  42. Tupac’s link above to his comment a few months ago should be checked out. Very sophisticated thinking there.

    Like


  43. I guess Bill Clinton is then the perfect expression of the Alpha male in this brave new world… sad, sad, sad…

    Like


  44. Aw shucks, now you'[re making me blush

    Like


  45. Tupac writes:

    I’m sure you are aware of the phenomenon known as “ASD” (Anti Slut Defense).

    A woman — even if she is dripping wet with desire — will often not act on those desires out of fear of social opprobrium. The man she wants to bang has to make it easy for her to indulge in what it is she truly wants. The effective seducer realizes he has to give the woman plausible deniability so that she may convince herself “it just happened.”

    This is usually accomplished with just a few meaningless words. Then it’s on to business.

    I think you are wrong that all women “reward non-feminist men.” It’s more nuanced than that.

    I think what is happening is that there is a new form of ASD. In the same way that women want you to basically lie to them to make it easier for them to enjoy sex, they are now upping the ante and expecting men to tow the feminist party-line — at least in WORDS — and blow smoke up their asses about how wonderful women deserve to be.

    After their ego has been properly stroked, courting may be allowed to continue.

    Hey, is that Will Wilkinson and Kerry Howley?

    Like


  46. Thurs: could very well be.

    Like


  47. Live by Machiavellian principles forever more?
    That I will do, with great pleasure.

    We are entering the Era of Amoral Alpha Players.
    Any guesses on what will lie beyond that?

    Like


  48. But after looking at and hearing Willy speak, I kinda doubt it

    Something tells me Kerry is need of some serious deep dicking

    Like


  49. “But some feminists, like Scandinavian ones have been institutionalizing, reduce “their” men’s aggression levels to the point where these gusy are incapable of defending women. So it’s good to tame the males, per your feminist logic, but you do wanna leave them with requisite capacity for violence and not neuter them completely, lest the’y’re pushed aside by genuinely dangerous ones, who do run Sudan-Game.”

    It’s a paradox I sometimes comtemplate. What should have been done is have the most dangerous men emasculated first. Instead, the men easiest to emasculate were emasculated first (hard to aim higher when you act from a subordinate position), which now leaves the women prey to males of the more male dominated cultures. The only potential solution is that the alphas of Scandanivian culture will rise to the challenge of kicking the Islamofacists out.

    This is my similar to the problem with my grand scheme of eliminating 80% of males (the less intelligent, the less creative etc). It would be such a great world, but then one society would realize that if they became 50% male, they could invade the neighboring society.

    I haven’t thought about it enough to come up with a solution. How to simulteneously feminize all men of the world and keep them that way.

    Like


  50. Feminism can be used as a shit test. That’s when a girl confronts you with some feminist bullshit, you contradict her etc. and you end up together.

    But feminism can also be more about comfort building. That’s when a girl won’t date someone who won’t spout the feminist line. This is where Tupac’s analysis fits.

    Like


  51. Any guesses on what will lie beyond that?

    the Fall of Rome. Collapse of the institutions of civilization. Barbarian invasions. Hell, they can’t wait for us to fall, even though it would make them worse off.

    Every civilization has its animating forces: religion, empire, progress, etc. They lead to Ascent, then, Prosperity, then Decadence, then Decline… then another civilization with a big new idea enters and becomes dominant.

    Like


  52. Good God, please ban jimbo…jim bowery is a fucking crank and jimbo is a racist, barely literate fool with no original ideas of his own.

    Well thanks for that ringing endorsement. These days, being called a “racist” generally means that one’s claims are more credible and better approximate reality than those of “anti-racists.”

    “Race, Gender and the Frontier” was written in 1992. It was perspicacious then, and the broader trends that have increasingly revealed themselves since then until now indicate that it was quite prophetic. It provided the basis for the larger theory of “The Genetic Omnidominance Hypothesis” which I recommend to more sophisticated readers.

    Like


  53. on October 6, 2009 at 4:22 pm Dr. Grzlickson

    “We are entering the Era of Amoral Alpha Players.
    Any guesses on what will lie beyond that?”

    Thirty-thousand years of barbarism, unless we follow the path of Hari Seldon. Then a new Empire will arise from the two Foundations in a mere thousand years.

    Like


  54. I don’t know about anybody else, but game has made me fell much more free to speak my mind anywhere. With the level of game I now have, I know that no matter if my job is taken away, no matter if I’m reduced to poverty, no matter if I’m denounced by respectable society, I can still get women. And let’s face it, a big reason men work so hard to get ahead in their careers and don’t want to have them taken away is because they are afraid of what not having a job will do to them on the mating market. But, unless they actually throw you in prison, game can’t be taken away from you. There may be some women who won’t date you for your unfashionable opinions or your lack of respectable employment, but they are a lot fewer than you might think.

    As we all know, the economy has taken a downturn and jobs can be scarce. My most frequent wing over the past year has had a really hard time finding work over the past few months. He’s been really hard up lately. Anyway, using game he has managed to find himself a sugar mama. She buys him food, takes him out to dinner . . . It’s nuts. Granted she’s only a (solid) 6.5 and in her mid 30s, but still, she’s basically footing the bill for everything. Dudes, with game, even if worst comes to worst, this is the lowest you can fall.

    Like


  55. The problem with the deep/shallow and climatological model is that Mediterranean cultures developed metallurgy, first bronze then iron then steel weapons, before northern peoples. Moreover the cultures of South America and South Africa, on latitudes similar to that of France and Germany, found no such “beta model” of technological innovation. In fact the record of Northern Europe in terms of technology and resource usage (and polygamy) was relatively poor UNTIL Christianity and relatively enforced monogamy, plus relative “free holding” and craftsmanship. Moreover many “deep” cultures were wiped out by “shallow” ones: Aborigines, Amerinds, Central Asians.

    In support of Thursday, feminist ideas were floating around since the 1780’s at least, formally. It was only contraception, urbanization, tremendous wealth, and anonymous living that empowered feminism.

    Roissy’s larger point is correct however. Most men will become a-holes, bastiches, jerks, and so on that women will despair of “taming” because this is precisely what women want. Heck the explosive growth of tattoos to signal toughness is a big part of that change in male attitudes. Women will have herbivores, or assholes. And nothing in between.

    Feministx: don’t worry, males will soon move to gunplay and violence from negging a girl in a bar. This is what happened in the Ghetto Black community (and with knives and glass in the British Chav community). Women’s safety (and yours) depends on beta males with skin in the game. A brutal Alpha-takes-all leads to a transition phase of periodic Chos/Sodinis to Chris Brown.

    Alphas create stuff like Saudi Arabia. Or the Black Ghetto. That’s exactly what women will get in the long run.

    PA: women LOVE LOVE LOVE violence game appropriate to their socio-economic status. It’s why you see Ike and Tina Turner play out so much in various ethnic and economic groups. Dalrymple’s educated nurses choosing abusers, Wendy Schwartz, Rhianna, etc. Women don’t like being smacked around but will endure it for the violence men can inflict on others (it gets them off). It is there, in all women, to various degrees, in which social/personal mores, values, social groups restrain or encourage it.

    Like


  56. FemX:

    ““I propose, as an extension to this theory, that the absurdity of mid-20th to early 21st century feminism and all its adjuncts are better understood as progressively sophisticated emergent sexual selection strategies which act as social obstacles to filter out men who aren’t able to successfully navigate them. ”

    I figured this out when I was 12. How long did it take you?

    It’s perfect. And don’t ruin it. I’m 1000% serious here.”

    If this was said (by roissy) in all seriousness, I don’t buy it. As I mentioned before, beta males were initially the allies of feminists. They stood the most to gain by granting women freedom. Shaking up the patriarchy freed liberalism to do its dirty work; it needed female voices to do so. Beta males have long been the force behind liberalism. Alphas benefit most from conservative ideals.

    So feminism didn’t progress in order to shit test men. It arose as a power mechanism rather than a power filter. It granted women power rather than screened for it in men. Feminists initially didn’t want anything to do with men. They hate alpha men. They use the words “bigotry”, “sexism”, and “racism” when alpha men defend their castles.

    In fact, the feminist’s ploy when dealing with an alpha male is to just cover their ears and scream “NNNNNNNUUUNNNHHHH” like Jodie Foster in “Nell”.

    Like


  57. on October 6, 2009 at 4:45 pm fuglyfuckling

    Thursday – I would agree and I’ve seen it before and I have natural friends and not so bad myself… But when you refer to game and the lowest you can fall – are you talking about Mystery method? Something else? “Inner game”? Honestly there’s a lot of very useful bits and pieces in the community (very helpful for me as I didn’t grow up in this country and needed examples of fluff to talk about, even if I knew basic principles). But I feel like something is missing. While I never was an alpha cad, back in the days I got double-digits, was secret-societied by a married chick and then passed to her co-worker, and had friends who were naturals (i.e. basically negs are something we always employed, naturally). But with all that and a few books a read over last year, things are still not very clear to me when it comes past opening and perhaps some vibing.
    Sort of agree with some poster here – game materials are rather vague at actually generating attraction. Besides “you want what you can’t have”. For me a lot of it is still game of luck and numbers.

    Like


  58. What happens when you make an explicit move on a girl and she outright rejects it? I met this girl from online, she’s definitely a slut. She was talking about having a fuckbuddy in California and having fucked her ex last night here in New York. So when I was talking to her before she got on the train, I started touching her back a little, and she recoiled. I tried again, same thing. Weird thing is, she seemed into me before that, though I certainly could be wrong. She’s definitely a dirty girl. She even offered me a tit grab if I called her a “9”. So WTF do I do in this situation?

    Btw, she lives in Cali and I have her number, but she’ll be back in NYC visiting. 6 face, 9 body.

    Like


  59. Feminism is indeed one big shit test. It has liberated women socially to follow their biological imperative and breed with the alphas as much as possible. They form harems around such men to do so.

    I’ve always found exactly that so enraging about it, because it influences the law and many of the casualties end up in jail innocently or get raped in divorce court, etc. Betas are punished for the sins of the alphas. Like it or not, betas having lots of options to breed anchors them to society and creates stability and healthy environments to raise children. You can’t have an advanced and prosperous society without it.

    Like


  60. Betas are punished for the sins of the alphas.

    So true.

    Like


  61. whiskey,

    You completely misunderstand Bowery’s theory of deep and shallow cultures. And it has nothing to do with climatological models/arguments.

    Like


  62. …then another civilization with a big new idea enters and becomes dominant.
    brazil?..asia..australia?

    tShe even offered me a tit grab if I called her a “9″.
    did you call her a 9?

    Like


  63. “It has liberated women socially to follow their biological imperative and breed with the alphas as much as possible. They form harems around such men to do so. ”

    i see mosts feminists (jessica valenti) marrying herbs. men that will buy into what they’re saying. feminism is about power; they can’t have power over alpha males. unless you’re arguing that feminists really want to be overpowered by men – in that case you’d have to show me how that’s the case. as of now, feminists prefer lickspittle beta men because they can get their agenda through.

    Like


  64. on October 6, 2009 at 5:12 pm You Know I'm Right

    What is happening is that the USA is becoming increasingly Africanized in terms of social structure. We are reverting to African-style patterns of mating wherein a small number of ‘big men’ alphas dominate resources and the supply of women and shut out the normal/beta men. This is also common in the Arab world, so one could also say we are becoming Arabized.

    Next up: fascist-style movement of White American beta males to halt and reverse the current backsliding in to primitive African/Arab social mores, multiracialism, and extinction of the White race in North America. Stay tuned.

    Like


  65. as of now, feminists prefer lickspittle beta men because they can get their agenda through.

    A distinction needs to be made between feminists who self-identify as such because it’s the “right” thing to do, even as their hindbrain reacts in the typically female way, vs. feminists who have truly gone off the reservation, placed their libido and romantic nature in an icebox, and focus solely on power and material goods/status posturing.

    As to the former group, think of Jane Fonda or Gloria Steinem and who they married.

    Jessica Valenti would be an example of the latter group.

    I’m still on the fence about Kerry Howley, but the fact she characterizes her relationship as one of “consumption partnership” doesn’t bode well.

    P.S. seen Blade Runner yet?

    Like


  66. You Know I’m Right,

    Yeah, that’s basically Jim Bowery’s thesis that Jimbo pasted and linked to above.

    He was saying this back in 1992.

    And rorschach is right, whiskey misunderstands and misrepresents Bowery’s theory. American Indians, Central Asians, Australian aborigines wouldn’t be considered “deep” cultures. It’s not simply some crude climatological/latitude thing, and it’s not strictly geographical.

    Like


  67. tupac:

    not *yet* but soon.

    Like


  68. That is a very powerful statement Jimbo.Simply masterful.Any advice on further reading? Websites? Authors?

    Like


  69. Selecting for what end?

    Like


  70. FemX, your fantasies of a master human breeding program are strangely reminiscent of the Bene Gesserit sisterhood in the novel, DUNE (written before you were born). Interestingly, it took the ulimate alpha male, Leto II ,the God Emperor, to save humanity from extinction. Leto was the ultimate predator, a natural result of biological systems and even a necessity of said systems. The masculine side of the human duality will not and should not be extinguished. The Bene Gesserit were commonly referred to as witches. They were primarily interested in controlling human bloodlines. Sound like someone you know? Witch is an excellent nickname for you femXX. You would also make a good axlotl tank.

    Like


  71. Psychologists Cindy Meston and David Buss, authors of the 2007 study “Why Humans Have Sex,” have completed a second go-round, this time focused on women only. They come up with 237 reasons, and though they’re not enumerated in the article, Time asks Buss for some highlights:

    * Besides sexual attraction and love, big reasons woman have sex are “to boost their self-esteem or sexual esteem, to get revenge, to secure ‘mate insurance’ in case a partner dumps them, to relieve pain, to achieve health benefits such as getting rid of a headache—yes, it works—to decrease stress, to lose weight, and as a sleep aid.”

    * Buss was “surprised by the importance of revenge. Women’s revenge sex involved getting back at a cheating partner, or having sex with the partner of a friend who had poached her partner.”
    * Advice for guys without v-shaped torsos and strong jaws: “Have good hygiene. Sense of smell is critical. Otherwise, “personality, sense of humor, self-confidence and social status” are important, Buss says. “These things can transform an average-looking man into a sexually attractive man in the minds of many women.”

    Like


  72. Hey Gig, when I nutted with that brasileira, I chanted

    when I “nutted ” the last one, I chanted “once again! once again! once again! “

    Like


  73. on October 6, 2009 at 6:00 pm Cannon's Canon

    “separate the alpha wheat from the beta chaff”

    why would you ever want to be WHEAT?!?

    Like


  74. I agree with most of what Roissy has said, but you gotta be careful with the evolution stuff. It is unlikely that we have had any mutations since blue eyes and lactose tolerance, about 10,000 years ago. The only thing that has changed since then is technology.

    Like


  75. This is all so silly, this discussion. It all comes down to money, or its equivalent. If the man has money and the female needs it, those legs open up. The only contest then is to see how much money she can get by opening her legs. If she has her own money, she only opens her legs for sociopaths or lesbians (or dogs, whatever).

    Life is simple.

    You have to admire those betas with underground prisons and all. Way to go!

    Like


  76. I agree with most of what Roissy has said, but you gotta be careful with the evolution stuff. It is unlikely that we have had any mutations since blue eyes and lactose tolerance, about 10,000 years ago. The only thing that has changed since then is technology.

    el chief,

    It’s likely that evolution has accelerated during the past 10,000 years and that human beings continue to evolve.

    Like


  77. The huge brain of humans is a a consequence of sexual evolution, just like the brilliant colors of birds or big horns on a deer…
    Woman like smart guys, end of story.

    Like


  78. women like smart guys who don’t act too intelligent

    i already said what attracts men and women

    SEXUALLY: the prospect of very good sex.
    EMOTIONALLY: the prospect of someone who appreciates them and they can have non-ordinary adventures with

    the only difference between men and women is that men are largely turned on physically, while women are turned on largely mentally. So they look for diffrent things in terms of sexual attraction.

    But as far as emotional attraction it’s the same game on both sides.

    Like


  79. biktopia

    Woman like smart guys, end of story.

    ===============================

    This comment will engender some discussion, and rebuttal, I am sure.

    My take: Women like smart guys for the secondary benefits (money, security, flowers, social status), but not for screwing. Big bad boys are the preferred partners.

    This blog is all about screwing.

    Have you wondered why mountain gorillas have small penises but humans and chimpanzees have big ones? Hint: There is no correlation between brain size and penis size.

    Your statement is a perfect example of why there is absolutely no use asking a woman what women like in men. In fact, it is counterproductive to ask them.

    Like


  80. “Woman like smart guys, end of story.”

    Another girl who has penetrated zero girls yet thinks she knows what makes them open their legs. Laugh.

    Like


  81. You see, from my perspective, i strive to search for all of those qualities in a guy you mention, but if i go on a date, no matter how good looking or sexy the guy is, if he says retarded things then it’s asking for the bill time,,,, i just cannot go further. on the other hand, if a guy is perhaps not a greek god, but is clever as hell, then, well yes, i can really fall deeply for that, the brain is the best sexual tool there is actually…

    Like


  82. By intelligence, you really mean “verbal agility”. I have a PhD in physics and I’ve never met a women who thought my ability to solve field theory problems as sexy.

    Like


  83. Roosh, you are living in lala land.

    Like


  84. Biktopia is Hungarian. Smart guys aren’t automatically associated with nerds in E. Europe like they are in the US. In fact, in Slavic languages there is no word for “nerd.” (I know, H. isn’t slavic, but it’s the region.)

    The closest to “nerd” in Polish is “kujon,” which means a not-so-bright person who gets good grades by studying too much.

    Like


  85. Maybe I missed the humor, but as this reads to me, Roissy jumped the shark on this one.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories

    Like


  86. There is no correlation between brain size and penis size.

    This needs to be qualified. There doesn’t have to necessarily be a correlation between brain size and penis size in either direction. But this doesn’t mean that there can’t be robust correlations that indicate trade offs made during the evolution of subspecies.

    The human brain was extremely expensive to evolve, and its development in size and sophistication most certainly involved trade offs. It’s the biggest calorie consumer per kilogram by far of all the parts of the body.

    J. Philippe Rushton put it best when he said, “It’s a trade off, more brains or more penis. You can’t have everything.”

    Like


  87. on October 6, 2009 at 7:47 pm Steve Johnson

    feministx.blogspot.com:

    They are not sociopaths. They merely have a stronger drive to be alphas which prohibits them from adhering to a social norm that tries to make them egalitarian minded.

    Disregard for social norms for personal gain is sociopathy. Fuck it, social norms are pretty lame and there are nothing but rewards for violating them.

    “Which goes to show women can’t respect a man who buys into their bullshit. ”

    It’s really not all bullshit.

    Yeah, just tell us which parts of what you say isn’t bullshit so we can all ignore those parts. Oh, you can’t can you because you depend on guys seeing through bullshit as a filter.

    Nothing wrong with that but it does make on-line conversations a complete waste of time. Maybe you’re sincere maybe you’re just saying something as a smokescreen. Who cares?

    Like


  88. With intelligence i mean social/verbal/survival intelligence, i think its also connected with higher education but not always, there are some very smart people never been to school.

    Like


  89. You are definitely a delusional retard. You are one girl, the sample size of fucking ONE, and think you know what all women want. Let me guess… you’re single, late 20’s, considering cat ownership. Sigh, seen it a million times.

    Like


  90. on October 6, 2009 at 8:24 pm The Fifth Horseman

    I will take it one step further than Roissy.

    The current situation is NOT matched by pre-agricultural times. In those days, a woman who mated with too many men risked pregnancy, resultant poverty, violence, etc.

    Today, the penalties for being promiscuous have been lifted. That has never, ever happened before. This is at the same time as laws being enacted to facilitate female hypergamy.

    All this will revert back sharply by 2020, however, as per the Four Horsemen of Male Vengeance.

    Like


  91. Shorter thesis: “feminism” is a shit test?

    I’ve been saying that for months.

    Like


  92. It’s really true. Women like men slightly more intelligent than they are. It’s a staple part of our hypergamy. They don’t ordinarily like men much much more intelligent than they are because it would involve attraction to men unlike their forefathers. Really smart guys are attractive to girls that are slightly less intelligent than they are, but there are less such females because of the IQ SD difference. So once IQ is 145, the guys are attractive to girls with IQ 135, but 1) only 1% of girls have IQs around that level and 2) males significantly outnumber females at that level, so a guy with an IQ of 145 would through his intelligence attract only a small small number of girls and it would give the general impression that girls don’t like smart guys. On the other hand, a guy with an IQ of 105 would be attractive to maybe 30% of women based only on his intelligence.

    And I’m a girl that’s penetrated a hella lot more girls than zero if we count tongues as penetrative organs.

    Like


  93. on October 6, 2009 at 8:39 pm You Know I'm Right

    el chief:”It is unlikely that we have had any mutations since blue eyes and lactose tolerance, about 10,000 years ago. The only thing that has changed since then is technology.”

    You obviously know nothing about genetics. Our genes are mutating (evolving) all the time, though most mutations do not express outwardly right away. As others noted above, the development of agriculture and more recently advanced technology is spurring humanity to evolve faster.

    In fact, the main reason the White/European race is the most advanced race is because they are evolving quicker than other races; as you wrote, they were the first to physically evolve lactose tolerance, non-brown eyes, very light skin; later on they developed advanced forms of technology far ahead of all other races, further refined stable agricultural and pastoral techniques, and also evolved more civil societies and advanced institutions which further spurred advances. White/Western societies are still the most complex and advanced in the world by a long-shot, and this is also causing a further quickening of adaptive evolution.

    Of course, some might call White Europeans the most ‘genetically evolved,’ while others would call them the most ‘genetically mutated’ since they are actually the same thing.

    The real question is: what will the next big mutation or evolutionary step be? When, where, and among what group(s) will it show up first? Will it be something really far out advanced like mental telepathy, or just a weird physical attribute like orange eyes or something?

    Like


  94. “I have a PhD in physics and I’ve never met a women who thought my ability to solve field theory problems as sexy.”

    Femmy’s ex was a theoretical physicist. It was sexy.

    Like


  95. biktopia,

    The fact that you compared the huge brain of Man to “the brilliant colors of birds or big horns on a deer” reveals just how ignorant and stupid you are.

    You completely lack any perspective as to just how expensive it is to develop and maintain something like the human brain.

    The brain is about 2% of an adult’s body weight, yet it accounts for 20-25% of an adult’s resting oxygen and energy intake. In early life, the brain even makes up for up 60-70% of the body’s total energy requirements. A chimpanzee’s brain, in comparison, only consumes about 8-9% of its resting metabolism. The human brain’s energy demands are about 8 to 10 times higher than those of skeletal muscles, and, in terms of energy consumption, it’s equal to the rate of energy consumed by leg muscles of a marathon runner when running. And like I said earlier, it’s the biggest calorie consumer per kilogram by far of all the parts of the body.

    The costs and requirements to develop and maintain them are so great that it’s impossible that the frivolous desires of women through sexual selection would exert enough pressure to result in them. It took severe, harsh environments that placed enormous cognitive challenges and stresses on survival and simple resource accumulation/maintenance, and many generations of less intelligent, less capable, and just downright unlucky people dying off before reproducing, and only the most intelligent, able, disciplined, lucky, surviving and reproducing.

    By contrast, it costs nature jack shit to evolve and maintain some feathers and horns, no matter how colorful or impressive they are.

    Some aspects of “social” intelligence may have been sexually selected for, but this would have been marginal, and developed upon the much greater substrate of intelligence that evolved out of survival pressures in a harsh environment.

    Like


  96. By contrast, it costs nature jack shit to evolve and maintain some feathers and horns, no matter how colorful or impressive they are

    Bright feathers attract predators. Big deer horns slow you down and get tangled up in branches.

    Like


  97. @feministix

    If we have a society which encourages male dominance, it can be lethal to women. Look at the Arab world. Males are capable of great violence and oppression. In Sudan, they assert alpha position by slaughtering other people and raping women and keeping them as slaves.

    Ironically, this is exactly the outcome feminists have all but ensured by neutering the males of Western Europe – violent Arab males will take over and enslave the women. Sure hope some of today’s feminists live to see it!

    The only potential solution is that the alphas of Scandanivian culture will rise to the challenge of kicking the Islamofacists out.

    No chance. Men who agree to breastfeed their own children are hopeless. The Islamofascists are going to outbreed them anyway.

    This is my similar to the problem with my grand scheme of eliminating 80% of males (the less intelligent, the less creative etc). It would be such a great world, but then one society would realize that if they became 50% male, they could invade the neighboring society.

    You deranged cunt, why hasn’t anyone in this thread called you a deranged cunt yet?

    Like


  98. ey, Roiss, for come reason all of my comments frm home (stuff I post in the evening) don’t get posted until you un-moderate them.

    Like


  99. Jimbo = Jim Bowery.

    Get your own fucking blog, dude.

    Like


  100. You Know I’m Right said :

    “In fact, the main reason the White/European race is the most advanced race is because they are evolving quicker than other races; as you wrote, they were the first to physically evolve lactose tolerance, non-brown eyes, very light skin; later on they developed advanced forms of technology far ahead of all other races, further refined stable agricultural and pastoral techniques, and also evolved more civil societies and advanced institutions which further spurred advances.”

    My Response Is :

    What is particularly disturbing is that what you wrote collectively gives the impression that you BELIEVE this.

    In reality, if you were to state this to any Anthropologist, Geneticist or even Historian, you would receive simultaneous disdain and laughter.

    In fact, I’m not even going to attempt to pick this apart and let others devolve this conversation into another Flame War.

    Here is what I will ask of you: Find just ONE peer-reviewed reference of good repute in the field of Cultural History, Anthropology or Genetics to support your hypothesis.

    Just ONE. I challenge you.

    Good luck!

    Like


  101. Canada
    When i told about the human brain, came from my teacher in physiology, i didn’t say it was true neither that i made it up, its a thought, Surviving was a high card for sexual attractiveness, so in a way, harsh forces influenced the choice of guy and a smart guys probably survived better and got more women, and less fortunate small brained males just didn’t reproduce.

    (Lala roosh, Not a single statement correct but keep on trying.)

    Like


  102. Roissy…. with all due respect…. you are talking out of your ass here.

    Extreme feminism is the result of a (Western) culture loosing its bearings over the course of the 1960’s with the “sexual revolution” and the “pill”. However the trend of extreme feminism started in the late 19th Century. An important step was the play “A Dolls House” written by Henrik Johan Ibsen. Yes it was a guy.

    This play, today taught in all High School and 100 level college English classes, tells women that they must live a “meaningful life” (whatever the hell that means for a woman) and disregard children and husband. This WALKOUT is actually a male behavior. Few women do so, and when they do the circumstances are much more extreme when compared to males.

    You can see the final result of the extreme Feminism in the low to negative European and Japanese population growth rates. In short, the states that follow “western” feminist culture the most. The only reason why, on the total, Europe stays positive is because of Muslim immigration (conservative with very strong family values). And the in the US is the same story but our immigration is mostly Hispanic (generally conservative with strong family values), myself included 😛

    Now….. Alpha males will always reproduce no matter what the culture is. Today, under western culture they master game (via books or natural). Back in the day they took several wives/concubines.

    The most alpha male of the alpha males, Genghis Khan, is said to be the ancestor of 1/200 men in the Eurasian continental landmass. He saying goes: “The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, [I]and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters[/I].”

    Like


  103. biktopia,

    If that’s the case, then you clearly don’t understand fundamental concepts in evolutionary theory. You’re misusing important terms and confusing yourself and others.

    Like


  104. Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what’s right.

    Like


  105. I do understand the basics, i’ve studied it, i will not say i know everything, im not a professor or researching the subject.
    What exactly is it that you think is confusing in what i am writing, i do disagree with a few things you wrote, especially the rigidity of your thinking.
    What i am describing is a theory, not proven by any means, but you clearly say this is impossible, and i say this could certainly be possible.

    Like


  106. “The human brain’s energy demands are about 8 to 10 times higher than those of skeletal muscles, and, in terms of energy consumption, it’s equal to the rate of energy consumed by leg muscles of a marathon runner when running. And like I said earlier, it’s the biggest calorie consumer per kilogram by far of all the parts of the body.”

    This marathon running thingie. Where did u get that from? A person needs around 90 kcal/hour in rest. Including the brain, that’s like a 5 peanuts/hour.

    Like


  107. The most pervasive delusions are based on confabulating reasonable explanations to support ones beliefs.

    Like


  108. I’d argue that beta males are more prevalent today than ever.

    It certainly was a glut of beta males who ceded rights to women in generations past.

    I don’t think that circa 1950s America had a critical mass of betas that contributed to the downfall of society. A general sampling of almost any prior era in history (Middle Ages: a few alpha lords, lots of beta serfs; Roman Empire: a few alpha patricians, lots of beta plebs; etc.)

    There will always be fewer alphas than betas. It’s a “too many chiefs, not enough Indians” kind of problem. Human societies were relatively stable under the stewardship of the elect-few alphas, masses of betas model.

    If anything, the democratization of personal choice, middle-income wealth, etc. brought more betas up to the realm of greater-beta, flirting with alpha characteristics. Greater personal autonomy, your own middle-class income with which to attract a wife and raise a family, etc.

    It was precisely at this moment, when age-old social dynamics were still in flux, that the feminist contagion was unleashed. By any objective measure other than the subjective, personal rants of die-hard feminists, women as a whole are worse off four decades into feminism than they were before hand. (Cases of depression, women in poverty, single motherhood, reliance on welfare state, women’s self-identified unhappiness, stress over having to “do it all,” etc.)

    Like


  109. Tupac said

    Hey Gig, when I nutted with that brasileira, I chanted: “U! S! A! U! S! A!”

    (ok I made that part up)

    Whenever nutting with a foreign chick, always spray on her chest while humming the Star Spangled Banner with a tear in your eye. Finish with a salute.

    Like


  110. “Whenever nutting with a foreign chick, always spray on her chest while humming the Star Spangled Banner with a tear in your eye. Finish with a salute.”

    I usually alternate between the Star Spangled Banner and Stars and Stripes Forever.

    Like


  111. on October 6, 2009 at 10:40 pm The Happy Herbivore

    Obviously the ideal solution is to legalize polygamy. Then all the women can have what they want (marriage to an alpha male), and the herbivores can lead peaceful, nonsexual lives without being bothered by women looking for husbands.

    Like


  112. You Know I’m Right,

    Is that why whites used to empty their chamberpots on the street in front of their houses until 150 years ago?

    Like


  113. T-1000,

    Can you really apply terminology based on the behavior of lions and wolves to humans living in complex and fragile systems?

    It cannot end well.. can it?

    Like


  114. The worst aspect of brown women is that- in addition to being SWPLs, they hate themselves.

    Like


  115. They hate themselves, makes it easy to bone them.

    Social climbers in the best way.

    Like


  116. on October 6, 2009 at 10:47 pm unlearning genius

    @Roissy,

    You might be skilled at “Game”, but rigorous scientific thinking is certainly not your forte .. Unlike “Game” it takes little more than self delusion and a facade of confidence.

    There is no such thing as an evolutionary equilibrium and the female hypergamy state that you suggest is nothing new .. it is just one of the possible mating strategies .. sure the western civ is probably experiencing an excess of hypergamous behavior currently but it is unsustainable in a long term sense ..this will result in is a gradual shift of power to civilizations that do not practice hypergamy .. so in the end the betas might win after all .. Widespread hypergamous behavior has been recorded over history across the world .. it is nothing new. It has also been recorded to be an unsustainable state.

    So while your “bar slut gaming” ..”psychosexual dominance showing” …”pretty lie busting” “alpha” genes are busy enjoying the short term pleasure trips of multiple wet sensations other “loser beta” genes are busy building empires.
    ..(possible cuckholding in some cases). You cannot fool the gods of reality ..not in a long term sense.

    Like


  117. It’s that line of thinking that the human animal is so goddamn special and different from lions, wolves, etc. that will get you in trouble.

    Like


  118. Canada Dry,

    Maybe the lack of human physical ability (in comparison to even smaller animals) had something to do with development of the human brain..

    Face it.. even an adult rhesus could win against an unarmed adult human guy. Without tools and weapons, humans are pathetic weaklings.

    Like


  119. I predict a Seldon Crisis within the year.

    Like


  120. T-1000,

    A wolf or a lion shares most genes (and their products) with you..

    I have yet to see a wolf write something..

    Apparently small differences can put on you on a completely different trajectory.

    Like


  121. “In fact, the main reason the White/European race is the most advanced race is because they are evolving quicker than other races; as you wrote, they were the first to physically evolve lactose tolerance, non-brown eyes, very light skin; later on they developed advanced forms of technology far ahead of all other races, further refined stable agricultural and pastoral techniques, and also evolved more civil societies and advanced institutions which further spurred advances. White/Western societies are still the most complex and advanced in the world by a long-shot, and this is also causing a further quickening of adaptive evolution.

    Of course, some might call White Europeans the most ‘genetically evolved,’ while others would call them the most ‘genetically mutated’ since they are actually the same thing.”

    Most of what’s written here regarding tech/social/cultural development, and eye/skin coloration, etc., is true.

    Though the whole “evolving quicker” bit seems confused.

    I’m not sure you understand what “genetically evolved” and “genetically mutated” even mean.

    African mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) has accumulated the most mutations, and this suggests that Africans have the oldest ancestry. Northeast Mongoloids have relatively homogeneous mtDNA, suggesting that NE Mongoloids are of most recent ancestry.

    NE Mongoloid morphology is the most neotenized (paedomorphic) in certain major features such as the skull among the various human subspecies, and this suggests a most recent ancestry as well.

    Genetic distances calculated from protein systems seem to suggest that there was an African/non-African split ~110,000 years ago, and then a Caucasoid/Mongoloid split ~41,000 years ago.

    In terms of genetic distance from human origins, NE Mongoloids seem to be the most “genetically evolved” of these three subspecies.

    Though it should be noted that these issues are far from settled and that there are diverging viewpoints.

    Like


  122. The issue that HBDers and roissy do not seem (or want to grap) is:

    Evolution does not optimize. It merely ensures that what can survive will survive (in the given environment).

    The apex predators in S. America before the central american land bridge was formed (~ 3 million years ago) were giant flightless birds.

    After the bridge was formed big cats moved to S. America. However a species or two of ‘terror birds’ also moved into N.America, and lived on for more than a million years.

    So why did they die out, but the big cats (jaguar) live on? It certainly could not be competition as some ‘terror birds’ competed against big cats very well- and moved into texas for over a million years.

    Think about that one.. or how H.Sapiens and H.neanderthalis coexisted in the same areas for over 10,000 years. What killed neanderthals? Humans have not evolved a lot over the last 40k years..

    Like


  123. In Response to unlearning genius :

    I tend to agree.

    I theorize that an influx of traditional minded foreign women or an outflux of materially and educationally sucessful “Beta” men to foreign countries with large populations of attractive and accepting traditional minded native women will help to reset the current imbalance in the ‘Date&Mate Gameboard’ for Western Civilization.

    I’m already seeing this phenomenon demonstrated by ‘Beta’ looking college-aged white guys dating hot foreign women in my university town, friends I know who refuse to date American women and concentrate all their time and resources towards 6 month trips to exotic foreign locales every year and many U.S. Sailors and Marines who are married to foreign SouthEast Asian women happily.

    Like


  124. Those who will win the future are those who show up for it——Steve Sailer.

    Steve is right. South Korea, a nation with a birthrate below 1.0 children per female, is probably toast if they cant get it turned around over the next 30 years.

    Like


  125. “A wolf or a lion shares most genes (and their products) with you..I have yet to see a wolf write something..

    Apparently small differences can put on you on a completely different trajectory.”

    Precisely. This is why the PC bullshit regarding race and race differences that we’re all subjected to is so blatantly untrue. You know the whole bit about how we’re all the same because we’re genetically “99.9%” the same.

    Next time someone tells you that, tell them that men and chimps share about 98.5% of their DNA (true), and that men and mice share about 97.5% of their DNA (true).

    Like


  126. The fuel driving modern western feminism has always been, imho, female loathing for needing to be sexual towards Mr. Average Beta Provider in order to survive with kids. Various female “empowerments” in career possibilities etc. held out the promise of ending that necessity.
    This turned out to be about half true. Women can avoid sex with *to them) unworthy guys but they cannot get committment from guys they want. So they are unhappy.
    Their G. Grandmothers might have given them good advice but they are not around any more.

    Like


  127. I find it suspicious that none of the HBD-crowd have tried to refute the works of Jared Diamond on the subject of race, culture and technology advancement amongst Eurasian peoples.

    Like


  128. Superb post, roissy!

    Like


  129. Ruby – “I find it suspicious that none of the HBD-crowd have tried to refute the works of Jared Diamond on the subject of race, culture and technology advancement amongst Eurasian peoples.”

    Here you go :
    http://www.isteve.com/diamond.htm

    Like


  130. I find it suspicious that none of the HBD-crowd have tried to refute the works of Jared Diamond on the subject of race, culture and technology advancement amongst Eurasian peoples.

    “Guns, Germs, and Steel” was written over 10 years ago. Where the hell have you been?

    Like


  131. I do understand the basics, i’ve studied it, i will not say i know everything, im not a professor or researching the subject.
    What exactly is it that you think is confusing in what i am writing, i do disagree with a few things you wrote, especially the rigidity of your thinking.
    What i am describing is a theory, not proven by any means, but you clearly say this is impossible, and i say this could certainly be possible.

    The mistake you are making is looking at the brain as a whole. The parts of the brain that deal with sexual selection and sexual motivation are not the ones that are responsible for ‘intelligence’ at all. They are in fact almost mutually exclusive; you use one or the other.

    The higher IQ you are, the less you rely on those parts of your brain that are responsible for sexual functions altogether. Past a certain level of intelligence (even the subgenius levels) relying on instinct is totally superfluous. Women like men that follow their instincts, which requires that you fall into a range of intelligence (average and below) that makes your subconscious, non-rational mind useful in decision making.

    A huge part of the PUA community are guys that exist in that above average to barely subgenius spectrum (many of us are nerds) that have acknowledged that their intelligence is not important to women in sexual selection, and that it is actually an active hindrance in getting laid. Engaging women intellectually is a losing strategy. Displaying ‘intelligence’ is simply a (shitty) DHV and has nothing to do with actually being ‘intelligent’ (social ‘intelligence’ and quick wit are not intelligence of any kind; everyone probably knows someone that is witty but also as dumb as a rock. Those two things commonly hand in hand actually). Displaying value (ie resourcefulness) by grabbing a women by her hind-brain by winning in a battle of conflicting realities and proving intelligence by engaging her on an intellectual plain are not at all the same thing.

    If you are engaging anyone on an intellectual level, you are engaging a part of their brain that has really nothing at all to do with sex. To use that part of their brain they have to temporarily sequester their sexual motivators. No one is getting hot and bothered while doing a math-proof, men or women. To get sex you need to shut down the thinking mind and ‘think’ with the hind-brain. Being smart (and actively using your intelligence) and getting laid are literally at odds with each other. A truly massive part of Game is about shutting down internal dialog. The smarter you are, the harder this is to do. Inner calm is a learned skill for smart people, and a natural state of being for the stupid. Stupid wins in sexual selection because their state of mind is ripe for sex.

    Women do not like smart men. They backward rationalize the men they select as being ‘smart’. In truth they like ‘resourceful’ men, which is a totally nebulous concept. ‘Resourcefulness’ often just means a man that is pretty much literally thinking with his dick. Displaying value =/= being intelligent.

    As far as assortive ‘mating’ and IQ goes; those statistics mean nothing unless you can find a way of incorporating all of the Natural Alphas and Players that a women is banging through her youth before ‘mating’ and on the side afterward. A dump Alpha gets more women than even a subgenius smart guy any day of the week. Anyone who can’t admit that is deluding themselves.

    Maybe we will evolve to a point where a ‘big brain’ means something in sexual selection eventually, but right now we are pretty much still cavemen and monkey attraction rules over all. A man with the Will to Power is one that gets laid. One that can easily get through life on pure intellect is probably involuntarily celibate. His entire state of existence is antithetical to sexual motivation and sexual selection.

    If intellect were really a factor in sexual selection women would flock to accomplished theoretical scientists and mathematicians as if they were rock stars. Women want a Lord Byron, not a Charles Darwin, and that is totally physiological. Does anyone really want to contest the fact that dumbass Z-list celebrities have easier access to sex than anyone on the planet? A woman’s ability to find rapport with him due to similar IQ is completely irrelevant to her giving up a ONS. We know a woman will get pregnant with an Alpha and find an emotional (intellectual?) tampon mate to help provide and raise her Alpha’s offspring. Birth control and abortion stifle this phenomena, but that is irrelevant in actually considering what sexual selection is. What is being called ‘mating’ in these studies is really ‘nesting’. They two are clearly not synonymous.

    Like


  132. In Response to Canada Dry :

    What does the age of the text have to do with its objectivity?

    Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” was written 150 years ago and — SURPRISE, SURPRISE! — it’s theories are still found to be objective and relevant to modern perspectives on evolution and linear development.

    Like


  133. on October 7, 2009 at 12:03 am Steve Johnson

    Hey Ruby,

    Know what the full title of “Descent of Man” is?

    Like


  134. on October 7, 2009 at 12:05 am Steve Johnson

    Damn, wrong book.

    The full title of “Origin of Species”, not “Descent of Man”.

    Like


  135. In Response to Steve Johnson :

    You misunderstand me.

    I am not railing against the sexual studies of evolutionary psychology and anthropology, just bullshit racial theories proposed by the most disturbed variant of Human Bio-Diversity proponents without one reference to a peer-reviewed and scientific-community sanctioned study to back them up.

    I liken these people to Fundamentalist Christians exhorting the ‘truth’ of Creationism while ignoring all empirical evidence of evolution and ‘Big Bang Theory’.

    Like


  136. In Response to Steve Johnson :

    During the late 19th century, the term ‘race’ was interchangeable with ‘species’ without the racist connotations associated with the pseudo-scientific polygenistic demagogues of the time.

    In actuality, Charles Darwin was a lifelong abolitionist who studied evolution to dismantle the racism of the time.

    http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Darwins_Evolution_Theory_Inspired_By_Abolition_of_Slavery_34097.html

    Like


  137. What does the age of the text have to do with its objectivity?

    Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” was written 150 years ago and — SURPRISE, SURPRISE! — it’s theories are still found to be objective and relevant to modern perspectives on evolution and linear development.

    Ruby, you said that “none of the HBD-crowd have tried to refute the works of Jared Diamond on the subject of race, culture and technology advancement amongst Eurasian peoples.” My point in indicating that Diamond’s major work on this is over 10 years old is that that has been quite a bit of time during which Diamond’s work has been discussed by the “HBD-crowd.” Not that it being over 10 years old necessarily discounts its value or something.

    Like


  138. I am not railing against the sexual studies of evolutionary psychology and anthropology, just bullshit racial theories proposed by the most disturbed variant of Human Bio-Diversity proponents without one reference to a peer-reviewed and scientific-community sanctioned study to back them up.

    I see. So basically, you like science if it helps get you pussy. But not so much if it forces you to confront uncomfortable facts about human biodiversity.

    You do realize that many of the same people that rail against “bullshit racial theories” also say the same things about “sexual studies of evolutionary psychology,” right? They call them “bullshit sexist theories” and say that their proponents lack “one reference to a peer-reviewed and scientific-community sanctioned study to back them up.”

    Like


  139. on October 7, 2009 at 12:27 am Steve Johnson

    Ruby

    I am not railing against the sexual studies of evolutionary psychology and anthropology, just bullshit racial theories proposed by the most disturbed variant of Human Bio-Diversity proponents without one reference to a peer-reviewed and scientific-community sanctioned study to back them up.

    Like physical and mental differences between races or like theories as to the cause of these differences?

    Because there are thousands of peer reviewed studies that document the differences in average physical and mental traits between races. In fact, I dare you to site a study of a trait that doesn’t find a difference between races.

    If you’re railing against people theorizing about what social and environment differences caused the differences you see every day then you’re really going up against human nature. People like to talk about stuff like breeding. It’s inherently interesting to a social species.

    Like


  140. @k when you mentioned ‘will to power’, it made me think of the analogy of alpha/beta to those who have the ‘noble ethics’ and those who are beta as those who embrace the ‘slave ethics’. Nietzsche’s Noble morality as in grace, power, and passion. Nietzsche’s Slave morality as in humility, forgiveness, and reactivity.

    So as Roissy is jesting, perhaps Feminism acts as a centrifuge separating the noble values from slave values.

    Like


  141. on October 7, 2009 at 12:31 am Steve Johnson

    BTW, about Diamond; he knows about racial differences and has been published on the subject. Google Diamond and testicle size.

    The article title is “Ethnic Differences: Variations in Human Testis Size”.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v320/n6062/abs/320488a0.html

    Fun fun stuff for someone who argues that human intelligence doesn’t vary. Except for Papu New Guineaians. They’re smarter. But human differences in intelligence can’t exist.

    Like


  142. Feminism is a brain-plug.

    Like


  143. During the late 19th century, the term ‘race’ was interchangeable with ’species’ without the racist connotations associated with the pseudo-scientific polygenistic demagogues of the time.

    Richard Dawkins (in The Ancestor’s Tale):

    As I said, zoologists define a species as a group whose members breed with each other under natural conditions — in the wild. It doesn’t count if they breed only in zoos, or if we have to use artificial insemination, or if we fool female grasshoppers with caged singing males, even if the offspring produced are fertile. We might dispute whether this is the only sensible definition of a species, but it is the definition that most biologists use.

    If we wished to apply this definition to humans, however, there is a peculiar difficulty: how do we distinguish natural from artificial conditions for interbreeding? It is not an easy question to answer. Today, all surviving humans are firmly placed in the same species, and they do indeed happily interbreed. But the criterion, remember, is whether they choose to do so under natural conditions. What are natural conditions for humans? Do they even exist any more? If, in ancestral times, as sometimes today, two neighbouring tribes had different religions, different languages, different dietary customs, different cultural traditions and were continually at war with one another; if the members of each tribe were brought up to believe that the other tribe were subhuman ‘animals’ (as happens even today); if their religions taught that would-be sexual partners from the other tribe were taboo, ‘shiksas’, or unclean, there could well be no interbreeding between them. Yet anatomically, and genetically, they could be completely the same as each other. And it would take only a change of religious or other customs to break down the barriers to interbreeding. How, then, might somebody try to apply the interbreeding criterion to humans? If Chorthippus brunneus and C. biguttulus are separated as two distinct species of grasshoppers because they prefer not to interbreed although they physically could, might humans, at least in ancient times of tribal exclusivity, once have been separable in the same kind of way? Chorthippus brunneus and C. biguttulus, remember, in all detectable respects except their song, are identical, and when they are (easily) persuaded to hybridise their offspring are fully fertile.

    Like


  144. Feminist women may tend in practice to breed with herbs, but they aren’t the real targets of feminists in the first place. Feminists, all long for the man that is worthy of dominating them, they simply don’t find him because such men have many other options, so the feminists pick feminist friendly herbs, who through fawning deference allow the feminists to dominate them and boss them around. How many feminists do you know that actually respect these beta herbs they cavort with? Deep down feminists are pissed they can’t get the real men. They create the ideology, but its the average girls who internalize the messages of superiority and commensurate expectations in men they hear from Feminism. Hence the need to use game where before it was less necessary. Feminism has allowed the concept of hypergamy to run wild.

    Like


  145. In Response to Canada Dry & Steve Johnson :

    The ‘ball is in your court’ and the entirety of the internet is at your disposal.

    Please, link to a few peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals of good repute that conclude that inequalities in circumstances and capabilities among races are due significantly to a genetic variance between them.

    This is the same challenge I proposed to “You Know I’m Right”.

    And, for the record, I am against reductionism and unexamined bias first and foremost.

    Sans ethics and long-term consequences, I agree with Roissy’s social and sexual persuasion methods but find his analysis of causation behind their power in our modern world to be… lacking. But that is a topic for another time and possibly another place — I don’t suspect it would go too well over here.

    Seriously though, I am not a liberal, proponent of racial victimology, opponent of the fact that we all enjoy a standard of living unparalleled in human history due to past exploitations of different types of people or cold, hard, rational, Machiavellian critique; I am simply a man who hates bullshit and who asks that those appear to shovel it into the realm of debate to account for their actions and words.

    Like


  146. inequalities in circumstances and capabilities among races

    Specify “circumstances” and “capabilities.”

    Like


  147. on October 7, 2009 at 12:51 am Marcus Aureliette

    Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what’s right.

    LOL! I’m actually reading The Foundation Trilogy right now. You go with your bad self, Hari Seldon.

    Like


  148. In Response to Canada Dry :

    Circumstances — Essential and environmental factors — encompassing personhood, wealth, social status, etc.

    Capabilities — The ability to utilize one’s circumstances to satisfaction and/or success.

    I’m a proponent of System’s Theory which arose out of a backlash against quasi-scientific reductionism.

    All ‘circumstances’ have complex series of contributing factors. To reduce such a subject as we’re discussing down to the obtuse claim of ‘[superiority via] genetics’ without producing a shred of qualified evidence is not only an insult against brutally honest critique and discourse but against objectivity itself.

    Like


  149. on October 7, 2009 at 12:54 am Steve Johnson

    “Please, link to a few peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals of good repute that conclude that inequalities in circumstances and capabilities among races are due significantly to a genetic variance between them.”

    I already linked to one. Jared Diamond: ethnic differences in testicle size.

    Or does racism cause differences in testicle size?

    Here’s another fun bit of direct evidence:

    http://www.boneclones.com/BC-016.htm
    http://www.boneclones.com/BC-031.htm

    First is an image of a NE Asian skull. The second is the skull of an Australian aboriginal. If you can look at those and not believe your lying eyes then you’re not worth arguing with.

    If you don’t believe that you’ll explain away this but why not throw it out there:

    http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306987708002454

    Summarizes the evidence and concludes that racial differences in intelligence are 50-80% genetic. The most completely unassailable evidence is cross racial adoption and studies of twins raised apart.

    Another fun fact: 98 of the 100 best 100m dash times have been recorded by people of West African descent. They don’t run in Europe or Asia? No one ever has footraces there?

    Like


  150. on October 7, 2009 at 1:03 am Steve Johnson

    “Please, link to a few peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals of good repute that conclude that inequalities in circumstances and capabilities among races are due significantly to a genetic variance between them.”

    I already linked to one. Jared Diamond: ethnic differences in testicle size.

    Or does racism cause differences in testicle size?

    Links unfortunately removed from the post because otherwise it goes to moderation purgatory.

    Here’s another fun bit of direct evidence:

    [Go to “boneclones . com”, look up Asian skull and Australian aboriginal skull.]

    First is an image of a NE Asian skull. The second is the skull of an Australian aboriginal. If you can look at those and not believe your lying eyes then you’re not worth arguing with.

    If you don’t believe that you’ll explain away this but why not throw it out there:

    [link removed]

    Summarizes the evidence and concludes that racial differences in intelligence are 50-80% genetic. The most completely unassailable evidence is cross racial adoption and studies of twins raised apart.

    Another fun fact: 98 of the 100 best 100m dash times have been recorded by people of West African descent. They don’t run in Europe or Asia? No one ever has footraces there?

    Now, your turn. Show a single study of a physical or mental trait where there isn’t a difference between races. Just one. If there was one it would be huge huge news.

    Like


  151. “Please, link to a few peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals of good repute that conclude that inequalities in circumstances and capabilities among races are due significantly to a genetic variance between them.”

    Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, Sandra Scarr.

    Like


  152. I’m a proponent of System’s Theory which arose out of a backlash against quasi-scientific reductionism.

    All ‘circumstances’ have complex series of contributing factors. To reduce such a subject as we’re discussing down to the obtuse claim of ‘[superiority via] genetics’ without producing a shred of qualified evidence is not only an insult against brutally honest critique and discourse but against objectivity itself.

    I have no idea what you just said here.

    Capabilities — The ability to utilize one’s circumstances to satisfaction and/or success.

    This is irrelevant. What does it even mean?

    Circumstances — Essential and environmental factors — encompassing personhood, wealth, social status, etc.

    This seems to detract from the main issue of contention as well.

    You’re using common, everyday words in a confusing manner that only seems to make sense to yourself.

    You’re increasingly sounding like an empty black suit.

    Like


  153. “K” wrote:

    “The mistake you are making is looking at the brain as a whole. The parts of the brain that deal with sexual selection and sexual motivation are not the ones that are responsible for ‘intelligence’ at all. They are in fact almost mutually exclusive; you use one or the other.

    The higher IQ you are, the less you rely on those parts of your brain that are responsible for sexual functions altogether. Past a certain level of intelligence (even the subgenius levels) relying on instinct is totally superfluous. Women like men that follow their instincts, which requires that you fall into a range of intelligence (average and below) that makes your subconscious, non-rational mind useful in decision making.

    A huge part of the PUA community are guys that exist in that above average to barely subgenius spectrum (many of us are nerds) that have acknowledged that their intelligence is not important to women in sexual selection, and that it is actually an active hindrance in getting laid. Engaging women intellectually is a losing strategy. Displaying ‘intelligence’ is simply a (shitty) DHV and has nothing to do with actually being ‘intelligent’ (social ‘intelligence’ and quick wit are not intelligence of any kind; everyone probably knows someone that is witty but also as dumb as a rock. Those two things commonly hand in hand actually). Displaying value (ie resourcefulness) by grabbing a women by her hind-brain by winning in a battle of conflicting realities and proving intelligence by engaging her on an intellectual plain are not at all the same thing.

    If you are engaging anyone on an intellectual level, you are engaging a part of their brain that has really nothing at all to do with sex. To use that part of their brain they have to temporarily sequester their sexual motivators. No one is getting hot and bothered while doing a math-proof, men or women. To get sex you need to shut down the thinking mind and ‘think’ with the hind-brain. Being smart (and actively using your intelligence) and getting laid are literally at odds with each other. A truly massive part of Game is about shutting down internal dialog. The smarter you are, the harder this is to do. Inner calm is a learned skill for smart people, and a natural state of being for the stupid. Stupid wins in sexual selection because their state of mind is ripe for sex.

    Women do not like smart men. They backward rationalize the men they select as being ’smart’. In truth they like ‘resourceful’ men, which is a totally nebulous concept. ‘Resourcefulness’ often just means a man that is pretty much literally thinking with his dick. Displaying value =/= being intelligent.

    As far as assortive ‘mating’ and IQ goes; those statistics mean nothing unless you can find a way of incorporating all of the Natural Alphas and Players that a women is banging through her youth before ‘mating’ and on the side afterward. A dump Alpha gets more women than even a subgenius smart guy any day of the week. Anyone who can’t admit that is deluding themselves.

    Maybe we will evolve to a point where a ‘big brain’ means something in sexual selection eventually, but right now we are pretty much still cavemen and monkey attraction rules over all. A man with the Will to Power is one that gets laid. One that can easily get through life on pure intellect is probably involuntarily celibate. His entire state of existence is antithetical to sexual motivation and sexual selection.

    If intellect were really a factor in sexual selection women would flock to accomplished theoretical scientists and mathematicians as if they were rock stars. Women want a Lord Byron, not a Charles Darwin, and that is totally physiological. Does anyone really want to contest the fact that dumbass Z-list celebrities have easier access to sex than anyone on the planet? A woman’s ability to find rapport with him due to similar IQ is completely irrelevant to her giving up a ONS. We know a woman will get pregnant with an Alpha and find an emotional (intellectual?) tampon mate to help provide and raise her Alpha’s offspring. Birth control and abortion stifle this phenomena, but that is irrelevant in actually considering what sexual selection is. What is being called ‘mating’ in these studies is really ‘nesting’. They two are clearly not synonymous.”

    …………………..God bless you “K”, you are telling the Devil’s honest truth here. Women really do resent well-spoken men who speak in sophisticated nomenclature because they childishly resent them being “smarter”. Men respect the learning of others, but not young females. It apparently clashes with their preconcieved notions about who “should” be smart. Being super-cool, devil-may-care, and confident (and a bit mocking) was the approach that gave me the most success in my day. Looking at females as “prey” was the best mental adjustment for poon-success I made (at the instruction of a world-class-skirt-conquerer who was my pal). Its a shame that guys have to be that way, but as Roissy has noted, women get what they give. So gents should indeed give it to them——good and hard.

    Like


  154. Simply repeating “not a shred of evidence” does not make it true. It is bald-faced denial, sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “I can’t hear you!”

    Social scientists are able to control for “essential environmental factors” – class, wealth, etc.

    The conclusion from decades of science is inescapable — Asians do better than whites, who do better than Hispanics, who do better than blacks on g-loaded tests. There isn’t really any controversy about this, except from those ideologically wedded to egalitarian fantasies.

    Like


  155. Steve,

    The parts of feminism that I wholeheartedly believe in are that

    1) Abortion is both a moral right of women and a boon for society. As for it being a boon for society, that’s the HBD in me. It’s birth control for procrastinators, who tend to be lower IQ.

    [editor: or birth control for upper class high iq girls who need to get another 12 years of book lernin’ under their loosened belts before contemplating children.]

    2) the monogamous patriarchal expectations from the past are repressive. I’m not a big believer in lifelong monogamous partnership. I do not think divorce or out of wedlock births are inherently bad for society.

    [all the evidence on out of wedlock births says otherwise.]

    3) Gays, lesbians, transexuals and bisexuals should be able to pursue their own sexuality without social stigma.

    [what about bug chasing?]

    4) Females are generally competent at any number of tasks not related to domesticity or child rearing. It is good for them and society to get educations and pursue careers.

    [women are not as competent as men on average in fields like mathematics, physics, and engineering.]

    Parts of feminism I don’t believe in

    1) Any form of cultural relativism- No, I am a huge proponent of western intellectual/cultural/moral supremacism. The west may not have come up with every great idea, but they have the best intellectual foundations. If people want to learn a thing or two from zen or Bhuddism, it doesn’t hurt, but western intellectual concepts are the ones you truly should not do without.

    2) 90% of the inane focus on female appearance issues. I do not care about fat/thin issues. I do not care if physical preferences are innate or not. It just does not matter.

    [it matters to your ability to attract and keep the kind of man you most desire.]

    3) Blank Slatism

    4) Excessive focus on domestic violence. At least amongst non-NAMs, men are rarely violent towards women. This is not a real problem.

    An issue that is commonly perceived as feminist but really isn’t is the idea that feminism is ostensibly against game. I don’t think game violates any feminist tenet. It’s a method of using communication with a free adult woman to acquire consentual sex.

    Like


  156. on October 7, 2009 at 1:50 am Steve Johnson

    femx,

    It’s so cute when girls have opinions on things.

    Like


  157. You Know I’m Right: Dude, you’re talkin’ out your ass. Gee, I didn’t specify *meaningful* and *lasting* mutations. I figured you’d be smart enough to pick that up. My bad.

    Not every advance is attributable to genetics. Google’s search engine is a result of knowledge built upon knowledge, not because Larry Page is a superhuman.

    What is the last scientifically verified major, lasting human mutation then?

    Like


  158. In Response to Steve Johnson:

    And yet the African, European and Asian skulls look strikingly similar to each other, don’t you think? The differences in Aboriginal and Pygmy skeleton structures compared to other races on ALL continents is well known and accepted in the scientific community.

    Demonstrating this difference doesn’t in any way support your theory that differences in circumstances and capabilities between races is due to a significant genetic variance between them.

    The second article you link to just collects the [refuted] arguments compiled by James Watson written and corroborated by J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen. My response to you is if you’re holding THESE three as qualified OBJECTIVE sources on the subject, then likewise you’ve lost all credibility to argue. Try again.

    In fact here is pages upon pages of refutations of these three handed to you in a very digestible format written by various respected and vetted Geneticists:

    http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/Projects/CurrentProject.aspx?projectId=8

    http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=197

    http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=205

    In Response to JB:

    The IQ and GPA differences between the two primary tested groups in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study aren’t strikingly significant.

    Both versions of the study and it’s critics allude to social prejudices and pressures contributing to underachieving amongst black children within the study.

    Furthermore, the scholars and critics of the study both agreed that the study is ultimately inconclusive either way in the racial Nature vs. Nurture debate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

    In Response to Canada Dry :

    I apologize that you’re not able to comprehend my writing style or basic semantics.

    I also apologize that you have to result to ad hominem to reinforce your already shaky argument.

    Lets not go down that route. I gave you a fair response laying down the criteria you asked for. Please, do the same.

    I don’t think some of you get it.

    I’m not arguing AGAINST differences in races — I’m arguing against irrational reductionism and lack of evidence surrounding the claims that differences in intelligence, current socio-economic circumstances and individual & cultural capabilities are due significantly or almost exclusively to variations in genetics.

    Like


  159. I’m MORE than a little annoyed that other people have been trying to tie me in as “Original Grace”, when it hasn’t been me. I’ve not chimed in for some months (busy ya’ll). So, any comments in the past couple of months (at least three) attributed to my name, have NOT been me. Although, if people have given enough weight to my opinions and ideas, I suppose, that’s a compliment… of sorts.
    ——- ORIGINAL Grace.

    I may need to post this more than once to restore my commenting record. *Apologies*

    Like


  160. “[editor: or birth control for upper class high iq girls who need to get another 12 years of book lernin’ under their loosened belts before contemplating children.]”

    If that’s what some high IQ girls want, I don’t begrudge them, but that’s really not who’s getting the bulk of abortions.

    [editor: so you agree that upper class educated smart girls who get abortions are procrastinators?]

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348649,00.html

    Blacks do, indeed, have much higher rates of abortions than whites or other minority groups. In 2000, while blacks made up 17 percent of live births, they made up more than twice that share of abortions (36 percent). If those aborted children had been born, the number of blacks born would have been slightly over 50 percent greater than it was.
    ————-

    [sounds plausible, but there is no evidence that this is what would have happened. it’s just as likely that without the escape clause of abortion black women would have been more careful about slutting it up rawdog with fly by night cads.]

    Within first and second trimester abortions, the later the abortion, the more undesirable the parent is. Do you want the number of blacks born to be more than 50% higher? Especially when those babies would be born to unwed mothers who don’t even want them?

    [all the evidence on out of wedlock births says otherwise.]

    Not if you remove the genetic component.

    [yes, even when you remove the genetic component. but given that the genetic component can’t be removed, the evidence puts the lie to your original contention that out of wedlock births aren’t inherently bad for society.]

    Essentially, irresponsible parents are the type to produce children out of wedlock. Those children, inheriting the parents irresponsibility, become plagues on society. But that’s not because of some inherent problem with being unwed. Children of widows do not fare particularly poorly. I have a post on that:

    http://feministx.blogspot.com/2009/06/fatherhood.html

    [what about bug chasing?]

    Is that a euphemism?

    [the biggest. it’s the term gays use to describe disease-free fags who go hunting for guys with aids so they can pick up the virus and, presumably, enjoy a shortened life of bareback fucking. these newly infected gays then help spread the disease by actively seeking out other bug chasers to infect.]

    “[women are not as competent as men on average in fields like mathematics, physics, and engineering.]”

    They are not as interested in those fields.

    [people gravitate to those fields that they are naturally good at.]

    If they were, then the scope of those fields would probably change to accomodate female interests. For example, my female friend has a PhD in physics, but her interest is in developing teaching methods to teach physics to adults in community college. A woman might be better at developing a teaching method for physics.

    [there is plenty of psychometric and brain scanning evidence that women are not as mentally gifted as men at performing spatial and mechanical reasoning.]

    [it matters to your ability to attract and keep the kind of man you most desire.]

    That is not a social justice issue.

    [true, but your feminist sisters want to make it a biological issue as well as a social justice issue. “if it weren’t for peer pressure, men would be just as innately attracted to fat ugly sows as they are to slender babes. just look at rubens! please!”]

    I leave my physical appearance to genetics, and I don’t worry about it beyond that. Long hair, light make up and heels are about as far as I go for purposes of enhancing my natural appearance.

    [you could also show more skin. alphas like that.]

    Like


  161. “It’s so cute when girls have opinions on things.”

    If only. That would make me a 10.

    Like


  162. on October 7, 2009 at 2:56 am Steve Johnson

    “And yet the African, European and Asian skulls look strikingly similar to each other, don’t you think?”

    No, I don’t and no, they don’t. Either way, you’ve lost the argument. Do Australian Aboriginals grow small skulls because of racism? Obviously not. Do African skulls show small brain volumes? Yes they do. Is that because of racism? Obviously not. Does all of this evidence point in the exact same direction as all psychometric evidence? Yes, it does.

    All of the squid ink that the other side puts out doesn’t amount to “there are no cognitive differences between races” it amounts to “we don’t know what causes them and you can’t say it’s genes and you’re a racist”.

    I repeat my challenge (which you, of course, ignored): show one peer reviewed paper (hell I’ll take an anecdote) that shows Zero Group Differences. It’s impossible because no such paper exists. Even the inquisitors and guardians of PC on your side don’t deny the facts they just argue that there is some other explanation.

    “The differences in Aboriginal and Pygmy skeleton structures compared to other races on ALL continents is well known and accepted in the scientific community.”

    You do realize that this backs you into a corner, don’t you?

    1) Humans are subject to evolutionary pressures
    2) When there are isolated breeding groups, those groups adapt to their environments
    3) There are measurable and observable physical differences between races (skin color, bone density, muscularity, distribution of fast twitch vs slow twitch muscle fibers, etc.)
    4) The brain is a physical organ
    5) There are measurable physical differences in the average brain of members of different races (Asian brains are more spherical than Caucasian brains, both are larger than African brains, which are larger than Aborigine brains, etc.)
    6) Physical changes in the brain result in different mental abilities (try driving a nail through the speech center of your brain and reporting back on how unlinked mental abilities are from the physical structure of the brain).

    Evidence for 5:

    “The g Factor also devotes a fair amount of space to racial differences in brain size. Chapter 6 reviewed the literature that found that the brain-size/IQ relation was most clearly shown using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (r = .44 across eight separate studies). Chapter 12 documents the three-way racial gradient in brain size established by aggregating data from studies using four kinds of measurements: (a) wet brain weight at autopsy, (b) volume of empty skulls using filler, (c) volume estimated from external head sizes, and (d) volume estimated from external head measurements and
    corrected for body size. East Asians and their descendants average about 17 cm3 (1 in3) larger brain volumes than do Europeans and their descendants, whose brains average about 80 cm3 (5 in3) larger than do those of Africans and their descendants. Jensen calculated an “ecological” correlation (widely used in epidemiological studies) of +0.99 between median IQ and mean cranial capacity across the three populations of “Mongoloids,” “Caucasoids,” and “Negroids.””

    from a paper by Rushton. Stipulated that Jensen and Rushton are bad bad evil people who probably like to drink puppy blood. Anyone out there dispute Jenson’s measurements? Or should we just not listen to anything a puppy blood drinker has to say because his evil puppy blood breath will seduce us into puppy blood drinking?

    Oh, and did you forget about St. Diamond’s paper about differences in testicle size by ethnicity? Is that due to environmental factors? Everyone of particular races hears of the stereotypes and it causes their bodies to precisely regulate testicle growth to match the stereotypes?

    Measurable physical differences exist. Every single measure of mental traits has shown differences with no exceptions. What’s the logical conclusion? That the same evolutionary pressures that caused physical differences also cause differences in mental traits or that isolated breeding groups evolved different physical adaptations to their environments but managed to develop the exact same mental traits despite having measurably different brains? Oh, and all the psychometric measurements that exist point in the same direction as the physical ones.

    Who you going to believe? Dogma or your own lying eyes?

    Like


  163. on October 7, 2009 at 3:11 am Steve Johnson

    femx,

    Ha! Cute and funny. Stop turning on the charm, it won’t work on me.

    Like


  164. There are differences among Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid skulls in morphology and cranial capacity.

    The second article you link to just collects the [refuted] arguments compiled by James Watson written and corroborated by J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen. My response to you is if you’re holding THESE three as qualified OBJECTIVE sources on the subject, then likewise you’ve lost all credibility to argue. Try again.

    You’re claiming that James Watson, Nobel Prize winner and one of the discoverers of DNA, is not objective simply because he holds a different position from your own on human biodiversity. And you’re claiming that simply invoking the position on human biodiversity held by a Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA causes one to lose “all credibility to argue.”

    I apologize that you’re not able to comprehend my writing style or basic semantics.

    Yes, I can’t understand some of your semantics.

    I also apologize that you have to result to ad hominem to reinforce your already shaky argument.

    I have made many comments in this thread. You haven’t demonstrated how any of them contain a “shaky argument.” You’ve just attacked me and said that I am making a “shaky argument.”

    I’m not arguing AGAINST differences in races — I’m arguing against irrational reductionism and lack of evidence surrounding the claims that differences in intelligence, current socio-economic circumstances and individual & cultural capabilities are due significantly or almost exclusively to variations in genetics.

    Again, you’re using common terms confusedly. What do you mean by “irrational reductionism” in this context?

    Of course you can’t argue against any differences among the races. At bare minimum, there are basic physical differences like skin color that simply cannot be denied, and we know that genes are responsible for them.

    Don’t conflate intelligence with economic outcomes. Intelligence is largely genetic, but economic outcomes are genetic or influenced by genetics insofar as broadly speaking economic outcomes are a function of intelligence (or some other genetic traits i.e. athletic prowess, looks, etc.), as they generally are in modern societies today. Economic outcomes don’t have to be due to genetics. If say, a dictator took power and determined that all Americans born on even days would become slaves, and those born on odd days would be their masters, then the resulting varying economic outcomes in this case would of course have nothing to do with genetics.

    Like


  165. K,

    Please find a better nickname, I would suggest “Special K”. That will make it easier to search out your comments.

    That said, you knocked it out of the park. Since I’m an arrogant self-important kind of guy, I’ll take it upon myself to attempt to translate what you wrote for the baseline reader here, paragraph by paragraph.

    “Be smart or get laid, the choice is yours.

    “Women like impulsive guys. Truly intelligent men don’t do impulsive.

    “Smart PUA’s learn to mimic a kind of dumb, but funny guy cause that’s what women go for. Oh, they don’t use their intelligence to do this, they access their basest monkey instincts.

    “For a man, using his intelligence and having lots of sexual partners are mutually exclusive. Downside – spending too much time and effort chasing pussy makes you stupid.

    “Women lie to themselves and say they like smart guys, when all evidence, in the form of who they actually select for sex, indicates the exact opposite.

    “Overall women screw more dumb guys than smart guys and any sexually active woman will overall screw more dumb guys than smart guys.

    “When it comes to sex, we’re still monkey cavemen . Men who know how to act like dominant monkeys get sex. Men who rely on their brain … don’t.

    “Mating =/= settling down. Women find nothing immoral in duping men into raising and providing for the biological children of other, dumber, but sexier men.”

    Like


  166. “The IQ and GPA differences between the two primary tested groups in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study aren’t strikingly significant.”

    You really want to get into this?

    Age 17

    Adopted white, 105.6, SD 14.9
    Adopted interracial (B/W), 98.5 SD 10.6
    Adopted black, 89.4 SD 11.7

    Source: The G factor, Jensen (p. 474.)

    Would you like to elaborate how a difference of over one standard deviation between the white and black adoptees isn’t “strikingly significant”?

    “Both versions of the study and it’s critics allude to social prejudices and pressures contributing to underachieving amongst black children within the study. “”

    Translations: bleeding heart liberals wanted to show genetics don’t matter. Bleeding heart liberals failed. Bleeding heart liberals did a hand wave.

    Are you going to maintain not one of those Asian adoptees (who surpassed white kids) were never called a “gook” or “chink” in their environments? Never seemed to effect them. And how about that difference between inerracial and black adoptees? Did they not experience “prejudices and pressures”?

    I know what you’re going to say — the white kids in their neighborhood magically psyched them out to a tune of 16 IQ points — coincidentally enough to bring them down to the average IQ of blacks in their geographic region.

    Like


  167. K : PURELY EXCELLENT. I enjoyed reading that.

    Like


  168. K
    What you wrote was very long.
    We use the brain all the time, unintentionally we use it to make us more sexually attractive, and we do not only use one part, or one or the other.
    a subgenius guy, is probably more into equations and formulas then to sweep down a girl from its feet, not to talk about the lack of personal fitness. But a guy with high intelligence and able to use it the right way, is very succesful, what i mean, a handsome man with brain has probably the least problem to get girls,but even a guy that have a flaw in his appearance, like short or bald, can make himself sexually desirable if he smart enough to figure out how.

    Like


  169. Biktopia,

    Do you know the meaning of the word ‘lightweight’?

    You know, it’s that word that uses your picture in the dictionary.

    Like


  170. on October 7, 2009 at 4:14 am unlearning genius

    @ruby, JB, steve johnson

    I do not think that ruby is arguing against a significant difference among the races (if he is he is clearly wrong). What he is arguing for is that the actual success of a given race cannot simply be correlated exclusively to a higher performance on “g” loaded tests. East asians perform better on “g” loaded tests, yet it is arguably the caucasoid groups that currently enjoy the largest wealth.

    So much of a race’s success is purely circumstantial.
    The emergence of a difference in measurable physical and mental characteristics could be the result of circumstances and might be correlated with things. Yet it is a far leap to say that these are indeed the reasons for the way things currently are in the world.

    Technological innovation gene has likely emerged in the sub saharan population .. yet since it was not especially adaptive .. it has not seen a selective bias among that populace ..What I am saying is that it is the special circumstances that the caucasian people’s found themselves that lead to a higher mean IQ …

    Like


  171. I could shrink your entire post Roissy by saying:

    “Feminism is a giant shit test on Western men.”

    On a related note, it is due to beta ascendance and co-operation that we enjoy the civilisation we do today. Civilisation is built by the labours of betas working together to produce an environment for them to marry and raise their children.

    Stiff sexual competition where only alpha males win out and hypergamy is practiced is counter active to this building of civilisation. In short, men build civilisation to get women. Women want alphas, but that is counter active to civilisation and will in fact lead to its down fall.
    This is what destroyed the Roman empire and will destory the West.

    Sorry if this is a bit hard to understand but I am not feeling particularly coherent today.

    Like


  172. Cliff.
    If my english would allow, i would write more complex explanations, i think you have to be blind not to see what im saying, but then again, this blog is full of hardcore pathology and pedophiles. I think i will will really stop commenting as it is like talking to a wall.

    Like


  173. Biktopia,

    Tudok olvasni magarul egy kicset. Ird meg!

    You’re also mistaking yourself for women in general in their unfiltered states (not shaped by civilization and culture). Women in Central and Eastern Europe are still being shaped by culture to think in terms of husbands rather than one night stands.

    But, mostly, this blog is about a certain kind of western woman who has not been socialized to think about family formation and who instead are following their baseline evolutionarily shaped behavior which results in lots of casual sex with guys like Roissy who care nothing for them (they care nothing for him either, so it kind of works out).

    And as far as I can tell there are no pedophiles here, thought there are a lot of hebophiles (men are by nature at least a little hebophilic).

    Like


  174. on October 7, 2009 at 4:39 am unlearning genius

    @biktopia,
    K has at-least 50 more IQ points than you. It is clearly evident in his ability to construct a long yet coherent post.
    You are clearly a moron here (relatively speaking) as is evidenced by lack of coherence and substance in your posts.

    @K,
    Your essay clearly corroborates with everything I myself have observed and reasoned. Yet, there is one subtle point. The so called high IQ survived in the gene pool only because of its group selection abilities. A really high IQ essential siphons out the cognitive machinery necessary for social cheating detection (Wasson’s test) and but for its group selection advantages is highly maladaptive to the individual. Given this bias, I can clearly see why there is a strong negative sexual selection pressure.

    A high intelligence will invariably mean you have lesser testosterone and an ecto or endo morphic body structure instead of the desired meso one. This you cannot change AT all! So even with the tightest game you will still need to expend more effort for the same amount of P. Also a higher IQ will result in a higher impulse control, even this is very hard to change. The unmutable truth is that above average intelligence and higher mating frequency are not really mutually compatible. You can work around this but your bang/buck will necassarily be lower than a mesomorph average IQ, average impulsivity bloke. I am curious to see your comments on this.

    Like


  175. “magarul” – strike, change to “magyarul”

    Like


  176. I just ran across this smashing quote from Anais Nin, famous “liberated woman” diarist (while married, had affair with married writer Henry Miller in Paris in early 1930’s; c.f. film “Henry and June”):

    “I do not want to be the leader. I refuse to be the leader. I want to live darkly and richly in my femaleness. I want a man lying over me, always over me. His will, his pleasure, his desire, his life, his work, his sexuality the touchstone, the command, my pivot. I don’t mind working, holding my ground intellectually, artistically; but as a woman, oh, God, as a woman I want to be dominated. I don’t mind being told to stand on my own feet, not to cling, be all that I am capable of doing, but I am going to be pursued, fucked, possessed by the will of a male at his time, his bidding.”

    Like


  177. “hebophiles (men are by nature at least a little hebophilic).”

    arg! That should be ephebophiles (men are by nature at least a little ephebophilic).

    Like


  178. Unlearning: sure, IQ isn’t everything — N. vs. S. Korea is a classic case study. However mean IQ correlates pretty strongly with success of nations.

    As far as “lack of selective bias” — who’s arguing that isn’t the case? The point is “selective bias” takes centuries and even millenia to show significant change, and pretty much maps to our popular notions of race/group differences.

    And exactly how can “selective bias” even occur in this day and age, when various NGOs adopt sub-Saharan populations as pets? What evolutionary pressure is there to get smarter?

    Like


  179. Philip K Dick predicted the next stage of evolution and game:

    The Golden Man

    Like


  180. IQ tests measure your ability to take things and conceptualize them in WORDS. This is a basic task undertaken in people who live where written language is the norm.

    Intelligence, however, is much more than being able to articulate something.
    ——————————————–

    The reason why you have so many people with High IQ and Low Game is due to parents restricting their children from going outside and socializing with other kids. The lack of social interactions before and during puberty cause the problems.

    How many extroverted and highly social guys do you see without girls? NONE
    How many introverted, shy, nonsocial guys do you see without girls? TOO FUCKING MANY.

    see where I am going with this???????

    ———————————————-

    to Canada Dry

    1) There are no strong evolutionary pressures on humans to lead to speciation.
    -The last time there were 2 type of Homonids were living at the same time, and in contact with each other was when Homo sapien sapein went into W. Europe when the Neanderthals lived there. (Neanderthal eventually went extinct)

    2) There are minor physiological changes to isolated groups of peoples. However, too little has been spent in isolation and the environmental pressures are not strong.

    3) The are measurable and observable physical differences between “races” are no indication of one group being better than the other.

    4) The brain size alone does not cause intelligence.

    5) The differences in brain sizes in humans means nothing. Unless you are dealing with retards, like people with Down syndrome.

    6) The brain has some specific areas that control some different functions like sight, hearing, etc. But all humans have these, and they do not vary between races.

    Like


  181. “IQ tests measure your ability to take things and conceptualize them in WORDS. This is a basic task undertaken in people who live where written language is the norm.”

    I wish people would stop saying that.

    Highly g-loaded Matrix Reasoning tests (such as Raven’s Progressive Matrices) say otherwise — no WORDS needed.

    Like


  182. “3) The are measurable and observable physical differences between “races” are no indication of one group being better than the other.”

    You gotta love the sheer evasiveness of this statement. Yes, we’re all God’s children, blah blah.

    Better at what?

    Like


  183. I am not railing against the sexual studies of evolutionary psychology and anthropology, just bullshit racial theories proposed by the most disturbed variant of Human Bio-Diversity proponents without one reference to a peer-reviewed and scientific-community sanctioned study to back them up.

    Yeah, because Steve Sailer’s science is SO much more rigorous than Jared Diamonds. HAhahahahahahahaah.

    Just tell the truth bro. I’ll fix your statement for you:

    I am not railing against the sexual studies of evolutionary psychology and anthropology, just studies that don’t reinforce my self-image and make excuses for my inadequacies.

    You’re welcome.

    Like


  184. Actually my bad, I skimmed and mistook your comments for someone else’s. I actually agree with you. Carry on.

    Like


  185. @havana, JB
    unfortunately “g” loaded tests aren’t really that all encompassing as they are sold to be. It is true that successful individuals do have high g correlation, but correlation is not causation. IQ does not measure a person’s creative skills that much. It is mostly a test of computational efficiency of basic cognitive units like pattern recognition, association and recall.

    For any skill to develop a person must be able to synthesize basic cognitive units and practice a lot to achieve flexibility. None of these abilities are actually tested by “g” tests. I agree with havana that social skill is just another skills that really has to learned and mastered.

    “3) The are measurable and observable physical differences between “races” are no indication of one group being better than the other. ”
    That however does not follow at all. It is very clear that in the modern world success in “g” loaded test correlates with success that we conventionally associate with. Also the modern world favors people with the ability to delay gratification immensely (unlike the EEA which rewarded the opposite trait). The conclusion is that black people with low IQ and poor impulse control are really screwed in the long run, although they still might fuck more than a high IQ MIT grad student.
    What the EEA “fit” folks are getting is lots of babies born to poor women and relatively higher short term mating frequencies…. just a short term glitch in the market that will work itself out in a few generations.

    Like


  186. About my statement about no correlation between brain size and penis size. That is incorrect. There is a negative correlation.

    Brain size evolved to help men (and women) survive in a harsh environment where there is no low hanging fruit.

    Penis size evolved (upward) to give the man greater attractiveness to a woman. That’s why mountain gorillas have small ones. They compete with other males by force and drive them out. The females mate with the dominant male, regardless of penis size.

    Not so with chimps and humans. The males of those two species are in constant competition for the available females. Penis size becomes important.

    After all, humans, and chimps, don’t have bright feathers, fur, or an attractive mating dance. What else is there to judge a male by? Intelligence? There is just not much evidence for that.

    Like


  187. “unfortunately “g” loaded tests aren’t really that all encompassing as they are sold to be. It is true that successful individuals do have high g correlation, but correlation is not causation. IQ does not measure a person’s creative skills that much. It is mostly a test of computational efficiency of basic cognitive units like pattern recognition, association and recall.”

    Obviously “g” isn’t everything: conscientiousness, talent, etc. matters. On the other hand, insufficient threshold g is a “dealbreaker” as far as being able to manifest any of that creativity you mention.

    Here’s my basic insight into why ‘g’ matters so much:

    1) It is apparent that it is difficult to maintain a First World type society we’re accustomed to with insufficient mean IQ (short of radically disruptive technological advances – smart pills, genetic engineering, etc.)

    2) A meaningful participation in ushering in those advances requires a rather high threshold IQ as well as creativity.

    Basically until we get to a certain highpoint where we can reengineer human intelligence we better fucking put all our eggs into the basket labelled “Let’s stop fucking around – IQ does matter.”

    Like


  188. I’ll respond in depth later, but for now:

    This conversation is deviating into rational-sounding but unchecked statements.

    I want to try a different approach to possibly strong cognitive dissonances in the minds and arguments of my opponents:

    If your evidence and arguments are solid and conclusive, what is it that prevents them from breaking into the mainstream discourse on Genetics?

    Is there some great ‘conspiracy’ by the vast majority of Geneticists and Biologists internationally to cover it all up?

    Why would European, Russian and Asian genetics research labs want to cover up such evidence? Much of their domestic policy isn’t shaped by the desire to somehow ‘protect’ and seek appeal to the collective morale of Non-Asian Minorities in their countries as some of you are undeniably thinking.

    Like


  189. Oh, back to Roissy’s thesis that feminism is a form of sexual selection. Hard to see, since real feminists don’t have many children, if any.

    Feminism is just an attitude among women who have enough money so they don’t have to pretend to like men.

    Like


  190. Unlearning: sure, IQ isn’t everything — N. vs. S. Korea is a classic case study.

    North Korea: 5 alphas, 22 million o m e g a s
    South Korea: 1,000 alphas, 48 million betas
    Muslim World: 25% alpha, 75% o m e g a
    Black Africa: every man an alpha and an o m e g a
    The West: an alpha – beta bell curve, with every man a potential alpha

    Like


  191. Heh, I was tempted to write:

    “Afrcia: every man an o m e g a who thinks he’s an alpha”

    … but went with a phrasing that’s more open to interpretation.

    Like


  192. This conversation is deviating into rational-sounding but unchecked statements.

    Why would European, Russian and Asian genetics research labs want to cover up such evidence?

    For rational sounding statements and discussion, I have a boss and work colleagues. Blogs are for hateful unchecked comments

    Americans also ignore how much every debate on Earth is effectively a local reformulation of America´s politycal debates. America sets the pace for the world´s discussion. And the American consensus, which tends to resemble an universal consensus, is that there are no Race diferences and race itself has no meaning.

    China believes the opposite, but since China follows America leadership. it is getting less and less racist, including allowing blacks to immigrate .SO there is a cold cultural war, since China is getting less racist but, as China grows more powerful, Chinese racism and eugenicism may well become the International Consensus

    Like


  193. Cliff.
    ja igen, csak most az a problema hogy a anyanyelvem svéd mert ott születtem, magyarul is beszélek, de az olyan mint az angolom. De örülök hogy tudsz magyarul, hogy hogy? És sajnos csak svédul tüdnám teljesen kifejteni a dolgokat.

    Like


  194. “Next up: fascist-style movement of White American beta males to halt and reverse the current backsliding in to primitive African/Arab social mores, multiracialism, and extinction of the White race in North America. Stay tuned.”

    I hope you’re right. Betas AND alphas. They’re certainly working on it. 😉

    Like


  195. “If your evidence and arguments are solid and conclusive, what is it that prevents them from breaking into the mainstream discourse on Genetics?

    Is there some great ‘conspiracy’ by the vast majority of Geneticists and Biologists internationally to cover it all up?”

    Are you fucking kidding me? Don’t give me the “babe in the woods routine”. Anyone who mentions such a thing in the popular media is a dirty, stinking, rotten racist who wants to lynch all black people.

    Like


  196. Amugy egyetértek veled a modern civilizátio sorsárol, nem könnyü senkinek se, én is inkább magyarorzágot preferálom mint svédországot mert, ott nem vagyok boldog. Itt vagyok tiz éve pesten és jól érzem magam, mint nő és ember egyaránt, pont a fenti problémáktol kifakadoan.

    Like


  197. COMPLETE SIDEBAR:
    Neighbor game…

    anyone have experience and tips to FWB game on neighbors? the option to disappear conflicts with easy temptation.

    Roissy institute hasn’t really addressed this (unless I missed it)… ideas?

    Like


  198. Unlearning genius.
    Pardon that my english is not perfect, its my third language after Swedish and Hungarian, and i also understand german. i never lived in a English speaking country either, i picked it up from from friends and school.

    Like


  199. Actually my bad, I skimmed and mistook your comments for someone else’s. I actually agree with you. Carry on.

    No, you actually did get it right the first time, Joe.

    Like


  200. tunacanman:

    you’re asking for trouble doing that. I suppose there are circumstances where it can work out, but in my experience, it’s generally not worth the headache that invariably comes with it.

    Like


  201. Philip K Dick predicted the next stage of evolution and game:

    The Golden Man

    Well now I know what’s next on my reading list.

    Like


  202. JB,
    I’m somewhat in agreement with Ruby on this note, which is to say, what’s your point? If Black folks aren’t as smart as Whites – OK – now what? What practical, and real, workable solutions, do you suggest in light of that fact, assuming it’s true? I just don’t see much focus or attention or quite frankly, interest, on the part of those like yourself who champion the almightyness (yes, I made that word up) of IQ. Unless it can be linked to a meaningful discussion about solutions that can be implemented in reasonable and workable ways, I really don’t see the point, other than to make oneself feel better for being the odd Man out in these days and times.

    Look – for what it’s worth, I get that alot of White guys – particuarly those who are a bit nerdy and the like – are particularly aggrieved. Many feel that they’re being unfairly targeted by White elites, White Women, White Gays and Lesbians, Black and Hispanic folk, and basically blamed for everything under the Sun. I get that. And again, for what it’s worth, I do have a great degree of sympathy for that position.

    But honestly, I gotta tell ya, going about it in the ways I’ve seen you and others throughout the blogosphere, ain’t gonna change things, in fact, they’ll only make em worse. Why? Well, for one, you’ll have branded yourselves as basically radioactive – which is the Kiss of Death insofar as Hot Chicks are concerned. Moreover, cool guys won’t want to openly associate with you, and they tend to be in positions to actually get things done in life as a rule.

    Then, there’s this notion about saving Western Civ that I hear guys like you prattle on about – OK, so what are you doing to actually save Western Civ? Are you lobbying Congressmen and Senators? Are you active in the local politics of your town? Are you engaged in major media efforts? Are you active in mentoring younger guys like yourself, say, Boy Scouts etc? I mean, exactly what are those who are so concerned about “saving Western Civ” actually DOING, other than talking a mean, pardon the pun, “game” about it, in the guise of HBD and how Black folks are the sole cause and reason for the fall of Western Civ? Please explain?

    And while I’m on that point, and going back to an earlier point I made above, Women as a rule aren’t attracted to Men who basically find excuses as to why they aren’t succeeding in life. Even if the reasons are legit, if you know anything about Game and by extension Women, then you know that the latter aren’t rational by a longshot – all’s they know is that you are bitching and moaning about other folks when you should be working harder to be more successful, meanwhile their pussy is drier than the Sahara desert, the end. Women are drawn to Can-Do guys, period. And a great deal of the HBDspeak just comes off as elaborate excuse making, smoke and mirrors and the like, as to why guys aren’t successful. Kill that noize. Learn Game, use Game, get laid and get a life.

    Holla back

    The Obsidian

    Like


  203. Meh. It’s just regression to the norm. Alpha males have bodies that make them mighty hunters/warriors yet society no really longer needs hunters/warriors and those Alpha males who can’t control their primal instincts get to go to jail for their troubles. Alpha women have bodies that are good for multiple child bearing but then modern society doesn’t really need to have large families. Sure most Beta males wouldn’t last long trying to be a hunter and most Beta women would die in childbirth. Then again most Beta babies probably didn’t see the age of five and hunter/gathering societies were mostly Alpha (or Greater Beta at least).

    Yet somehow, the Betas with their knowledge slowly overtook Alpha values – Alphas slowly but surely get sidelined and as food calories become easier to achieve and being an ectomorphic Beta is good as they’re less likely to develop diabetes. So technology goes up, people are more numerous, healthier and living longer but society, for some reason, still worships the Alpha men and women.

    Perhaps as some have already suggested, everyone hopes to be a closet Alpha: “I may seem like I’m a loser but I’m just misunderstood and once I get out of this rut, everyone will see my Alpha glory”. No one really wants to look in the mirror and see an Om3ga staring back at them. So as society embraces Alpha values over the Beta values that create modern society there ought to be a social backtracking – crimes will rise as laws become generally ignored. Alphas should welcome societal failure as they can return to being big fish in small ponds. Alpha males, especially, would love to return to the lifestyle where their aggression and lack of forethought puts them on the top instead of putting them in jail while they have a handful of Betas at home helping the Alpha women to raising their Alpha chidren.

    Like


  204. Obsidian,

    As I alluded to above, the only humane, permanent solution is going to involve genetic engineering to “lift all boats” when such a technology becomes available. We’re going to need a large majority of humanity at current 115 and above, as soon as possible. There really aren’t many good alternatives that I foresee to prevent a dystopian future.

    In the meantime, we put our fingers in the dyke — IQ-based immigration policies, birth control policies and yeah, rewarding producers and creators of those technologies.

    And yeah, it is for the lower IQ minorities’ own good, in the long run. No doubt about it.

    Like


  205. Alpha males have bodies that make them mighty hunters/warriors

    A moderating factor: Beta qualities were necessary then as well. A hunter/warrior alpha got a spear in the back or a pashing by two betas if he was “too alpha.”

    Young boys who showed too much alpha too early (pissing off the adult males, picking on the wrong man’s kid) likely got beat the crap out of them and/or killed.

    yet society no really longer needs hunters/warriors

    A disaster, an accident, an introduction of more primitive newcomers to the system makes hunter/warriors necessary very fast.

    and those Alpha males who can’t control their primal instincts get to go to jail for their troubles.

    Back then thre were also plenty of ways to get yourself Darwined out of the gene pool.

    Like


  206. yet society no really longer needs hunters/warriors

    This is bullshit even as a hyperbole. Even in advanced societies you won’t see physically-wimpy betas being trial lawyers, CEOs, upper managers, high-end salesmen, or military officers, etc.

    It’s gonna be guys who more likely than not have “hunter/warrior” bodies, at least potentially, to go along with their brains and dominant personalities.

    Like


  207. This NYT mag story, entitled “Understanding the Anxious Mind” is asking for the attention of Roissy and his readers. For our purposes, it might be entitled, “The Neurophysiology of Beta.”

    Like


  208. “sajnos csak svédul tüdnám teljesen kifejteni a dolgokat.”

    Bare bra! Jag läsa svenska också!

    (actually I can read Norwegian a lot better but close enough).

    Like


  209. Who hath summoned the Obsidian Kraken?

    Like


  210. on October 7, 2009 at 11:37 am Cannon's Canon

    Tupac:
    Already read it last night, sucker!

    As for the O.K. … i suspect it had something to do with the jets trading for “not just the BEST player in the 2004 draft… but the MOST HANDSOME player in the 2004 draft!”

    woooooo

    Like


  211. on October 7, 2009 at 12:19 pm Cannon's Canon

    i’d agreed with roissy’s post up until five minutes ago, when i stumbled upon this:

    http://www.feministing.com/archives/018134.html#comments

    these mental midgets are not sexually selecting for intelligence – no fucking way! any man with a scrape of IQ would just pull out and nut on her thigh every single time. totally unsustainable ecosystem.

    Like


  212. “K” wrote:

    “A truly massive part of Game is about shutting down internal dialog. The smarter you are, the harder this is to do.

    Inner calm is a LEARNED SKILL for SMART people, and a natural state of being for the stupid. Stupid wins in sexual selection because their state of mind is ripe for sex.”

    That is so true. Im a natural insomniac. Ideas fly through my head and I get too interested in them to go to sleep. I try and “figure things out” constantly, and read all the time. Thankfully this can be medicated and I can sleep like a normal human being. In some ways, idiots have it made. They dont ponder larger mysteries or think about how circumstances can be improved. Like your dog, they just want treats and follow physical urge to physical urge. Thoughtul and introspective people meanwhile are too self-critical and too conscientious of others to really get all the enjoyment out of life that they should.

    Like


  213. In Response to JB :

    [1] Russian, Chinese and some European genetics labs have no reason to fear international controversy by presenting such findings — if they ever came up. Both Russia and China have internal ethnic issues and subtle institutions passively supporting racism; Also, on a more paranoid tip, I’d suspect the disruption of cultural co-habitation in the West that the presentation of such findings would create would be an added bonus as a Psychological Operations strategy by Russia and China. They’ve both done similar longterm operations during the Cold War, Civil Rights Era and the Counter-Culture Era — If such findings DID EXIST, why wouldn’t they do it now?

    [2] Dude, I’m not arguing against your proposed solutions. I’m worried about a dysgenic effect that changing cultural patterns within the West might have in the next 50 to 100 years, too.

    Again, what I’m arguing against is that inequalities in circumstances and capabilities have a genetic basis as many here have stated before, half-assedly.

    Like


  214. on October 7, 2009 at 12:38 pm snatch magnet

    wow, kinda smells like nerd in here today.

    Like


  215. “I’m worried about a dysgenic effect that changing cultural patterns within the West might have in the next 50 to 100 years, too.”

    you believe that “changing cultural patterns” will have dysgenic effects in the next 50 to 100 years (that’s 2 to 3 generations), yet you refuse to believe that geographically isolated human population groups living in drastically different environments (North Eurasian tundra, Scandinavian forests, sub-Saharan Africa, et cetera) for thousands of years will not result in meaningfully significant genetic differences among variables such as intelligence, physical abilities, morphology, and others?

    Like


  216. Obsidian

    White guys…feel that they’re being unfairly targeted by White elites, White Women, White Gays and Lesbians, Black and Hispanic folk, and basically blamed for everything under the Sun. …I do have a great degree of sympathy for that position.

    Well, you’ll eventually need to make that transformation to be unsympathetic when White Guys no longer pay for past sins of racism and run out of tax dollars to support these worthy groups.

    You’ll just have to be merciless. I know you can do it.

    Like


  217. @FemX

    “I do not think divorce or out of wedlock births are inherently bad for society.”

    As someone who never had a father…and as a result didn’t grow up with male role models to help me develop into a man

    FUCK YOU

    Like


  218. “Also, on a more paranoid tip, I’d suspect the disruption of cultural co-habitation in the West that the presentation of such findings would create would be an added bonus as a Psychological Operations strategy by Russia and China. They’ve both done similar longterm operations during the Cold War, Civil Rights Era and the Counter-Culture Era — If such findings DID EXIST, why wouldn’t they do it now?”

    the fact that there are meaningful genetic differences among the races doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be a “disruption of cultural co-habitation.” Besides, even the liberal elites that adamantly believe in genetic uniformity among the races, that race is a “social construct,” blank slatism, etc, already avoid or limit their “cultural co-habitation” by living in the right neighborhoods, sending their kids to the right private schools, etc.

    the Chinese are very pragmatic and plan and think over the long term. the Chinese government tends to think in terms of decades, instead of about the next immediate election cycle as in the US.

    i don’t think the Chinese believe that the mere presentation of the fact that there are indeed races, and that there are meaningfully significant genetic differences among them, would necessarily cause some great disruption in the West that would somehow be to their advantage at this point.

    if anything, they probably believe that the simple fact that there are races with meaningfully significant genetic differences among them, coupled with the demographic projections over the next few decades, is enough to create disruption without any effort on their part. i imagine that they have read Sun Tzu.

    also, the Chinese historically haven’t been as expansionist, aggressive, antagonistic, and interventionist outside of their own immediate regional sphere of influence. they have been great centralizers and the dominant power within their own regional sphere. they had the opportunity to import African slaves en masse, but the government for some reason that isn’t exactly known even today, burned the entire merchant fleet that returned from Africa and prohibited it. Some have even argued that in hindsight this was a good move, considering the fact that the short term gains of slavery must be viewed in light of the long term consequences that we see in the West.

    Like


  219. First, props to Obsidian for his state control in responding to some of these nutters.

    Here is a practical question (posed in another similar Roissy post) along the lines of Obsidian’s thinking:
    Assuming Charles Murray’s Bell Curve Hypothesis as gospel (which I dont) there should be 6 million or so Black geniuses (IQ>140) in America today. As point of reference there are ~ 6million Jews in total. Why dont we see the combined intellectual contribution of these blacks in America?

    I think the answer is complex, owing much to slavery/discrimination and the resulting Black Pathos.

    (As an aside, I dont think its any coincidence that the first black President in America was the son of an African who was not completely marinated growing up in white resentment. We are not yet to the point where an African-American son of the south, descendant of slaves, could rise up to win the Presidency. But we are a little closer. I hope we get there, for America’s sake)

    Thats a liberal diagnosis, my prescription is more conservative though: that black folk largely need to get over it (while white folk need to quit blaming them for the downfall of western civ. and figure out a way, other than welfare re-enslavement, to incorporate them into American society).

    Thats why, as a tribalist, I voted for Obama. That and my utter disdain for the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan (he failed me there, but he’ll remain black). I want black Americans to feel true ownership in this country. If a Nation based on an idea, not blood and soil, is to work, they have to feel it.

    Like


  220. Latest man to benefit from the feminist double-standard in judging Alpha Males: David Letterman.

    Like


  221. Bosco… who told you that human populations lived “isolated for thousands of years”????

    The only human population to be significantly isolated were the Australian aborigines, that’s it. To a degree Native Americans, but were several migratory waves to the Americas before the path closed as the Ice melted.

    In Europe, for example there were many waves. 1st were the Indo-Europeans who settled down. Next followed other groups, such as the Celts who settled, mixed, & pushed other the natives out. The next major migration came from central Asia, the Huns pushing Germanic/Celtic/Dacian groups around. One of them, the Visigoths ended up in Spain (which was already a mixed place). Prior too and around the same time many Germanic peoples spread, such as Vandals and Anglo-Saxons. The Slavs moved all the way south into the Balkans. Also the 9th Century saw the Magyar (modern Hungarians) come from Central Asia and settle in around modern Hungary/Austria/Transylvania (part of Romania). In the 10th and 11th centuries Scandinavians started another wave of migrations.

    This is just to name the few migrations that I am somewhat familiar with.

    There is also the Tatar/Mongol migrations going all the way to Moscow in the 13th and 14th Centuries.

    Like


  222. I didn’t know where else to put this, so…

    I’m trying to bang an ex-girlfriend. About two years ago, I broke it off with her, telling her I didn’t want to be just friends – it was all or nothing.

    Fast-forward to a few weeks ago, and I see her at a mutual friend’s wedding. We talk a little bit, dance some but nothing major.

    The week after, she emails me at work saying it was great to see me, I looked great, etc etc. I fish her friend for more info and supposedly she got her boyfriend all upset by telling him that we were drinking and danced for a while at the wedding.

    I leave her email hanging for another week, then send her an email saying “Thursday or Friday for drinks – pick one.”

    She responds with: “What about Thurs? [Friend] and I were going to hang, but maybe we can all get a drink somewhere? Let me know what you think….”

    Is this her trying to find a way to hang out, but without getting her boyfriend suspicious? Or, is her friend there to cockblock?

    Like


  223. Moloko inquired:

    Why dont we see the combined intellectual contribution of these blacks in America?

    They’re distracted and kept down by The Man, waiting in those long lines for the check.

    Like


  224. Tim – I’m sorry you didn’t have a dad. But most kids who are born ‘out of wedlock’ or to ‘single mothers’ do have a father in their lives. Just not in the same house as their mom. ‘Single mother’ does not mean ‘deadbeat dad’. Most men are invested in their kids to some degree, whatever the relationship with the mother.

    Like


  225. *just not ALWAYS in the same house as their mom. Most kids I know born ‘out of wedlock’ were born to stable long-term couples who don’t have any desire to involve paperwork in their relationship.

    Like


  226. on October 7, 2009 at 3:11 pm Steve Johnson

    Moloko

    Here is a practical question (posed in another similar Roissy post) along the lines of Obsidian’s thinking:
    Assuming Charles Murray’s Bell Curve Hypothesis as gospel (which I dont) there should be 6 million or so Black geniuses (IQ>140) in America today. As point of reference there are ~ 6million Jews in total. Why dont we see the combined intellectual contribution of these blacks in America?

    There are about 39.5 million blacks in America.

    With an average IQ of 85 and standard deviation of 15, that gives about 2500 blacks with an IQ of 145 or above. Not 6 million.

    Like


  227. The Single Origin Theory (“Out of Africa”) claims that modern humans originated about 200,000 years ago.

    The Indo-Europeans are believed to have begun settling Europe around 8,000 BC, possibly later.

    All those groups aside from the Huns, Magyars, Tatars/Mongols, are Indo-Europeans and descendants/relatives of the original Indo-European settlers of Europe. The Hun, Magyar, Tatar/Mongol genetic contributions aren’t very significant.

    Following the initial Indo-European settlement, the migrations and settlements you describe beginning with the Celts all happened within the past 3,000 years or so.

    So in trying to counter the fact that human population groups did live in geographic isolation with minimal gene flow for thousands of years, not only are you bringing up interactions among closely related groups, but those that occurred within the past 3,000 years out of the roughly 200,000 years that modern humans have been around for.

    We can also look at Multiregionalism if you want.

    [editor: the stratospheric IQ levels of ashkenazi jews was theorized by cochrane, with supporting data, to have arisen in only ~1,000 years. you were saying?]

    Like


  228. Molocko,
    Good lookin’ Man, and thanks for the compliments. I’ve addressed some of your comments in Roissy’s latest post about Black Women, hopefully you’ll check it out.

    Chuck Ross recently wrote about a very similar issue on his blog, which is about the neverending “blog wars” going on between segments of the SocialCon, HBD and MRA communities on one hand, and the Game/PUA community on the other. Basically, the former groups are attacking the latter, and Chuck hits the nail on the head as to why this is, and I’ve mentioned it above to JB, and note how he hasn’t actually addressed it:

    The real reason why there is so much talk about HBD, Western Civ and the like, is because it all acts as smokescreen to keep these guys from having to face, head on, their failings in arguably thee most important area of a Man’s life – Women.

    Game, more than any other endeavor a Man will embark upon, will force him to be BRUTALLY honest about himself – and if he ain’t makin’ the cut with the ladies, what he has to do to fix it. And the simple truth of the matter is, that alot of guys are either too afraid, or too angry, to change.

    So, we get all this talk about just about everything under the Sun, in a venue that is dedicated to Game – ever notice how few guys here actually discuss it? Their experiences with Women? Etc? I have. And it says alot.

    Admitting that one is a failure with Women, is much like a Woman admitting that she cannot attract even minimally attractive Men to do the deed to her – it’s a powerful statement, a deeply profound value judgment, that carries more weight than a thousand Stanford-Binet tests. And so it is quite understandable why Game gets these other groups’ ire.

    What’s really low to me is the way alot of these guys basically scapegoat others as a means to deflect away from their own shortcomings. That’s sad.

    The Obsidian

    Like


  229. Wonderlic is a human resources testing company that administers the Wonderlic Personnel Test which the company claims measures cognitive aptitude.

    The test is used by a variety of institutions, but it’s most famous for being used in the NFL pre-draft assessments of prospective football players.

    The test is scored on a 1 to 50 scale, and the rough conversion to IQ is according to this formula: IQ = 2(Wonderlic Score) + 60. So a Wonderlic score of 20 roughly corresponds with an IQ of 100.

    Wonderlic recommends a min-max Wonderlic score of 20-24 (IQ: 100-108) for the occupation of bus or truck driver.

    Charles Murray has data (Footnote #44) which indicate that only 7% of all American blacks are born to mothers with IQs at or above 100.

    So according to Wonderlic at least, given a random American black, there’s reasonably about a 93% chance that he or she will be constitutionally incapable of functioning as a bus or truck driver.

    Like


  230. Bosco,
    Given this apparent fact, what is to be done about this? I mean, in practical, realworld, and workable terms? I find the HBDers long on stats and graphs and grids, but woefully short on actual and practical solutions to problems.

    Your response?

    The Obsidian

    Like


  231. Obsidian

    Given this apparent fact, what is to be done about this? I mean, in practical, realworld, and workable terms?

    Practically,
    it can not ever be racist
    if Obama
    returns them
    and asks for a refund

    Like


  232. [editor: the stratospheric IQ levels of ashkenazi jews was theorized by cochrane, with supporting data, to have arisen in only ~1,000 years. you were saying?]

    Yes, I agree with Cochran. 50 generations is plenty of time, and it’s very likely that evolution has accelerated.

    I was responding to “havana,” and specifically his claim that human population groups haven’t been geographically isolated with minimal gene flow for any significant amount of time. havana’s argument in support of this claim was that various groups interacted, migrated, settled, etc., in Europe over the past 3,000 years or so.

    I was explaining to him that these groups were for the most part closely related, and that modern humans have been around for much longer than 3,000 years, and have thus experienced thousands of years of being divided into population groups geographically isolated with minimal gene flow.

    This view and Cochran’s view aren’t mutually exclusive. They’re based on the same fundamental principle of genetic isolation, through geographic, cultural, religious, or ethnic barriers.

    Like


  233. Obsidian agrees with his own sock puppet–film at 11

    Like


  234. @chris – hold out for the one-on-one.

    Like


  235. Dana achieves the rare feat of double fisting herself

    The Obsidian

    Like


  236. To biktopia:

    oh…snap!! I’m dabbing my eyes with kleenex right now from laughter at your response to unlearning genius. ha…ha….

    your english is far better than most Americans I know.

    Like


  237. In Response to Chris :

    I hate it when questions about “Game” go unanswered here.

    My take on the matter is that she originally DID include her friend in the plans for that Thursday and is still keeping her friend in the plans even while inviting you.

    The reason behind this is that she is not quite sure yet how she wants to re-integrate you into her social sphere and IS planning to use her friend as sort of an interpersonal shield to allow her time to observe your response and make a final decision.

    The good news, though, is that the act of her inviting you to her Girl’s Night Out means she IS considering letting you back ‘in’.

    It is up to you now to reframe the relationship to a more intimate state of affairs, simultaneously charm and disarm the friend (Do you have a Wingman you could bring along?) and make her forget her boyfriend for a while. Remember to keep things positive, fun, light, slightly sensual, non-needy and avoid talk of the past if the relationship ended painfully.

    Good luck.

    Anyone else have any advice for this guy?

    In Response to Bosco :

    Read what I said again — I stated that I was worried about a CULTURAL dysgenic effect.

    I may be at fault for adapting the terminology from one system of discourse to another; I apologize.

    What I really mean is that I fear that the cultural stability that forms the foundation of Western Civilization may receive a deadly infusion of entropy over the next 50 to 100 years via the phenomenon I described.

    On comparable Genetics Labs in Europe, China, Russia, Japan and India — What I am trying to say is that almost NONE of the leading scientists of these nations have even TRIED to put forth evidence that race-intertwined genetics determines intelligence, circumstances and success even though they experience ethnic tensions of their own and do not have any of the socio-political pressures affecting them that you claim prevent the [fallacious] ‘truth’ about the subject from being released here.

    Proponents of these theories seem to be almost exclusively from North America. I wonder why?

    Like


  238. Ruby said: “Proponents of these theories seem to be almost exclusively from North America. I wonder why?”

    umm, pretty much most theories of any kind over the last 70 years have come out of North America. even if the proponent of a theory isn’t a Westerner, he or she is usually a student or professor at or otherwise affiliated with an American university.

    Like


  239. @ maurice / Ruby

    I decided to go out with her/them tomorrow. I know the friend fairly well actually, so while she’s probably a shield, she’s probably one that’s not too hard to disarm. In fact, she’s the one that told me that the target’s boyfriend is a douche and got jealous when he found out his girl was dancing with me at the wedding.

    I was totally beta during the time that we dated. My plan of attack is complete indifference, much flirting with the friend that’s tagging along and seeing what happens.

    Like


  240. Biktopia-

    We use the brain all the time, unintentionally we use it to make us more sexually attractive, and we do not only use one part, or one or the other.

    You are mistaken on this. Trust me, as a smart and social guy (and a fairly attractive guy, young guy at that) it was a learned skill to be able to attract women. Being smart, young (and at one point successful beyond my years) and attractive did not get me women at all. That key skill was shutting down my brain. Being social (as someone else asserted) is irrelevant, since the things I prefer to talk about are things that engage the rational mind, and require cognitive effort on behalf of everyone involved in the conversation.

    This is not about women being too dumb to ‘get’ me. It’s about, if I’m engaging a woman’s rational mind, she isn’t in a mood for sex. In fact, I’m setting the frame for our entire relationship to be non-sexual since I’m incapable of escalating things from point A to point B while she is intellectually engaged (again, no one gets hot and bothered by math proofs) and she expects to be intellectually engaged around me in the future.

    a subgenius guy, is probably more into equations and formulas then to sweep down a girl from its feet, not to talk about the lack of personal fitness.

    You say it here yourself. You want a guy that can sweep a girl off her feet, and is physically fit. If he is smart, but cannot sweep a girl off of her feet because he is given to formulaic interactions (ie, he is going about conversation as a problem solving endeavor rather than a mind-killing irrelevant social one) he is undesirable. A smart guy will not sweep a girl off her feet if he follows his ‘instincts’ (which are really the antithesis of instincts). A smart guy can learn to supplant his tendencies and lead with his hind-brain and become more successful. Congratulations; we call this ‘Game’.

    Another poster said ‘social’ guys get girls. This is also an untrue meme. Socializing means superfluous small talk. It’s an anti-intellectual pursuit. You can be talkative and friendly, but if you engage people in a ‘formulaic’ and intellectual manner then you aren’t going to be attractive to them.

    This is the importance of the Neg. It attacks the Ego. The Ego draws upon the environment and the validation of others for it’s existence. When the Ego is deprived of those expected outcomes it easily crumbles and we are left only with that core self-esteem; the real person that exists without environment/social factors. A formulaic approach to people that is incapable of cutting through the Ego is a textbook way of not getting laid and works quite well for a great many men that are currently not getting laid.

    Socializing to a smart person is about edification. ‘Being social’ as being defined as being socially adept and successful with people is all about playful small talk; which is devoid of any entertainment value to most highly intelligent people and hence they don’t engage in it, or don’t do so well viewing it as a formality rather than as a pursuit in itself. That doesn’t mean they don’t socialize; it just means when they do they engage people on a level that isn’t conducive to creating an atmosphere for sex. For example, this conversation while ostensibly being about sex, if we were having it face to face would probably not make you want to sleep with me. If you can’t get a girl to want to sleep with you, no matter how enlightened or edified she is by your conversations, she isn’t going to be your girlfriend.

    But a guy with high intelligence and able to use it the right way, is very succesful, what i mean, a handsome man with brain has probably the least problem to get girls,

    Just an anecdote, but the best Player I ever knew got booted out of the US Marine Corp because he was deemed too dangerously stupid to serve as a Private in peacetime. He was a very handsome man; but he was functionally retarded and really couldn’t really speak English (or any language at all) properly.

    He needed a serious amount of self-discipline to pass remedial classes in High School, and he had to take the ASVAB four times in order for the Marines to take him. You have to be really, really dumb to fall into the range of intelligence where the US Military is legally prohibited from allowing you to serve.

    This did not matter to the hundreds of women this guy bedded within hours of meeting them, and the dozens that fell in love with him overnight.

    I can’t imagine having a bigger advantage than this guy had. Game isn’t about the tools of the trade; the formula. It’s not strictly speaking a skillset. It’s about obtaining a state of mind, that allows you to behave as if you were barely above functional retardation. Women call this ‘charming’ usually. If you fuck them, they will call it ‘smart and sexy’.

    but even a guy that have a flaw in his appearance, like short or bald, can make himself sexually desirable if he smart enough to figure out how.

    Yes; if a short bald guy has the introspective qualities necessary to turn his mind’s eye inward and kill his natural proclivities towards treating social interactions like math problems he will be more successful than otherwise. This is what Game is all about. He would have had an easier time quieting his mind, detaching himself from outcome, living in the moment and attaining inner happiness if he were of only average intelligence though.

    Like


  241. Roissy’s two points that 1) Patriarchal societies create less alpha males and more beta males, and 2) Feminism is a response to this imbalance are points I completely disagree with. I’ve lived in countries on four different continents, have a family that is still considered to be “patriarchal” by American standards. America, Canada, and Germany…some of the most feminist countries seem to have the highest concentration of wussies. This is to the point that I have sworn off men from those countries (no offense). The reason why PUA communities have only arisen in the West is precisely due the existence of high concentration beta males the culture has produced. Men outside of feminist cultures don’t need PUA communities or theory, it is already ingrained in their everyday behavior in terms of how they treat women.

    It is much easier to find alpha males when you search in other countries, or this has been my experience at least. The two men I have only ever felt complete attraction to were a Russian ex and my current Indian fiance, both alpha males who abhor American feminist culture and make fun of the wussies it produces. They both grew up in their respective countries, and are considered to be tough alpha men by those around them-both male and female. They didn’t need to learn it from PUA communities, it was conditioned into them by their respective cultures.

    Like


  242. ruby:

    Proponents of these theories seem to be almost exclusively from North America. I wonder why?

    america does most of the scientific research in the world at this time. the american government’s grants to research scientists are the principle source of this funding.

    however, as ascendant china is from an intellectual and economic standpoint, so will they have more and more money to spend on scientific endeavors, like research into eugenics:

    http://scienceblogs.com/geneticfuture/2009/08/chinese_summer_camp_to_offer_g.php

    http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/000325.html

    http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/08/genetic-testing-for-iq-and-personality-in-china.html

    Like


  243. On comparable Genetics Labs in Europe, China, Russia, Japan and India — What I am trying to say is that almost NONE of the leading scientists of these nations have even TRIED to put forth evidence that race-intertwined genetics determines intelligence, circumstances and success even though they experience ethnic tensions of their own and do not have any of the socio-political pressures affecting them that you claim prevent the [fallacious] ‘truth’ about the subject from being released here.

    Proponents of these theories seem to be almost exclusively from North America. I wonder why?

    Bruce Lahn is a Chinese geneticist at the University of Chicago who also does much of his work out of a lab at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China.

    “Scientist’s Study Of Brain Genes Sparks a Backlash;
    Dr. Lahn Connects Evolution In Some Groups to IQ”

    “Last September, Bruce Lahn, a professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago, stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis: He had found signs of recent evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others.

    It was a triumphant moment for the young scientist. He was up for tenure and his research was being featured in back-to-back articles in the country’s most prestigious science journal. Yet today, Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. “It’s getting too controversial,” he says.

    Dr. Lahn had touched a raw nerve in science: race and intelligence.

    What Dr. Lahn told his audience was that genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence. He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold and spread widely in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but weren’t common in sub-Saharan Africa.”

    “The 37-year-old Dr. Lahn says his research papers, published in Science last September, offered no view on race and intelligence. He personally believes it is possible that some populations will have more advantageous intelligence genes than others. And he thinks that “society will have to grapple with some very difficult facts” as scientific data accumulate. Yet Dr. Lahn, who left China after participating in prodemocracy protests, says intellectual “police” in the U.S. make such questions difficult to pursue.”

    “The data showed that evolution had continued in recent millennia. A statistical analysis of DNA patterns suggested that new mutations in each of the two brain-related genes had spread quickly through some human populations. Evidently, these mutations were advantageous among those populations — just as the genetic variant promoting milk digestion was advantageous to early Europeans. Dr. Lahn and his team further observed that the new mutations are found most frequently outside of Africa.”

    “While acknowledging that the evidence doesn’t permit a firm conclusion, Dr. Lahn favors the idea that the advantage conferred by the mutations was a bigger and smarter brain.”

    “That suggested brain evolution might have occurred in tandem with important cultural changes. Yet because neither variant is common in sub-Saharan Africa, there was another potential implication: Some groups had been left out.”

    Like


  244. K,

    _Please_ choose a more search friendly penname (maybe facilitating things a while by using both like testing99 – whisky who you’re way more interesting and insightful than).

    If Biktopia doesn’t want to fuck you by now, she’s admitting you’re right.

    My biggest insight about game was that it allows men to reframe rejection as no big deal (rather than letting the fear of rejection prevent them from approaching women who’ve already signalled they’re looking for guys to approach them). But again, that’s just chanelling one’s inner impulsive, unthinking dumb guy.

    To sum up: Women call borderline retarded behavior ‘charming’. If you fuck them, they will call it ’smart and sexy’.

    This should replace ‘where pretty lies perish’ in the banner here. The idea that applying game long term won’t make you stupider is the prettiest lie of all.

    Like


  245. Cliff hahaha herrregud!!
    Hur kommer det sig att du kan alla dessa språk?
    Om du är intresserad berättar jag gärna.
    szio.

    And to Canada dry
    please dont reherse me on biology becasue that’s exactly what im studying.
    and from your previous explanations makes me wonder how much you know about that topic.

    Like


  246. K,
    i will reply it will just take time and i have to go.

    Like


  247. To Bosco:

    Homo Sapiens Sapiens appeared about 150,000-130,000 years ago. BUT the main out of Africa migration was around 70,000 years ago, and Europe was not reached until around 40,000-30,000.

    Genetic drift and slight environmental pressures led to change in physiological features. Such as skin color, hair color, etc. of groups of humans. Now you do rightly point out that all these ethnic/racial groups come from the same strand. Most of Eurasian and all of native American population are descendants of the out of Africa migration.

    But (1) there were/are NO environmental pressures strong enough to put pressures on the genetic pool of an ethnic/racial group to select for “smarter” genes. Thus make said group “smarter” than the others. (2) NOR was there enough time to allow any group to be in both in isolation and with the right environmental pressures (which don’t exist) on them.

    Genetic drift and sexual selection take physiological changes in any random direction. Two animal groups of the same species, geographically separated but under the same environment will each end up with distinct aesthetic physiological difference. NOT with distinct functional attributes, like bigger jaws to for better chewing. If you want bigger jaws an environmental pressure is needed to allow only individual animals with strong jaws to survive and reproduce.

    see where I am going……… Nowhere in the Eurasian, America, Africa, and Australia is there a natural environment that will specifically select for “smarter brains”.

    Australian aborigines and Native Americans were relatively alone for a long time. And there were considerably less major migrations and mixing of ethnic/racial groups in those two continents (much less in Australia than America). And STILL their children can be learn, say, molecular biology, or linear algebra, whatever.

    The only major difference in brain capacity that we can clearly point out was between the Neanderthals and homo sapiens sapiens. Both hominid groups are descendants of Homo erectus but each developed under VERY different environmental pressures. Of the two, Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved a pre-frontal lobe. Then, when the two came in contact in Europe about 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals went extinct.

    ——————————————————
    As to why then did W. Europe shot off in terms of technological development, I suggest to start off with Jared Diamond. I suggest the book, but

    This video gives a fair intro:

    Then pick up a few history books.

    Right now I can tell W. Europe came to prominence simply because it just got lucky. Without the Crusades into Jerusalem W. Europe would not have achieved the Renaissance. And had Ottoman Sultans stayed at the top of their game in the 17th Century and onward their empire would not decentralized and stagnate (plus Vienna would have fallen, and the Habsburgs, some minor Germanic principalities, and remaining Hungarians would have become Ottoman vassals). Then the question would have become “Why did the Ottomans dominate the world?”.

    Like


  248. In Response to Canada Dry :

    Nice selective editing and highlighting of that article, eh? There’s a lot you left out…

    Three questions in response —

    [1] The article states that Asians don’t have the highest rate of mutation markers as told in the study, yet Asians have the highest average measured intelligence of all races. Wouldn’t this paradox seem to invalidate the biological determinism in race & intelligence you’re advocating through selective extrapolation of that study?

    [2] The study just shows that some groups of people have higher rates of mutation than others, not that these rates are static along these lines, or affect a person of a certain race’s intelligence growth capability or that these mutation markers aren’t transferrable from generation to generation. I have European and Native American in my family, though obviously my most significant heritage is African; Does that mean that any mutation markers passed down from those other sides of my heritage would not transfer or ‘take’ because of my African heritage?

    [3] How do you explain the high rates of success, wealth, intelligence and assimilation by Nigerian and Ethiopian immigrants who come to America?

    As long as we’re posting excerpts from articles, here’s one I thought you’d enjoy:

    “Natural Selection, The Human Genome and the Idea of Race” by Robert Pollack, PhD

    http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/2A762VOE1T.pdf

    “We hold to these dreams even though it is many decades since science has been able to establish, through repeated failure of all experimental attempts to disprove it, that in fact the contrary is the case. Any person’s genome — his or her complement of two copies of each of about 10,000 genes, one copy of each from each parent — is no more the complete statement of that person’s life and character, than any single version of a canonical text is the complete statement of a living religion. Everything interesting in both cases, is the product of interpretation and social interaction. Appearances, as well as more subtle aspects of a person’s individuality, begin with the information encoded in DNA, but anyone who knows one identical twin also knows that person to be unique, despite the presence of another person with the same DNA text in each cell.
    From any one person to another, unrelated person, the differences in base-pair sequence — letters in the text — for the coding region of any gene studied, come to about one in a thousand. The DNA sequences of the cells of two siblings are more closely related, but not that much more so, as each of the two copies of each gene have only a one-in-four chance of being the same in each child. Cumulatively over all 10,000 genes, even brothers and sisters are different in DNA sequence to almost the same degree as strangers. That is very different indeed: with three billion letters in the DNA we inherit from each of our parents, 1/000 is many million sequence differences between any two people.

    Beynd that fact, we should remember that the number of our ancestors doubles with every generation, so that in the past few centuries – the past ten generations – each of us has had more than a thousand ancestors, and all of them would have had this same larger number of DNA sequence differences from each other. Imagine a canonical text with that many variations from century to century and from copy to copy: no chance of any version possibly being the Only True one. Yet that is precisely the meaning of the otherwise empty notion of “Race.” A racist holds that one person and all her ancestors, can be the product of a set of DNA sequences so restricted in its variation, that no one else but other people who look like that person, have ever had or will ever have, any of those sequences. The data are in, and this is not possible. It is not merely that we do not have such data; we do have enough data to be sure that the notion of oneself as the member of any such genetically restricted group, let alone one that is in addition of singular closeness to any imagined Ideal, is merely a dream.”

    Like


  249. Ruby,

    You specifically said that almost none of the leading scientists outside of North America had even tried to put forth evidence, so I brought up the example of Bruce Lahn, a Chinese geneticist at the University of Chicago who also does much of his major work at a university lab in China.

    I provided a link to the article so that it could be read in its entirety. The selected paragraphs quoted in my comment were those that were directly relevant to the claim you were making – they were in

    [1] To be precise, Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of all human subpopulation groups, by far. Northeast Asians (Mongoloids) seem to average highest when compared to Caucasoids and Negroids. Though this should be qualified: the greater average IQ of Mongoloids seems to be mostly based on greater visuo-spatial ability. When broken down to the verbal and visuo-spatial components, Mongoloids appear to score about the same or below Caucasoids on the verbal, and higher on the visuo-spatial component.

    There is no paradox. These aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s entirely possible that Mongoloids could have average higher IQ compared to Caucasoids and Negroids while not having the highest rate of certain mutation markers for intelligence. Like I just explained, there are differences not simply in overall average IQ but in its components as well. It’s very likely that many more genes are involved as well, and as Bruce Lahn himself said, further research in the future that uncovers such genes will mean that “society will have to grapple with some very difficult facts.”

    [2] The study just shows that some groups of people have higher rates of mutation than others, not that these rates are static along these lines

    Of course the rates aren’t static. Nobody said they were. If, say, every Caucasoid with the mutations died for some reason or other before reproducing, and the few Negroids with the mutations dramatically out-reproduced the Negroids without them, then it’s entirely possible that you’ll see the rates change in the following generation.

    or affect a person of a certain race’s intelligence growth capability

    Do you understand the concept of averages?

    or that these mutation markers aren’t transferrable from generation to generation.

    Mutations are transmitted across generations through a thing called “reproduction.” You are aware that this is already an established, elementary fact, right?

    I have European and Native American in my family, though obviously my most significant heritage is African; Does that mean that any mutation markers passed down from those other sides of my heritage would not transfer or ‘take’ because of my African heritage?

    Again, do you understand the concept of averages? And yes, it is entirely possible that mutations passed down from one side of your heritage would not be expressed because of another side of your heritage. The fact that you’re even asking this question reveals that you don’t understand basic genetics.

    [3] For the last time, do you understand the concept of averages? Having a low average doesn’t mean that the tails don’t exist. I don’t deny that there are intelligent Africans and African-Americans. I would explain it by pointing to a combination of factors: genuine ability and intelligence, self-selection, affirmative action, and others. Also, I think you do overstate their outcomes in the US, especially when compared to other immigrant groups such as South Asians, East Asians, etc.

    Pollack’s tripe isn’t anything novel or insightful. It’s just an example of the mainstream dogma on race and genetics that we’re already familiar with.

    Like


  250. Intelligence is a gift and its up to you what you do with it.. A smart person would be able to master obstacles, relationship issues , work related problems or solve most of the problems that comes with living. Life is far away from easy, and if you loose your job or encounter other problems in life, which we all unevitable more or less will do, we all have options how we solve them, a clever person will be able to rise and be able to overcome, and mold the obstacles in his favour. If you want a lot of girls, then you will find a way without suffocating your own personality, do you think it would have helped you to be less smart? You decided to shut down your brain, to be able to get more women, im sure that there would have been other strategies as well, If you want a lot of women, then find your niche. If you don’t fit the dull and stupid system, make your own. A complex personality and smartness doesnt need a genious. And people are to hooked up on IQ, it distorts whats actually is needed to be succesful in life. You can be a genious and fail subjects in school, but you can have a sane sence of understanding and see through and solve the issues hindering yourself from beeing happy. Luck comes to those that works hard. Some people seemingly didnt do anything to become succesful, but i have a feeling in real life, thats a rare type.

    Like


  251. Feminism is anti-feminine.

    Like


  252. ”””””””””””’Firepower

    Well, you’ll eventually need to make that transformation to be unsympathetic when White Guys no longer pay for past sins of racism and run out of tax dollars to support these worthy groups.

    You’ll just have to be merciless. I know you can do it.

    on October 7, 2009 at 2:12 pm Tim
    @FemX

    “I do not think divorce or out of wedlock births are inherently bad for society.”

    As someone who never had a father…and as a result didn’t grow up with male role models to help me develop into a man

    FUCK YOU
    ”””””””””””””””””””
    lol no shit right

    Like


  253. ””””biktopia
    Cliff.
    If my english would allow, i would write more complex explanations, i think you have to be blind not to see what im saying, but then again, this blog is full of hardcore pathology and pedophiles. I think i will will really stop commenting as it is like talking to a wall.
    ””””””””
    Must be talking about herself like a bitch can’t be a pedaphile.

    Like


  254. ””””””””Ruby
    In Response to unlearning genius :

    I tend to agree.

    I theorize that an influx of traditional minded foreign women or an outflux of materially and educationally sucessful “Beta” men to foreign countries with large populations of attractive and accepting traditional minded native women will help to reset the current imbalance in the ‘Date&Mate Gameboard’ for Western Civilization.

    I’m already seeing this phenomenon demonstrated by ‘Beta’ looking college-aged white guys dating hot foreign women in my university town, friends I know who refuse to date American women and concentrate all their time and resources towards 6 month trips to exotic foreign locales every year and many U.S. Sailors and Marines who are married to foreign SouthEast Asian women happily.
    ”””””””””

    The war in iraq is going to have a major impact on that. The asian woman are taking care of the men in that war. So yea a good thing that the word getting out to an extent. Hopefully the states will lost its warmongering ability though before it can take them out.

    Like


  255. ””””’Kevin K
    By intelligence, you really mean “verbal agility”. I have a PhD in physics and I’ve never met a women who thought my ability to solve field theory problems as sexy.
    ”””””””’

    Kevin real talk get a woman from another country where woman appreciate men. That is your only hope.
    Hope that helps.

    Like


  256. ””””””joel
    This is all so silly, this discussion. It all comes down to money, or its equivalent. If the man has money and the female needs it, those legs open up. The only contest then is to see how much money she can get by opening her legs. If she has her own money, she only opens her legs for sociopaths or lesbians (or dogs, whatever).

    Life is simple.

    You have to admire those betas with underground prisons and all. Way to go!
    ”””””””’

    Oh shit we have a winner. That is why you get money and be a sociopath you get the best of both worlds.

    Like


  257. ””””””Tupac,
    P.S. seen Blade Runner yet?”””””””””

    It would be actually worth living to live in a world like that. Excitment adventure. Death if you fuck up. Perfect.

    Like


  258. ”””””””””’Jimbo
    The very idea of women vs men as an “interest group” is strange. Social and political scientists need to achieve consilience with sociobiology.

    What I think happens when we see “economic progress” coupled with “the increasing status of women” is simply emergence of de facto polygyny in an urbanized setting. Transitioning to polygyny isn’t an increase in status for women. It is an Africanization of civilization. However, one might say that the status of harem women in Africa is higher than corporate concubines in an urbanized settings since African concubines usually have direct access to food by way of their involvement in agriculture. Most don’t have to go get a paycheck from their harem master every other week in order to have food and shelter, and are less likely to find themselves homeless and hungry when they reach middle age and are “downsized” out of their subsistence.
    ””””””””””””””””’
    Jimbo kicking some truth but those same woman if working in tandem with a man can achieve more than the harem chickies. They are just mostly dumb even though they think they are clever that is the root of the problem.

    Like


  259. gun – “Kevin real talk get a woman from another country where woman appreciate men. That is your only hope.
    Hope that helps.”

    Oh, I’m not complaining. In fact I’m not sure the ability to do field theory (or whatever) is all that useful. Just pointing out there is a circular reasoning involved with women who say “they like intelligence” when they really mean “the subset of cognitive abilities women find attractive.”

    Like


  260. I have just noticed that american chicks the problem is they are not appreciative of what it takes to get to certain levels of achievment other woman are.

    But yea being able to talk. I don’t know I just grunt at this bitch and she is in “love”. I haven’t used any game. Although I did allow her to witness me have phone sex with my wife he he he I talk literally no more than 2 words per times she calls me I don’t call her.

    Like


  261. Now when we first met yea ok I used some conversation skills. So yea verbal helps at beginning but after you fuck grunting is fine. Until she comes up with I am pregnant then its like fuck its not even worth the grunting.

    Like


  262. It is true that men who pander to feminism often automatically gain beta status with women. They lost respect for George W when he turned pro-feminist in his second term. I saw it in real life in San Francisco as betas refused to even compete for fear of being seen as viewing women as sex objects. These barriers stop betas from trying to compete.

    Like


  263. So it causes self-selection by men out of the gene pool…which is what some higher up (and evil) alpha males may have envisioned.

    I see a strange example of this in prostate cancer surgery “politics”. They say men over 50 should get operated on even though they might lose sexual function forever…because “being longer with their wife and grandkids are worth it”. As cancer bloggers “open up” about their disease, they never discuss their mistress or their lapdance habits or whom they would date if their wife died or things didn’t work out. It is all feminized discussion. Meanwhile doctors themselves won’t get their prostates surgically removed.

    Like


  264. QUOTE
    Northern climates also gave rise to a profound biological
    selection for morality imprinting since it was only through
    total acceptance and observance of tribal rules, adapted for
    the unique environment, that survival in such “unnatural”
    environments was possible. Indeed, immorality could
    threaten the fragile adaptations of the entire tribe.
    Instinct, taking too long to evolve, was supplanted by a
    meta-instinct which allowed one’s behavior to be imprinted
    by the tribe’s moral rules for survival.
    UNQUOTE

    Now I know why feminist groups are so afraid of Global Warming! Ha!

    Like


  265. Northern climates also gave rise bla bla bla bla bla

    Southern climates gave rise to pizza, Dorian Columns, Oval Domes and beautiful women

    Like


  266. “The more opportunities for female hypergamy to be expressed, the more likely males are broken down in a de facto caste system where most men are losers and don’t invest in society and where the winners don’t either (leading to all sorts of bad results).

    In other words, Cinderella is one of the most socially destructive cultural memes going (though traditional feminists recognize this too). And I’d say the most destructive kind of feminism isn’t the traditional kind, but the post-femininist lipstick feminists who look for both professional and sexual hypergamous self-actualization at the same time. The original feminists at least had the good sense to recognize that women should choose one or the other.”

    True.
    Being sexually ambitious is incompatible with being personally ambitious. I tend to think women will be better off if they’re personally ambitious (in their careers) and stop trying to be sexually ambitious (gold-digging and the like.) You can’t try to acquire reflected glitter from a man and at the same time expect him to respect your accomplishments. Agreed, Cinderella is the problem.

    A friend of mine, whom I respect enormously, surprised me once with his socially conservative views on families. He thought basically that all straight fertile people should raise children. I asked him why and he says that parents are more invested in the future. So I think we do have reason to be concerned about large populations of childless men, reluctant as I am to support any government policies of natalism.

    Like


  267. […] October for his post explaining feminism as a “sexual selection strategy,” but I think he came close to the truth: I propose, as an extension to this theory, that the absurdity of mid-20th to early 21st century […]

    Like


  268. I don’t know why explanations by sexual selection are so popular, but there may be a misconception that sexual selection is faster or stronger than natural selection. This is not likely to be true except in the case of a highly polygynous species.

    Like


  269. The most obvious ‘shit test’ to come out of the feminist capaign is the ‘no means no’ subligation technique. Women, throughout history and as a rule, will put up resistance when the sexual act is forethcoming.

    An experienced, high-value male is accustomed to this and will act accordingly by applying an increased ammount of pressure/force on the female until he ‘breaks down her defences’.

    This is a very important aspect of their arousal process as they percieve this man to be not only strong/dominant, but highly attracted to her as he cannot control his desire.

    ‘no means no’ is how the feminist seperates sexually active men from those who take her seriously and are celibate as a result.

    Like


  270. […] (what the h*ll r u talking about, hbdchick? [more here]) […]

    Like


  271. […] women to block competition from attractive young foreign women, men are finally realizing that all organized feminism is a zero sum game where most men get the shaft and nothing is about […]

    Like