Deleted member 6403
Made It Out The Hood
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2020
- Posts
- 56,274
- Reputation
- 96,554
Part 1: Individual selective traits
Individual selective traits are traits which are favourable to the individual but unfavourable to the group. Cowardice, deception, selfishness and the dark triad of personality belongs here. Group selective traits are traits which are favourable to the group but not the individual. Mercy, compassion, conscience, self sacrifice, truthfulness and unselfishness belong to those. Note that the latter correlate with conventional morals which are taught even if individual selective traits may also be favourable in a sheer evolutionary sense. Intelligence correlates with group selective traits and morals even if there are exceptions and it does not lie among them itself.
Humans compete as individuals and groups. Individual selective traits are beneficial regarding individual competition and group selective traits are beneficial regarding competition between groups. An-prim tribes are often merciless to rival tribes but cunning or self sacrificing within the tribe. They would get steamrolled by a larger more group selective group which is what happened during the period of colonisation. The natives of Papua new guinea don't know about salt water if their territory is separated from the sea by more than one territory. Such a society would not have a chance against a civilised colonial empire.
A pattern is that individual selective traits increase when a group is isolated at peace until the group selective traits have become so weak that the group is taken over and genocided by a group which is earlier in the cycle and more group selective. Individual competition and group competition keep these that is at a balance that is competitive in the ecology of residence.
99% of humans are selectively moral and immoral depending on the circumstances. Humans are much more group selective than most plants and animals.
The hyper social insects like ants and bees are extremely group selective. Most of them are sterile and their genetic survival depends on the survival of the clan.
It is an individual selective trait to hoard for yourself at the expense of the group while it is a group selective trait to abstain so that there is more left for others.
Too much group or individual selective traits can be bad.
If everyone leaves the firewood for everyone else, all of it would be wasted.
A rule that everyone has to burn a set amount of firewood would have to be instated.
If anyone hoarded all the firewood, that person would be warm but the other people in town would freeze while most of the firewood rotted.
A rule that distributed the firewood equally would have to be instated.
If you want to inhibit individual selective traits, you would have to make a rule that says people can eat 3 apples each as most.
If you want to inhibit group selective traits, you would have to make a rule that says everyone must eat 1 apple or more.
Most western stories have some sort of group selective moral such as if the protagonist gives to charity instead of being selfish and for his good intentions is gifted a chest of gold which he for some reason keeps for himself while the antagonist steals for himself and later is hurt which in postum justifies that he aquired resources for himself as compensation. There is not even a story about someone who kills all old people but then ages and becomes the only old person in the world before a new generation of aged people ages to its place which would be ironic. The antagonist may be based on our innate harsh individual selective traits as shown by the quote "A good antagonist thinks he's right; a great antagonist is right". It may be moral to perform individual selective actions, especially as a group selective person among individual selective people, ie a nice guy.
There is an abundance if group / individual selective behaviour in different parts of the world.
I've noticed that there is a lack of good deeds to perform in Sweden where I live now. The most obvious thing is to be charitable.
The big charities are alienating and corrupt; they contribute to things like feminism and over population in Africa.
The small number of native beggars have been displaced by violent gangs of criminal gypsies from continental Europe. All that is given to them goes to the wealthy bosses who hold the beggars as captives. They would return and get real jobs in Romania where most of them are from if everyone stopped giving them money for 2 months. The police recommended doing this some years after the popular consensus supported this but the criminal captives are still in front of every store.
Group selective people tend to have a sense of noblesse oblige and view positions of power as a burden with accompanying responsibilities, especially when they occupy them themselves. Individual selective people such as women and low IQ groups tend to instead just use it as a means to harm those below them and demand the utmost best treatment from their subjects while not working themselves. Women in positions of power may demand that men humiliate themselves and submit like a beta to them in order to do their profession bound service.
Torturing people and animals to death for fun is an individual selective trait.
There are people in Africa and Central America who torture and kill people recreationally. The Americans often video tape it so that you can watch it on gore sites.
There is an abundance of individual selective traits in these places which is why they are third world prisons of people who want to go to the Germanic countries.
It appears that a country benefits from self sacrificing nice guys even if it is a burden to be one on an individual level.
Being a nice guy often means being taken advantage of. To be beaten and forced into introversion which nobody is born with is not uncommon. Nice guys may finish last but a truly group selective person would as an end game have, not egoistic individual success, but the success of the group, nation or the whole world.
Many great geniuses like Newton and Tesla were volcels during the latter halves of their lives and many others were forced into inceldom.
It is possible to be too smart for women; more on that further down.
Big thinkers like Nietzsche, Socrates, Aristotle, Confucius and others appear to in unison agree that women are essentially inferior to men and should be in a position of servitude, early arranged marriages and not high studies or positions of authority.
It appears as if humans have evolved from individual selective low IQ entities due to our behaviour. There were only 1 million humans on earth during most of the stone age and they had an average IQ of around 70. The conclusion can also be deduced from the behaviour of different types of humans.
The moral person who abstains for the sake of others has an inner temptation to grab for itself and understands why those of lesser qualities wants to acquire for themselves. The understanding of the other is not mutual. The immoral often attributes weakness or stupidity to those who leave resources like women and food for the rest; they don't attribute it to a different endgame, an endgame that favours the group more than the individual. They don't have the part of the mind that compels others to be self sacrificing; they are not chained to their behaviour as the generous and compassionate is chained away from its primal instincts to eat all the food, bed all the women and hoard all the firewood.
The individual selective person would be chained to its egoistic behaviour while being tempted to leave resources for others if the group selective compassionate ones were the archaic and humans were derived from people of purely group selective inclinations. The group selective would then not have or need inner chains to keep them to their often genetically predestined behaviour. Perhaps they would then not attribute individual selective behaviour to an endgame that favours the individual over the group but to ignorance and stupidity as their counterparts do in this world. They would not have a primitive core of will to take for themselves, just one that without compulsion makes them help their peers.
Part 2: Malevolence among females
Imagine working for a female boss who lacks a sense of truth and morals, sensing only dominance and hierarchy. She would penalise you for correcting her regardless of who was right and who was wrong. You would not be successful in speaking about it to your female coworkers if they act reflexively without the weight on language.
They would reflexively penalise you if you stopped acting reflexively. It would be like a dog that could not communicate its discovery to other dogs, being penalised for trying to get their attention. It must be under such circumstances human dominance instincts developed, that is, before language. It would not be good to work with females as they can act like this.
Chad may get a pass and he doesn't have to work with them to speak to them or be touched.
The adult human female has 10% less brain volume than the adult human male who has 10% larger brain. People with low calorie brain outsource their thinking to others. Women are often in groups with an alpha female who may compete for followers with other Alpha females or penalise disobedience and disloyalty among her subjects. The alpha female is often among the oldest if not the oldest in the group.
Said leader may need to be a bit smart to keep her followers. Anyone who knows something she doesn't is a threat to her; anyone who is more intelligent and analytical than her is an even greater threat. A man who is more intelligent than her and has integrity to tell the truth cannot be allowed close to her subjects. She penalises that type of men for approaching, making her subjects dislike him, making him know it and paring her subjects up with men of lesser intelligence, men she can control or at least understand and predict. This type of woman typically also has a great deal of misandry and crab mentality.
The alpha female speaks for all females. An alpha female could say that all women want something without asking the others and the others would follow.
Women often fail to do this with men as men unlike women have a greater sense of being equal but different individuals.
Women, as I have written above, have smaller less productive brains than men; adult human males have about 10% larger brains than their female counterparts, most notably larger frontal lobe. The frontal lobe is the part of the brain responsible for logic, analysing, self control, inhibition, advanced thinking and as an extension morals, especially higher morals. The frontal lobe is inactive when you sleep along with the part of the brain responsible for long term memory and sense of time. This is why dreams which are only up to 2 minutes long appear to be absurd without you noticing it, being forgotten and their beginning never being remembered. You don't notice the irrationality of your dreams because the frontal lobe is inactive.
The inferior brain of females means that they outsource their thinking and opinion forming to other females in the group. The opinions of a group of females is the average with regards to their strength; the opinion of the alpha female weighs the heaviest. A normal woman will average the opinion of the alpha female and herself and make that her opinion. Jeffery Epstein had a female Jewish helper who spoke to the boys, girls and teen women he brought to his island.
Her loyalty lied not with females against males but with Mossad and the Jews. She adamantly said that the young women should do the sexual things and they averaged their opinions with hers multiple times until they had become hers as she never conceded, a trait of someone who is sure of what it's doing, something females respond to. They respond to females, alpha females, authority figures and primal punishment, besides their instincts.
There is a way to act that is acted by normies, women, low IQ people and men.
It is a system in which non-platonic friendship is impossible unless you're equally subjugated by someone else. If you beat them like a bad dog or slander them at their every attempt at forming their own opinion or do something without your permission they treat you as their master like said dog. If you treat them like an equal, they will try to dominate you and tell you what to do while immorally attacking you for doing your own thing in your half of the living space. There can be a third person who dominates you both and tells you what to think so that you can outsource your thinking to that person if you are low IQ and your brain burns fewer calories per day than mine. They will then treat you as an equal as neither of you dominates the other and tells it what to do and what to think. Women have no qualms about asking the leader of their girl gang what to think, even about important issues such as what to vote for. They don't have the same sense of truth or morality as men; they may think it a virtue to be able to be told what is true and moral without a sense of a potentially conflicting objective reality.
It is a known meme, particularly among MGTOWs that the house belongs to the woman while the male provider must make do with a corner in the garage or a bathroom he can lock himself into. Women often steal clothes and other ornaments they don't like from their men which they can while men cannot do the same as women projecting keep track of every possession instead of contributing to society like a group selective person. Women don't care about producing like a group selective person but mostly about acquiring and having in relation to others like the individual selective people they are.
A woman would be like a dog or a sheep if you could dominate her totally but if there were other women who competed to take your place, they would all hate you openly among themselves. The latter scenario is unlikely to happen as the women would gang up and make one of their own their leader above all men.
They often don't see men as persons who's thoughts and space to respect but an entity to avoid, control or make obedient.
Integrity means to tell the truth and have honour when it isn't in your social or material interest. To have integrity, it is needed to have a sense of truth, logic and morals, a task women as a group are not very good at due to their smaller frontal lobes. A person with no sense of truth, logic or morals at all that could only sense loyalty and primal hierarchy would have an archetypal female mind. That person would believe its gang leader whatever it said and make up the utmost absurdities if it was such a leader itself.
A complete person with a complete mind would understand your lawn from his even if you didn't pose on the borders all the time or made symbolic minor intrusions to his. The opposite person would instead of investing in a pastime or a craft intrude on your land, living space, dignity, feelings, norms and everything else of yours unless you would mark your territory which you with regards to women don't have the right to do in practice.
To spend time on advancing socially and to gain sexually is an individual selective trait while to provide and improve the world instead of working on your social or sexual status is group selective. Women often act reflexively without a consistent pattern of thought to reveal when caught. They may intrude but there is little to gain from questioning them about it afterwards as they don't have anything to respond with.
They may also often act weak or ignorant which they unlike men are not penalised for being.
Having no right to dominate women or immoral normies who live with you, the living space and possessions would gradually fall into their hands, them stopping only at the bare minimum you need to exist as laws and norms are not holding them back. Complete men can basically not live with persons who intrude on your immaterial possessions such as feelings, space and dignity, nor can they work with those who act the same; they can only healthily interact with other men of complete minds, a pleasure bereft of those with low calorie brains and small minds.
Female alpha / beta behaviour may appear to be primitive or childish. It may, to the non-manipulative person, simply seem to be non-ideal.
Lets have a some examples:
Ex.1: A woman asks her girlfriends if she should go out with someone. She is a beta female and would be penalised if she got together with someone and the alpha female did not like it. The alpha female is among her girlfriends.
Ex.2: An alpha female who is a boss at a workplace in the public sector tells her beta female employee to not provide a form for a male customer as he does not have a drivers license. Later, at the interaction he shows her his drivers license but she acts as if she doesn't understand and signals to him to leave without saying why. She does this as to not enrage her alpha female and draw a penalty to herself with would be done if she served the man. If she would ask the alpha female what to do, she would potentially become enraged, tell her to not provide the form as she cannot change her mind, and penalise the woman for not just doing what she is told and ask a question back.
Ex.3: An alpha female tells someone, a man or a woman to do something. The told does something else which appears to yield a better result. The alpha female ruins their result and tells them to do it her way, thus signalling that disobedience, even to evidently bad advice will be punished. The person concedes and uses the conventional way, not exploring what appears to be a better way due to a threat.
Ex.4: A beta female follow the order of an alpha female but fails to accomplish the result. The alpha female steals something equivalent to the result from a nearby but previously unrelated man and gives it to her. The man does not have the legal standing to steal it back as he is along and a group of women would be against him if he tried. The justice system is misandric as is known.
Ex.5: A man has not followed the advice of an alpha female. She nags him and slanders him until he changes his mind. He must not only follow her advice but submit and compensate every second of apparent disrespect as she sadistically penalises all other behaviour.
Ex.6: A beta female falls for a mental cel. Her alpha female breaks them up and penalises both of them for getting together as the intelligence and morals of the mental cel is a threat to her authority. She is repulsed by smart moral men too.
Ex.7: Alpha females team up to unjustly hurt a group of men, without which they cannot remove the past rivalry between their groups.
Most of this behaviour is instinctual but some intelligence is needed to stay on top and not be usurped. A dark triad personality is a necessity. There are men who are disadvantaged by alpha females who hate them instinctually because of their intelligence and morals which are threats to their authority. They can become mental cels because of this. Most women look around, see what is normal and beneficial to appear to like and think and just becomes that without thinking about disembodied morality. They also find a gang to follow or become an alpha female in. A gang of females are more powerful than a man even if the law itself is on his side.
Women are often reflexive in their thinking, giving set responses for set conditions. They may become violent if introduced to unrehearsed situations.
They can treat phrases as spells, not caring for their literal meaning but only what they make people do. If someone say "Why don't you do that?" without specifying what and standing provocingly close to you from behind, it may be more likely to make you do what she is trying to make you do than if she has just told you to do it; it is in addition difficult to make a statement of your own against an act like that. They may not recognise this behaviour as immoral as they may only categorise something to do or think as right or wrong depending on negative consequences for herself. This explains protesters who protest for inconsistent absurdity but would be penalised if they had the correct red-pilled opinion. The ruling powers will have such people on their side as long as they penalise them for appearing to have different thoughts.
It may only be stopped by creating your own state and penalising them for not being of your own preferred orthodoxy. They crave an approximate yet orthodox path to follow and don't want true freedom of opinion for themselves as it makes them feel insecure and lonely. They may then be violent or compete for a new alpha status in such a situation as they can only dominate or be dominated.
Women and especially women who are after power and positions of true authority in particular have a great inner misandric sadism even if it is hidden or in slumber as mere potential. Misandric sadism knows no bounds, especially when fuelled in a group of ecstatic misandric women like on Oprah. They can be ecstatic and spasm out on the floor like in a charismatic afro-american Church. It is as if the air is filled with hormones of misandry and ecstasy. Such is the misandric nature of women.
Women don't have true altruistic empathy for men; if they had, they would perhaps have pity fucked you or something of the sort.
Part 3: Individual selective females
Females are more individual selective than males. Males have a sense of truth and are more prone to self sacrifice by giving their live for the group. It is ironic that the group which is more individual selective more often gangs up to mercilessly genocide or hinder the group selective group. It is because of egoism, lack of empathy, lack of mercy and only looking to your own good, not that of the group, nation, humanity or world.
Females favour individual selection when selecting mates. Women favour violence, fear and the dark triad of personality besides good physique and health which are universally healthy. It is called archaic selection as contemporary success is often derived from money and inherited status rather than the genes which were adaptable during the stone age. If the group got destroyed in war by a more group selective group, women would just have sex with the males of the victorious people akin to how lionesses mate with the male lion as soon as he has killed her kids and baby daddy. It lies thus in the male interest to increase group selection while female instincts which favour individual selective traits remain. This can be done by normalising a culture of arranged marriage or to execute males who practice abundantly individual selective behaviour. Said executees may have stolen or killed those better than them within the group.
It is common for a country to have a small nepotistic ruling class with individual selective traits such as psychopathy while also having a large under class with individual selective traits. They have low IQ and are unsuccessful regarding nepotism. The middle class is the only group which is a net contributor. They lose money through taxes and extracted surplus value. It is the only class that is policed by the police as the 2 classes with individual selective persons are above and below the law respectively. The person or class of group selective traits concerns itself with net production, not in themselves getting the sum total of the fruits of their labour.
The person or group of individual selective values concerns itself with acquiring pieces of the cake, not increasing its size or the ethics of doing so.
The former focuses on the moral victory in picking up more trash than left in nature while the latter focuses on their hierarchical victory in doing the opposite and having the moral expend calories to amend their own wrongdoings.
Whenever you wonder why someone does something un-clever or immoral, just ask if that is what evolution favours.
It often favours such traits, particularly when you consider who benefits from the archaic selection of women.
The issue of why humans are moral but not moral all the way through, or simply selectively moral, can, to the person who wonders why evolution has favoured group selective traits like self sacrifice, be answered with how evolution by natural selection creates a balance between group selective traits and individual selective traits.
It is more favourable to be individual selective within an individual selective group than the alternative at to not be ostracised and sentenced to death due to the immorality of others. The burden of being a nice guy among parasites attests to this. It is more favourable to be group selective in a group selective group than in an individual selective group as to avoid capital punishment in the former and having immoralities committed against you in the latter due to crab mentality and unmotivated sadism.
An individual selective incel would be opportunistic and try to scam himself to reproduction. A group selective incel would remove himself from the gene pool.
Going ER against blood enemies could be a group selective trait if incels are your in group.
Many great monks and scientists have become volcels as to help their group through writings or inventions instead of just increasing the next batch of kids by a negligible sum. They would have to be group selective to make such a decision.
Their individual selective counterpart would just have reproduced while being parasites on their surroundings.
Women are individually selective by how they act, affect society and select mates. That corresponds with the inversion of modern conventional morals as group selective traits correlate with it and are the polar opposite, regarding morals and evolutionary strategy to the traits that as aforementioned are net derived from females.
Civilisations can be destroyed due to being over run by barbarians but the net pattern across history is that more group selective civilisations expands and dominates though economic, military, cultural and spiritual imperialism. Women and female sexual selection undermines racial survival, civilisation and its positive effects on nature in contrast with the an-prim handling of nature which is shorter term and not governed by laws.
While a gender which limits reproduction and acts more akin to conventionally immoral individual selective traits as well as favouring them through sexual selection can seem like a problem in its own, it also appears to hinder peoples as a whole in the great grind of human peoples that occur during history.
Part 4: On being too smart or stupid for women.
The most common problem is being too smart. Normal negroes can have plenty of sex and father many children. If a white person would be less intelligent than what is normal for Negroes, he must've had some great disability like downs syndrome. Only being too smart is a problem normally. One may be too dumb if it is relative to the other males in the circle and is ostracised for it. It is then not the intelligence level itself that is the problem but that the male is branded as weird, outcast and inferior in the mind of the woman. She would be less able to conform with her friends if her man was an outlier in any way including one that would make the alpha female jealous.
Let me tell you why high IQ is a problem. When women seek out men, high IQ (>115) and low IQ (<50) may be a turnoff. Humanity had an average IQ of around 70 during most of the stone age. Women are adapted for the type of man who would be successful, thrive and blend in in that ecology. Big brained boyos can adapt and blend in better than those who don't understand. Women are increasingly repulsed by those with high IQ because that is the bigger problem, the one with higher likelihood to appear and that women as a whole show disdain for the most. This is only important when a woman seeks out a male. Turbochad can get away with Mensa level IQ and normal Chad doesn't show his IQ when he is with women alone.
There is a quote that says that women want a man that's smart enough to be useful but dumb enough to be used. A woman will find it hard to manipulate a man with a big mind. She wants a man who is not and cannot become aware of how bad she is. There is a crab mentality amongst normies and women, the latter foremost.
It means that they want to hurt, kill and slander those who are or have it better than themselves. This means that smart males are often ganged up on in school, made outcasts and thus yeeted off the list of potential partners. Being friendless and outside of primal high energy gangs is abundantly common the smarter and more moral a man is, the former having greater significance. This repulses women too.
A woman is never alone; she is with her gang of females with a leader who they outsource their thinking and opinion making to as I have written about above. Said leader must be a bit smart to keep her followers. Anyone who knows something she doesn't is a threat to her; anyone who is more intelligent and analytical than her is an even greater threat. A man who is more intelligent than her and has integrity to tell the truth cannot be allowed close to her subjects. She penalises that type of men for approaching, making her subjects dislike him, making him know it and paring her subjects up with men of lesser intelligence, men she can control or at least understand and predict.
This type of woman typically also has a great deal of misandry and crab mentality.
A man of wisdom and big brain power can only meet a women when she approaches him alone which only happen if he as if he has not shown his intellects or is a Turbochad which it's hard to become in a first world country as you need to kill men openly, humiliate them, strike fear into those who aren't abundantly submissive.
They may kill one of you and get away with it if the Chad police doesn't know they have made a big deal about it, provided evidence and use it to be more feared and respected than said police officers. Fear is the only kind of respect the incomplete human mind can express; low IQ humans are like mid tier mammals in this sense; even the great apes need to prove their leadership skills and morals to become leader, not just subjugate any rival like a male cat.
IQ level, especially if too high or along with neuroticism and non-literal autism can most especially make an incel. Women judge you by how you look and reject you immediately in their mind if you are too smart or dumb. That which they lack in their brains as aforementioned must be as if it would have made them more sensible, grateful and merciful had they had it, which they do not. It¨s ironic how bad taste in men women have.
I assume that being too low IQ can embarass yourself figuring out the simplest stuff and need people to repeat themselves to understand. My condolences go not only to high IQ males or males as a whole but I wish it to go to the whole world, lest it gain what it deserve in spite of the more likely reality.
Part 5: Distribution of females part 1: Male mate-guarding
Different species have different behaviour. There is only one known species of bird in which female infidelity has not been documented. It is common for male birds to follow the females around to make sure nobody else has sex with her. Mallards are a symbol of love and the male protects its female but if the male would get killed by another male, the female would start taking his sperm instead. Males guard and patrol females like cattle and are in turn treated as non-living entities that do good or harm but who are not entitled to altruistic help.
Males patrol females among felines and primates. In both these types of animal, the male must follow the female around wherever she may walk and fight off any other male that wants to have sex with her. Only rarely would the male penalise the female for walking too much. Males have evolves super female patrolling capabilities due to natural selection.
The male lynx which only weighs about 25 kg can have territories as large as 450 square kilometres, larger than several small countries, an area which could provide food for multitudes of males, just to be able to have sex with the females in the territory. The males walks through and around his territory every day and fight other males but the females can cross the territorial lines in search of a superior male as they like.
A reason for why mating season is only a fraction of the year may be because of how many calories it consumes for walking. The female, regardless of feline or primate would like a flesh-light get shagged by the new male as soon as he won a fight against the old one unless he was an ugly opportunistic incel. She would invite Chads to kill the incel and compete for her vagina if an incel had the guts, a choice which would likely lead to its death but also be its best chance of passing on its genes. Females even mate with the new males when he has just killed her only descendants earlier that day.
Most male lions live between the family territories on a mere fraction of the surface the more successful Chad lions guard as their own. They get enough food; they just don't get the females as they are incels and none of them controls a large surface area, area which does not only has a fixed density of prey but a fixed density of females. Females walk between the territories of the alphas but they don't stay at the borders where the adaptively inferior incel lions live.
Males are evolved to be violent and control large territories, especially during the mating season if they are Chads and to be submissive and opportunistic if incel.
Females are evolved to be like soul-less flesh-lights unless an incel or superior specimen is nearby at which point she instigated duels to the death between the males.
They want to always be in the proximity of a manipulative alpha male to keep this ability; even incels are stronger than females among the patriarchal species.
Mammals and birds which are the most intelligent animals can be said to be patriarchal as the males are larger than the females in contrast with most of the animal kingdom.
Human females exhibit above described behaviour. There are various posts about women orbiting and pursuing their former rapists and posts about feeling defiled when they found out that the man they had sex with was not up to par with her other options. Females don't care about consent very much; they care about Chadliness and the feelings they get when their instincts detect competitive genes. Female selection of mates is archaic; it would be smarter to marry an average looking millionaire young and have lots of well fed children which is what women do in un-automated societies as to avoid physical labour even if they often cheat when an imposing elite specimen is found. Their instincts tell them to, beside going for healthy physiques which is a positive trait, go for men of violence, below average IQ, being threatening, immoral, without integrity and of the dark triad.
It is posted on r/femaledatingadvice that they should go to wrestling matches and sport games with different teams with their mates and instigate fighting over her among the males to get the strongest most adaptive sexy one. Females do this in nature too. Millions of bucks headbutt each other to death each year even if females could settle down with one male and not be alluring to other males. Females reject that way of lives among ungulates and among primates, including humans.
A female would signal to the Chad immoral police officers if you even tried to act confident around her, as if that would lure her to your below average looks.
They can also signal to other Chads to beat you down, preferably to death on their part as they would be alleviated of a genetic bio hazard without spending time in jail.
Females don't mind going to frat houses where raping and roofing is known to be common common as long as the men are Chad enough. The fact that they rape, get away with it and get returning guests is in itself a signalling of Chad-dom, that they can do and without inhibition do this. There might be apparent exceptions but the bulk of female behaviour regarding mate selection, especially of the r-selected sort, leads to this model of explanation. Humans are r-selected and individual selective at the core which is apparent by that the norms and morals which must be imposed by authority are k-selective and collective selective.
Females of fertile age are repulsed by men of below average visual and genetic standard; you are to them what cucking and castration would be to you if to you had the smv and lack of accountability of a female. Females of younger and older ages can be nice but a more attractive charismatic male specimen will appear better in every way all other things being equal. Males are evolved to patrol, protect and not attack; incels are evolved to remove themselves from the gene pool for its better sake.
Part 6: Distribution of females part 2: The futility of being a low status male
The 80/20 rule states which men women pursue. If the 80/20 rule is true, a man in the bottom 80% has a 1/4 chance of having a gf. If the 80/20 rule is true within the 80% of men which it probably is, a man in the bottom 64% has a 1/16 chance of having a gf. Consequently, the men in the bottom 51.2 % must share 0.25^3 of the women and have only a 1/64 chance of having a girlfriend. If the 80/20 rule is true is true for the top 20% of men, the top 4% of men can have 16 gf:s each on average. The average man has such a low chance of having a woman pursuing him while the top men, the Chads according to this mathemathical model have so many women pursuing them. The top 20% of men alone have 4 women pursuing each of them on average. If you are in the bottom 20% of men, only 0.00000046256% of women are pursuing you according to this formula.
The graph I posted in my original thread about this reveal that the sum of women who must be shared is negligible for the bottom 3/4 of men. The space to the right of a point on the graph represent a share of men while the space above that point represent their share of women. The point which is left of 80% of the X axis representing 80% of males is only below 20% of the Y axis representing 20% of females.
Tinder says that only 15% of its male users have met anyone irl through the app at all. This includes homosexuals who use tinder instead of Grinder and men who were rejected before they could have sex. This must mean that men who are 9/10 must compete for the lowest of the low of tinder using females.
Women are a zero-sum-game.
If you by ascending, take a woman, you are taking a woman from someone else who otherwise would have gotten her. Women like to go to places where males compete over them. Regardless of how much effort you put into getting women or increase your smv, the total number of women stays the same; the only thing that has increased is the effort spent on getting one. Women behave badly because of all the effort spent getting them; it increases their ego and fuels their narcisism. This allegory would fit best in a monogamous or mildly polygamous society. It means much more for you to have sex than for Chad who might spend a night watching cartoons instead of sending eggplant emojis to his loyal tinder matches. The statement remains true though. Regardless of how much effort you or anyone else spend on getting women, the only thing increasing is the effort spent on them; the women stay the same number and get worse if anything.
It appears, due to that which is described in this sixth segment, to be so pointless and futile to pursue women above other activities regardless of how fulfilling it would be to have a healing relationship with a good nawalt woman and have your penis grasped by a hand smaller than your own.
Part 7: Jews and their Jewry
While degeneracy occurs naturally, it can be milked out of people, the Jews appear to be milkers.
I have hypothesised that group selective males dislike ped*philic actions as the older gains little while the younger loses much. They are not ped*philes and would not commit such acts. It would make sense that men with individual selective traits like to commit ped*philic actions, at least to females of their out group. They gain little themselves but the other person and its tribe loses much in dignity. A person who tortures recreationally or considers an enemy tribe to be lawful prey while hunting would view it as an easily acquired delicacy among all the ways to humiliate your enemy. It is said that Jews may have sex with a goy child as young as 3 according to their holy texts while other rules apply to Jews. It is also said that they used to drink blood of children through straws during the middle ages which would be an archetypal individual or at least tribal selective trait. Some people are naive and think that no humans lack complex empathy despite the evidence and think that no such custom could have been practised by humans but they would be wrong as shown by evidence. Complex empathy is among the later acquired parts of the human mind and is not present among all types of humans.
The island of Jeffrey Epstein and his female Mossad agent co-worker was one of several in which the Jew heavy elite bribed and gained blackmail material of those who are placed in power. Ped*philic actions were committed there, both by Bill and Hillary Clinton. The activity may not only be a bribe and a source of blackmail but also a way to screen out people who due to ethnic alliances or individual selective traits would not mind having sex with a blonde 9 year old. Those who passed would lack the philia / comradery that The ancient Greek philosophers thought were necessary to maintain a democratic state. Empires such as the British or Russian have used peoples against each other in order to maintain control. Food was grown in walled in gardens in British India while the masses starved on the street outside. Monotheistic minorities like Sikhs and Muslims were privileged above the Hindu masses in India at that time. Those who are placed in positions of authority such as presidents of countries lack this philia with the populace which is why they don't mind the replacement of peoples. The following segment which is taken from one of my earlier posts describes what I think is the plan.
Parliament politician isn't nearly the top.
There are organisations such as the Freemasons, the Jews, the security agencies, secret organisations, -
-unknown organisations and organisations with secret properties in which the true power lies.
There is an elite within these organisations with a plan. This is what they plan to do:
In the west, they will forcefully immigrate and ship in middle easterners with 85 IQ.
Then they will forcefully immigrate and ship in Africans with 70 IQ
Then they will kill off them and establish the population they want which will have an average IQ around 80.
In China, they will gather women in cities, leaving the countryside increasingly barren of women.
This will make it easy to kill or sterilise all women and keep the next generation from knowing how to grow food.
Mass starvation is their plan for India and China.
They will try to overpopulate and then starve India, completely destroying its wilderness, food storage and respectable peoples.
They could help the illiterates against the literates when the big struggle for food arrives.
Their plans for Africa is similar for that of India. They use Africa as a demographic bomb with which they can destroy the European first world countries.
The global human population will plummet.
Nanobots will be used to kill opposition people individually.
They, a jew-heavy elite will create a state for themselves which the rest of the population will serve under anarcho-primitivistic conditions and medial and religious control.
New innovations will rarely be made. The lack of reproduction among intelligent moral creative high inhib men has been planned and no more such men will be born.
All populations except the elite will be mixed and without language or history; they will only have the media as guide for who they are.
The coming masses will have an average IQ of 80 which means that they can't organise on their own, being gradually bred to never stand out or revolt.
It will be like a combination of 1984, Brave new world, the stone age and the Bible/Talmud.
Technology will gradually decline. There will only be one space age in human history and it will soon come to an end.
The women and normies are their secret police for meat-space. They act predictably and are placed in positions that they wouldn't reach through meritocracy alone.
Women make up around half of parliament level politicians in many western countries. They may or may not know what they are doing but the privilege their designated positions grant them along with their innate individual selective traits that keeps them chained to their own egoistic good and not in comradery with the masses means that they, with some exceptions, will stay there as long as they can.
It is truly immoral to, as aforementioned, place individual selective people in positions of authority over populations that could do much better on their own.
That brings me to the next segment; people should be left to the social order they themselves create.
Part 8: The simple solution
The best of worlds would not have any humans. It would have completely different physical, logical, abstract and moral laws. We would not be able to comprehend it as our brains are only evolved for this world. We can't even fully grasp that there is something out of nothing, that the world has always existed or any third explanation for why the world exists. Any sentient creator of the rest must also be a part of the world. The world would be better without humans.
People should be left to the social order they themselves create. People should be segregated into groups with their own level of group selectiveness. That is the base line for my simple solution. An idiot admires complexity while a genius admires simplicity.
The better alternative is that humanity goes extinct, the worst people first as to not just throw the wheel of development back a few steps with the departure of the best.
The best human society would be a cast society in which everyone fits into its surrounding like a piece of a puzzle. This doesn't mean that resistance is never met nor mistakes made, just that its not too abundant. The different castes would have genetically predestined traits and treated how they should be treated since birth.
It would not be like in Brave New World as people would have freedom to follow their inclinations; they would have genetically predestined inclinations to be satisfied and do that which is best. This is an unattainable utopia and humanity should become extinct; the earth should be thrown out of orbit and into the sun.
Individual selective traits are traits which are favourable to the individual but unfavourable to the group. Cowardice, deception, selfishness and the dark triad of personality belongs here. Group selective traits are traits which are favourable to the group but not the individual. Mercy, compassion, conscience, self sacrifice, truthfulness and unselfishness belong to those. Note that the latter correlate with conventional morals which are taught even if individual selective traits may also be favourable in a sheer evolutionary sense. Intelligence correlates with group selective traits and morals even if there are exceptions and it does not lie among them itself.
Humans compete as individuals and groups. Individual selective traits are beneficial regarding individual competition and group selective traits are beneficial regarding competition between groups. An-prim tribes are often merciless to rival tribes but cunning or self sacrificing within the tribe. They would get steamrolled by a larger more group selective group which is what happened during the period of colonisation. The natives of Papua new guinea don't know about salt water if their territory is separated from the sea by more than one territory. Such a society would not have a chance against a civilised colonial empire.
A pattern is that individual selective traits increase when a group is isolated at peace until the group selective traits have become so weak that the group is taken over and genocided by a group which is earlier in the cycle and more group selective. Individual competition and group competition keep these that is at a balance that is competitive in the ecology of residence.
99% of humans are selectively moral and immoral depending on the circumstances. Humans are much more group selective than most plants and animals.
The hyper social insects like ants and bees are extremely group selective. Most of them are sterile and their genetic survival depends on the survival of the clan.
It is an individual selective trait to hoard for yourself at the expense of the group while it is a group selective trait to abstain so that there is more left for others.
Too much group or individual selective traits can be bad.
If everyone leaves the firewood for everyone else, all of it would be wasted.
A rule that everyone has to burn a set amount of firewood would have to be instated.
If anyone hoarded all the firewood, that person would be warm but the other people in town would freeze while most of the firewood rotted.
A rule that distributed the firewood equally would have to be instated.
If you want to inhibit individual selective traits, you would have to make a rule that says people can eat 3 apples each as most.
If you want to inhibit group selective traits, you would have to make a rule that says everyone must eat 1 apple or more.
Most western stories have some sort of group selective moral such as if the protagonist gives to charity instead of being selfish and for his good intentions is gifted a chest of gold which he for some reason keeps for himself while the antagonist steals for himself and later is hurt which in postum justifies that he aquired resources for himself as compensation. There is not even a story about someone who kills all old people but then ages and becomes the only old person in the world before a new generation of aged people ages to its place which would be ironic. The antagonist may be based on our innate harsh individual selective traits as shown by the quote "A good antagonist thinks he's right; a great antagonist is right". It may be moral to perform individual selective actions, especially as a group selective person among individual selective people, ie a nice guy.
There is an abundance if group / individual selective behaviour in different parts of the world.
I've noticed that there is a lack of good deeds to perform in Sweden where I live now. The most obvious thing is to be charitable.
The big charities are alienating and corrupt; they contribute to things like feminism and over population in Africa.
The small number of native beggars have been displaced by violent gangs of criminal gypsies from continental Europe. All that is given to them goes to the wealthy bosses who hold the beggars as captives. They would return and get real jobs in Romania where most of them are from if everyone stopped giving them money for 2 months. The police recommended doing this some years after the popular consensus supported this but the criminal captives are still in front of every store.
Group selective people tend to have a sense of noblesse oblige and view positions of power as a burden with accompanying responsibilities, especially when they occupy them themselves. Individual selective people such as women and low IQ groups tend to instead just use it as a means to harm those below them and demand the utmost best treatment from their subjects while not working themselves. Women in positions of power may demand that men humiliate themselves and submit like a beta to them in order to do their profession bound service.
Torturing people and animals to death for fun is an individual selective trait.
There are people in Africa and Central America who torture and kill people recreationally. The Americans often video tape it so that you can watch it on gore sites.
There is an abundance of individual selective traits in these places which is why they are third world prisons of people who want to go to the Germanic countries.
It appears that a country benefits from self sacrificing nice guys even if it is a burden to be one on an individual level.
Being a nice guy often means being taken advantage of. To be beaten and forced into introversion which nobody is born with is not uncommon. Nice guys may finish last but a truly group selective person would as an end game have, not egoistic individual success, but the success of the group, nation or the whole world.
Many great geniuses like Newton and Tesla were volcels during the latter halves of their lives and many others were forced into inceldom.
It is possible to be too smart for women; more on that further down.
Big thinkers like Nietzsche, Socrates, Aristotle, Confucius and others appear to in unison agree that women are essentially inferior to men and should be in a position of servitude, early arranged marriages and not high studies or positions of authority.
It appears as if humans have evolved from individual selective low IQ entities due to our behaviour. There were only 1 million humans on earth during most of the stone age and they had an average IQ of around 70. The conclusion can also be deduced from the behaviour of different types of humans.
The moral person who abstains for the sake of others has an inner temptation to grab for itself and understands why those of lesser qualities wants to acquire for themselves. The understanding of the other is not mutual. The immoral often attributes weakness or stupidity to those who leave resources like women and food for the rest; they don't attribute it to a different endgame, an endgame that favours the group more than the individual. They don't have the part of the mind that compels others to be self sacrificing; they are not chained to their behaviour as the generous and compassionate is chained away from its primal instincts to eat all the food, bed all the women and hoard all the firewood.
The individual selective person would be chained to its egoistic behaviour while being tempted to leave resources for others if the group selective compassionate ones were the archaic and humans were derived from people of purely group selective inclinations. The group selective would then not have or need inner chains to keep them to their often genetically predestined behaviour. Perhaps they would then not attribute individual selective behaviour to an endgame that favours the individual over the group but to ignorance and stupidity as their counterparts do in this world. They would not have a primitive core of will to take for themselves, just one that without compulsion makes them help their peers.
Part 2: Malevolence among females
Imagine working for a female boss who lacks a sense of truth and morals, sensing only dominance and hierarchy. She would penalise you for correcting her regardless of who was right and who was wrong. You would not be successful in speaking about it to your female coworkers if they act reflexively without the weight on language.
They would reflexively penalise you if you stopped acting reflexively. It would be like a dog that could not communicate its discovery to other dogs, being penalised for trying to get their attention. It must be under such circumstances human dominance instincts developed, that is, before language. It would not be good to work with females as they can act like this.
Chad may get a pass and he doesn't have to work with them to speak to them or be touched.
The adult human female has 10% less brain volume than the adult human male who has 10% larger brain. People with low calorie brain outsource their thinking to others. Women are often in groups with an alpha female who may compete for followers with other Alpha females or penalise disobedience and disloyalty among her subjects. The alpha female is often among the oldest if not the oldest in the group.
Said leader may need to be a bit smart to keep her followers. Anyone who knows something she doesn't is a threat to her; anyone who is more intelligent and analytical than her is an even greater threat. A man who is more intelligent than her and has integrity to tell the truth cannot be allowed close to her subjects. She penalises that type of men for approaching, making her subjects dislike him, making him know it and paring her subjects up with men of lesser intelligence, men she can control or at least understand and predict. This type of woman typically also has a great deal of misandry and crab mentality.
The alpha female speaks for all females. An alpha female could say that all women want something without asking the others and the others would follow.
Women often fail to do this with men as men unlike women have a greater sense of being equal but different individuals.
Women, as I have written above, have smaller less productive brains than men; adult human males have about 10% larger brains than their female counterparts, most notably larger frontal lobe. The frontal lobe is the part of the brain responsible for logic, analysing, self control, inhibition, advanced thinking and as an extension morals, especially higher morals. The frontal lobe is inactive when you sleep along with the part of the brain responsible for long term memory and sense of time. This is why dreams which are only up to 2 minutes long appear to be absurd without you noticing it, being forgotten and their beginning never being remembered. You don't notice the irrationality of your dreams because the frontal lobe is inactive.
The inferior brain of females means that they outsource their thinking and opinion forming to other females in the group. The opinions of a group of females is the average with regards to their strength; the opinion of the alpha female weighs the heaviest. A normal woman will average the opinion of the alpha female and herself and make that her opinion. Jeffery Epstein had a female Jewish helper who spoke to the boys, girls and teen women he brought to his island.
Her loyalty lied not with females against males but with Mossad and the Jews. She adamantly said that the young women should do the sexual things and they averaged their opinions with hers multiple times until they had become hers as she never conceded, a trait of someone who is sure of what it's doing, something females respond to. They respond to females, alpha females, authority figures and primal punishment, besides their instincts.
There is a way to act that is acted by normies, women, low IQ people and men.
It is a system in which non-platonic friendship is impossible unless you're equally subjugated by someone else. If you beat them like a bad dog or slander them at their every attempt at forming their own opinion or do something without your permission they treat you as their master like said dog. If you treat them like an equal, they will try to dominate you and tell you what to do while immorally attacking you for doing your own thing in your half of the living space. There can be a third person who dominates you both and tells you what to think so that you can outsource your thinking to that person if you are low IQ and your brain burns fewer calories per day than mine. They will then treat you as an equal as neither of you dominates the other and tells it what to do and what to think. Women have no qualms about asking the leader of their girl gang what to think, even about important issues such as what to vote for. They don't have the same sense of truth or morality as men; they may think it a virtue to be able to be told what is true and moral without a sense of a potentially conflicting objective reality.
It is a known meme, particularly among MGTOWs that the house belongs to the woman while the male provider must make do with a corner in the garage or a bathroom he can lock himself into. Women often steal clothes and other ornaments they don't like from their men which they can while men cannot do the same as women projecting keep track of every possession instead of contributing to society like a group selective person. Women don't care about producing like a group selective person but mostly about acquiring and having in relation to others like the individual selective people they are.
A woman would be like a dog or a sheep if you could dominate her totally but if there were other women who competed to take your place, they would all hate you openly among themselves. The latter scenario is unlikely to happen as the women would gang up and make one of their own their leader above all men.
They often don't see men as persons who's thoughts and space to respect but an entity to avoid, control or make obedient.
Integrity means to tell the truth and have honour when it isn't in your social or material interest. To have integrity, it is needed to have a sense of truth, logic and morals, a task women as a group are not very good at due to their smaller frontal lobes. A person with no sense of truth, logic or morals at all that could only sense loyalty and primal hierarchy would have an archetypal female mind. That person would believe its gang leader whatever it said and make up the utmost absurdities if it was such a leader itself.
A complete person with a complete mind would understand your lawn from his even if you didn't pose on the borders all the time or made symbolic minor intrusions to his. The opposite person would instead of investing in a pastime or a craft intrude on your land, living space, dignity, feelings, norms and everything else of yours unless you would mark your territory which you with regards to women don't have the right to do in practice.
To spend time on advancing socially and to gain sexually is an individual selective trait while to provide and improve the world instead of working on your social or sexual status is group selective. Women often act reflexively without a consistent pattern of thought to reveal when caught. They may intrude but there is little to gain from questioning them about it afterwards as they don't have anything to respond with.
They may also often act weak or ignorant which they unlike men are not penalised for being.
Having no right to dominate women or immoral normies who live with you, the living space and possessions would gradually fall into their hands, them stopping only at the bare minimum you need to exist as laws and norms are not holding them back. Complete men can basically not live with persons who intrude on your immaterial possessions such as feelings, space and dignity, nor can they work with those who act the same; they can only healthily interact with other men of complete minds, a pleasure bereft of those with low calorie brains and small minds.
Female alpha / beta behaviour may appear to be primitive or childish. It may, to the non-manipulative person, simply seem to be non-ideal.
Lets have a some examples:
Ex.1: A woman asks her girlfriends if she should go out with someone. She is a beta female and would be penalised if she got together with someone and the alpha female did not like it. The alpha female is among her girlfriends.
Ex.2: An alpha female who is a boss at a workplace in the public sector tells her beta female employee to not provide a form for a male customer as he does not have a drivers license. Later, at the interaction he shows her his drivers license but she acts as if she doesn't understand and signals to him to leave without saying why. She does this as to not enrage her alpha female and draw a penalty to herself with would be done if she served the man. If she would ask the alpha female what to do, she would potentially become enraged, tell her to not provide the form as she cannot change her mind, and penalise the woman for not just doing what she is told and ask a question back.
Ex.3: An alpha female tells someone, a man or a woman to do something. The told does something else which appears to yield a better result. The alpha female ruins their result and tells them to do it her way, thus signalling that disobedience, even to evidently bad advice will be punished. The person concedes and uses the conventional way, not exploring what appears to be a better way due to a threat.
Ex.4: A beta female follow the order of an alpha female but fails to accomplish the result. The alpha female steals something equivalent to the result from a nearby but previously unrelated man and gives it to her. The man does not have the legal standing to steal it back as he is along and a group of women would be against him if he tried. The justice system is misandric as is known.
Ex.5: A man has not followed the advice of an alpha female. She nags him and slanders him until he changes his mind. He must not only follow her advice but submit and compensate every second of apparent disrespect as she sadistically penalises all other behaviour.
Ex.6: A beta female falls for a mental cel. Her alpha female breaks them up and penalises both of them for getting together as the intelligence and morals of the mental cel is a threat to her authority. She is repulsed by smart moral men too.
Ex.7: Alpha females team up to unjustly hurt a group of men, without which they cannot remove the past rivalry between their groups.
Most of this behaviour is instinctual but some intelligence is needed to stay on top and not be usurped. A dark triad personality is a necessity. There are men who are disadvantaged by alpha females who hate them instinctually because of their intelligence and morals which are threats to their authority. They can become mental cels because of this. Most women look around, see what is normal and beneficial to appear to like and think and just becomes that without thinking about disembodied morality. They also find a gang to follow or become an alpha female in. A gang of females are more powerful than a man even if the law itself is on his side.
Women are often reflexive in their thinking, giving set responses for set conditions. They may become violent if introduced to unrehearsed situations.
They can treat phrases as spells, not caring for their literal meaning but only what they make people do. If someone say "Why don't you do that?" without specifying what and standing provocingly close to you from behind, it may be more likely to make you do what she is trying to make you do than if she has just told you to do it; it is in addition difficult to make a statement of your own against an act like that. They may not recognise this behaviour as immoral as they may only categorise something to do or think as right or wrong depending on negative consequences for herself. This explains protesters who protest for inconsistent absurdity but would be penalised if they had the correct red-pilled opinion. The ruling powers will have such people on their side as long as they penalise them for appearing to have different thoughts.
It may only be stopped by creating your own state and penalising them for not being of your own preferred orthodoxy. They crave an approximate yet orthodox path to follow and don't want true freedom of opinion for themselves as it makes them feel insecure and lonely. They may then be violent or compete for a new alpha status in such a situation as they can only dominate or be dominated.
Women and especially women who are after power and positions of true authority in particular have a great inner misandric sadism even if it is hidden or in slumber as mere potential. Misandric sadism knows no bounds, especially when fuelled in a group of ecstatic misandric women like on Oprah. They can be ecstatic and spasm out on the floor like in a charismatic afro-american Church. It is as if the air is filled with hormones of misandry and ecstasy. Such is the misandric nature of women.
Women don't have true altruistic empathy for men; if they had, they would perhaps have pity fucked you or something of the sort.
Part 3: Individual selective females
Females are more individual selective than males. Males have a sense of truth and are more prone to self sacrifice by giving their live for the group. It is ironic that the group which is more individual selective more often gangs up to mercilessly genocide or hinder the group selective group. It is because of egoism, lack of empathy, lack of mercy and only looking to your own good, not that of the group, nation, humanity or world.
Females favour individual selection when selecting mates. Women favour violence, fear and the dark triad of personality besides good physique and health which are universally healthy. It is called archaic selection as contemporary success is often derived from money and inherited status rather than the genes which were adaptable during the stone age. If the group got destroyed in war by a more group selective group, women would just have sex with the males of the victorious people akin to how lionesses mate with the male lion as soon as he has killed her kids and baby daddy. It lies thus in the male interest to increase group selection while female instincts which favour individual selective traits remain. This can be done by normalising a culture of arranged marriage or to execute males who practice abundantly individual selective behaviour. Said executees may have stolen or killed those better than them within the group.
It is common for a country to have a small nepotistic ruling class with individual selective traits such as psychopathy while also having a large under class with individual selective traits. They have low IQ and are unsuccessful regarding nepotism. The middle class is the only group which is a net contributor. They lose money through taxes and extracted surplus value. It is the only class that is policed by the police as the 2 classes with individual selective persons are above and below the law respectively. The person or class of group selective traits concerns itself with net production, not in themselves getting the sum total of the fruits of their labour.
The person or group of individual selective values concerns itself with acquiring pieces of the cake, not increasing its size or the ethics of doing so.
The former focuses on the moral victory in picking up more trash than left in nature while the latter focuses on their hierarchical victory in doing the opposite and having the moral expend calories to amend their own wrongdoings.
Whenever you wonder why someone does something un-clever or immoral, just ask if that is what evolution favours.
It often favours such traits, particularly when you consider who benefits from the archaic selection of women.
The issue of why humans are moral but not moral all the way through, or simply selectively moral, can, to the person who wonders why evolution has favoured group selective traits like self sacrifice, be answered with how evolution by natural selection creates a balance between group selective traits and individual selective traits.
It is more favourable to be individual selective within an individual selective group than the alternative at to not be ostracised and sentenced to death due to the immorality of others. The burden of being a nice guy among parasites attests to this. It is more favourable to be group selective in a group selective group than in an individual selective group as to avoid capital punishment in the former and having immoralities committed against you in the latter due to crab mentality and unmotivated sadism.
An individual selective incel would be opportunistic and try to scam himself to reproduction. A group selective incel would remove himself from the gene pool.
Going ER against blood enemies could be a group selective trait if incels are your in group.
Many great monks and scientists have become volcels as to help their group through writings or inventions instead of just increasing the next batch of kids by a negligible sum. They would have to be group selective to make such a decision.
Their individual selective counterpart would just have reproduced while being parasites on their surroundings.
Women are individually selective by how they act, affect society and select mates. That corresponds with the inversion of modern conventional morals as group selective traits correlate with it and are the polar opposite, regarding morals and evolutionary strategy to the traits that as aforementioned are net derived from females.
Civilisations can be destroyed due to being over run by barbarians but the net pattern across history is that more group selective civilisations expands and dominates though economic, military, cultural and spiritual imperialism. Women and female sexual selection undermines racial survival, civilisation and its positive effects on nature in contrast with the an-prim handling of nature which is shorter term and not governed by laws.
While a gender which limits reproduction and acts more akin to conventionally immoral individual selective traits as well as favouring them through sexual selection can seem like a problem in its own, it also appears to hinder peoples as a whole in the great grind of human peoples that occur during history.
Part 4: On being too smart or stupid for women.
The most common problem is being too smart. Normal negroes can have plenty of sex and father many children. If a white person would be less intelligent than what is normal for Negroes, he must've had some great disability like downs syndrome. Only being too smart is a problem normally. One may be too dumb if it is relative to the other males in the circle and is ostracised for it. It is then not the intelligence level itself that is the problem but that the male is branded as weird, outcast and inferior in the mind of the woman. She would be less able to conform with her friends if her man was an outlier in any way including one that would make the alpha female jealous.
Let me tell you why high IQ is a problem. When women seek out men, high IQ (>115) and low IQ (<50) may be a turnoff. Humanity had an average IQ of around 70 during most of the stone age. Women are adapted for the type of man who would be successful, thrive and blend in in that ecology. Big brained boyos can adapt and blend in better than those who don't understand. Women are increasingly repulsed by those with high IQ because that is the bigger problem, the one with higher likelihood to appear and that women as a whole show disdain for the most. This is only important when a woman seeks out a male. Turbochad can get away with Mensa level IQ and normal Chad doesn't show his IQ when he is with women alone.
There is a quote that says that women want a man that's smart enough to be useful but dumb enough to be used. A woman will find it hard to manipulate a man with a big mind. She wants a man who is not and cannot become aware of how bad she is. There is a crab mentality amongst normies and women, the latter foremost.
It means that they want to hurt, kill and slander those who are or have it better than themselves. This means that smart males are often ganged up on in school, made outcasts and thus yeeted off the list of potential partners. Being friendless and outside of primal high energy gangs is abundantly common the smarter and more moral a man is, the former having greater significance. This repulses women too.
A woman is never alone; she is with her gang of females with a leader who they outsource their thinking and opinion making to as I have written about above. Said leader must be a bit smart to keep her followers. Anyone who knows something she doesn't is a threat to her; anyone who is more intelligent and analytical than her is an even greater threat. A man who is more intelligent than her and has integrity to tell the truth cannot be allowed close to her subjects. She penalises that type of men for approaching, making her subjects dislike him, making him know it and paring her subjects up with men of lesser intelligence, men she can control or at least understand and predict.
This type of woman typically also has a great deal of misandry and crab mentality.
A man of wisdom and big brain power can only meet a women when she approaches him alone which only happen if he as if he has not shown his intellects or is a Turbochad which it's hard to become in a first world country as you need to kill men openly, humiliate them, strike fear into those who aren't abundantly submissive.
They may kill one of you and get away with it if the Chad police doesn't know they have made a big deal about it, provided evidence and use it to be more feared and respected than said police officers. Fear is the only kind of respect the incomplete human mind can express; low IQ humans are like mid tier mammals in this sense; even the great apes need to prove their leadership skills and morals to become leader, not just subjugate any rival like a male cat.
IQ level, especially if too high or along with neuroticism and non-literal autism can most especially make an incel. Women judge you by how you look and reject you immediately in their mind if you are too smart or dumb. That which they lack in their brains as aforementioned must be as if it would have made them more sensible, grateful and merciful had they had it, which they do not. It¨s ironic how bad taste in men women have.
I assume that being too low IQ can embarass yourself figuring out the simplest stuff and need people to repeat themselves to understand. My condolences go not only to high IQ males or males as a whole but I wish it to go to the whole world, lest it gain what it deserve in spite of the more likely reality.
Part 5: Distribution of females part 1: Male mate-guarding
Different species have different behaviour. There is only one known species of bird in which female infidelity has not been documented. It is common for male birds to follow the females around to make sure nobody else has sex with her. Mallards are a symbol of love and the male protects its female but if the male would get killed by another male, the female would start taking his sperm instead. Males guard and patrol females like cattle and are in turn treated as non-living entities that do good or harm but who are not entitled to altruistic help.
Males patrol females among felines and primates. In both these types of animal, the male must follow the female around wherever she may walk and fight off any other male that wants to have sex with her. Only rarely would the male penalise the female for walking too much. Males have evolves super female patrolling capabilities due to natural selection.
The male lynx which only weighs about 25 kg can have territories as large as 450 square kilometres, larger than several small countries, an area which could provide food for multitudes of males, just to be able to have sex with the females in the territory. The males walks through and around his territory every day and fight other males but the females can cross the territorial lines in search of a superior male as they like.
A reason for why mating season is only a fraction of the year may be because of how many calories it consumes for walking. The female, regardless of feline or primate would like a flesh-light get shagged by the new male as soon as he won a fight against the old one unless he was an ugly opportunistic incel. She would invite Chads to kill the incel and compete for her vagina if an incel had the guts, a choice which would likely lead to its death but also be its best chance of passing on its genes. Females even mate with the new males when he has just killed her only descendants earlier that day.
Most male lions live between the family territories on a mere fraction of the surface the more successful Chad lions guard as their own. They get enough food; they just don't get the females as they are incels and none of them controls a large surface area, area which does not only has a fixed density of prey but a fixed density of females. Females walk between the territories of the alphas but they don't stay at the borders where the adaptively inferior incel lions live.
Males are evolved to be violent and control large territories, especially during the mating season if they are Chads and to be submissive and opportunistic if incel.
Females are evolved to be like soul-less flesh-lights unless an incel or superior specimen is nearby at which point she instigated duels to the death between the males.
They want to always be in the proximity of a manipulative alpha male to keep this ability; even incels are stronger than females among the patriarchal species.
Mammals and birds which are the most intelligent animals can be said to be patriarchal as the males are larger than the females in contrast with most of the animal kingdom.
Human females exhibit above described behaviour. There are various posts about women orbiting and pursuing their former rapists and posts about feeling defiled when they found out that the man they had sex with was not up to par with her other options. Females don't care about consent very much; they care about Chadliness and the feelings they get when their instincts detect competitive genes. Female selection of mates is archaic; it would be smarter to marry an average looking millionaire young and have lots of well fed children which is what women do in un-automated societies as to avoid physical labour even if they often cheat when an imposing elite specimen is found. Their instincts tell them to, beside going for healthy physiques which is a positive trait, go for men of violence, below average IQ, being threatening, immoral, without integrity and of the dark triad.
It is posted on r/femaledatingadvice that they should go to wrestling matches and sport games with different teams with their mates and instigate fighting over her among the males to get the strongest most adaptive sexy one. Females do this in nature too. Millions of bucks headbutt each other to death each year even if females could settle down with one male and not be alluring to other males. Females reject that way of lives among ungulates and among primates, including humans.
A female would signal to the Chad immoral police officers if you even tried to act confident around her, as if that would lure her to your below average looks.
They can also signal to other Chads to beat you down, preferably to death on their part as they would be alleviated of a genetic bio hazard without spending time in jail.
Females don't mind going to frat houses where raping and roofing is known to be common common as long as the men are Chad enough. The fact that they rape, get away with it and get returning guests is in itself a signalling of Chad-dom, that they can do and without inhibition do this. There might be apparent exceptions but the bulk of female behaviour regarding mate selection, especially of the r-selected sort, leads to this model of explanation. Humans are r-selected and individual selective at the core which is apparent by that the norms and morals which must be imposed by authority are k-selective and collective selective.
Females of fertile age are repulsed by men of below average visual and genetic standard; you are to them what cucking and castration would be to you if to you had the smv and lack of accountability of a female. Females of younger and older ages can be nice but a more attractive charismatic male specimen will appear better in every way all other things being equal. Males are evolved to patrol, protect and not attack; incels are evolved to remove themselves from the gene pool for its better sake.
Part 6: Distribution of females part 2: The futility of being a low status male
The 80/20 rule states which men women pursue. If the 80/20 rule is true, a man in the bottom 80% has a 1/4 chance of having a gf. If the 80/20 rule is true within the 80% of men which it probably is, a man in the bottom 64% has a 1/16 chance of having a gf. Consequently, the men in the bottom 51.2 % must share 0.25^3 of the women and have only a 1/64 chance of having a girlfriend. If the 80/20 rule is true is true for the top 20% of men, the top 4% of men can have 16 gf:s each on average. The average man has such a low chance of having a woman pursuing him while the top men, the Chads according to this mathemathical model have so many women pursuing them. The top 20% of men alone have 4 women pursuing each of them on average. If you are in the bottom 20% of men, only 0.00000046256% of women are pursuing you according to this formula.
The graph I posted in my original thread about this reveal that the sum of women who must be shared is negligible for the bottom 3/4 of men. The space to the right of a point on the graph represent a share of men while the space above that point represent their share of women. The point which is left of 80% of the X axis representing 80% of males is only below 20% of the Y axis representing 20% of females.
Tinder says that only 15% of its male users have met anyone irl through the app at all. This includes homosexuals who use tinder instead of Grinder and men who were rejected before they could have sex. This must mean that men who are 9/10 must compete for the lowest of the low of tinder using females.
Women are a zero-sum-game.
If you by ascending, take a woman, you are taking a woman from someone else who otherwise would have gotten her. Women like to go to places where males compete over them. Regardless of how much effort you put into getting women or increase your smv, the total number of women stays the same; the only thing that has increased is the effort spent on getting one. Women behave badly because of all the effort spent getting them; it increases their ego and fuels their narcisism. This allegory would fit best in a monogamous or mildly polygamous society. It means much more for you to have sex than for Chad who might spend a night watching cartoons instead of sending eggplant emojis to his loyal tinder matches. The statement remains true though. Regardless of how much effort you or anyone else spend on getting women, the only thing increasing is the effort spent on them; the women stay the same number and get worse if anything.
It appears, due to that which is described in this sixth segment, to be so pointless and futile to pursue women above other activities regardless of how fulfilling it would be to have a healing relationship with a good nawalt woman and have your penis grasped by a hand smaller than your own.
Part 7: Jews and their Jewry
While degeneracy occurs naturally, it can be milked out of people, the Jews appear to be milkers.
I have hypothesised that group selective males dislike ped*philic actions as the older gains little while the younger loses much. They are not ped*philes and would not commit such acts. It would make sense that men with individual selective traits like to commit ped*philic actions, at least to females of their out group. They gain little themselves but the other person and its tribe loses much in dignity. A person who tortures recreationally or considers an enemy tribe to be lawful prey while hunting would view it as an easily acquired delicacy among all the ways to humiliate your enemy. It is said that Jews may have sex with a goy child as young as 3 according to their holy texts while other rules apply to Jews. It is also said that they used to drink blood of children through straws during the middle ages which would be an archetypal individual or at least tribal selective trait. Some people are naive and think that no humans lack complex empathy despite the evidence and think that no such custom could have been practised by humans but they would be wrong as shown by evidence. Complex empathy is among the later acquired parts of the human mind and is not present among all types of humans.
The island of Jeffrey Epstein and his female Mossad agent co-worker was one of several in which the Jew heavy elite bribed and gained blackmail material of those who are placed in power. Ped*philic actions were committed there, both by Bill and Hillary Clinton. The activity may not only be a bribe and a source of blackmail but also a way to screen out people who due to ethnic alliances or individual selective traits would not mind having sex with a blonde 9 year old. Those who passed would lack the philia / comradery that The ancient Greek philosophers thought were necessary to maintain a democratic state. Empires such as the British or Russian have used peoples against each other in order to maintain control. Food was grown in walled in gardens in British India while the masses starved on the street outside. Monotheistic minorities like Sikhs and Muslims were privileged above the Hindu masses in India at that time. Those who are placed in positions of authority such as presidents of countries lack this philia with the populace which is why they don't mind the replacement of peoples. The following segment which is taken from one of my earlier posts describes what I think is the plan.
Parliament politician isn't nearly the top.
There are organisations such as the Freemasons, the Jews, the security agencies, secret organisations, -
-unknown organisations and organisations with secret properties in which the true power lies.
There is an elite within these organisations with a plan. This is what they plan to do:
In the west, they will forcefully immigrate and ship in middle easterners with 85 IQ.
Then they will forcefully immigrate and ship in Africans with 70 IQ
Then they will kill off them and establish the population they want which will have an average IQ around 80.
In China, they will gather women in cities, leaving the countryside increasingly barren of women.
This will make it easy to kill or sterilise all women and keep the next generation from knowing how to grow food.
Mass starvation is their plan for India and China.
They will try to overpopulate and then starve India, completely destroying its wilderness, food storage and respectable peoples.
They could help the illiterates against the literates when the big struggle for food arrives.
Their plans for Africa is similar for that of India. They use Africa as a demographic bomb with which they can destroy the European first world countries.
The global human population will plummet.
Nanobots will be used to kill opposition people individually.
They, a jew-heavy elite will create a state for themselves which the rest of the population will serve under anarcho-primitivistic conditions and medial and religious control.
New innovations will rarely be made. The lack of reproduction among intelligent moral creative high inhib men has been planned and no more such men will be born.
All populations except the elite will be mixed and without language or history; they will only have the media as guide for who they are.
The coming masses will have an average IQ of 80 which means that they can't organise on their own, being gradually bred to never stand out or revolt.
It will be like a combination of 1984, Brave new world, the stone age and the Bible/Talmud.
Technology will gradually decline. There will only be one space age in human history and it will soon come to an end.
The women and normies are their secret police for meat-space. They act predictably and are placed in positions that they wouldn't reach through meritocracy alone.
Women make up around half of parliament level politicians in many western countries. They may or may not know what they are doing but the privilege their designated positions grant them along with their innate individual selective traits that keeps them chained to their own egoistic good and not in comradery with the masses means that they, with some exceptions, will stay there as long as they can.
It is truly immoral to, as aforementioned, place individual selective people in positions of authority over populations that could do much better on their own.
That brings me to the next segment; people should be left to the social order they themselves create.
Part 8: The simple solution
The best of worlds would not have any humans. It would have completely different physical, logical, abstract and moral laws. We would not be able to comprehend it as our brains are only evolved for this world. We can't even fully grasp that there is something out of nothing, that the world has always existed or any third explanation for why the world exists. Any sentient creator of the rest must also be a part of the world. The world would be better without humans.
People should be left to the social order they themselves create. People should be segregated into groups with their own level of group selectiveness. That is the base line for my simple solution. An idiot admires complexity while a genius admires simplicity.
The better alternative is that humanity goes extinct, the worst people first as to not just throw the wheel of development back a few steps with the departure of the best.
The best human society would be a cast society in which everyone fits into its surrounding like a piece of a puzzle. This doesn't mean that resistance is never met nor mistakes made, just that its not too abundant. The different castes would have genetically predestined traits and treated how they should be treated since birth.
It would not be like in Brave New World as people would have freedom to follow their inclinations; they would have genetically predestined inclinations to be satisfied and do that which is best. This is an unattainable utopia and humanity should become extinct; the earth should be thrown out of orbit and into the sun.
