The evolutionary heirarchy

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#1
There are multiple evolutionary processes at play. Let's rank them with the most powerful first

When there are 2 or more competing societies and 1 isn't dominant.

0. Societal survival of the fittest
1. Genetic survival of the fittest
2. Commercial survival of the fittest
3. Cultural/political survival of the fittest

Once a society is dominant the order switches to

4. Genetic survival of the fittest
5. Cultural/political survival of the fittest
6. Commercial survival of the fittest.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#2
Societal survival of the fittest is a stronger force than genetic survival of the fittest
The state has the power to shape evolution itself via eugenics.

Evolution pushes organisms to adapt to the environment and in the case of modern societies said environment is largely controlled by the state.

Of course states also have to adapt to the biology of their citizens but you can push people pretty far when you are in control over the state since a violent rebellion is very often suicidal.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#3
Genetic survival of the fittest is not just about the reproductive success of the individual. It's also about the reproductive success of people genetically close to the individual.


Evolution does over time enforce behaviour that is better in terms of survival of reproduction.

That does not however mean that evolution will push humans to behave optimally in terms of reproductive success. Genetic evolution is a very crude process. Having genes enabling cultural evolution (which can take place much quicker) might be a better way to maximize reproductive success than direct genetic control over behaviour.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#4
Pros and cons with christ-cuckery
Being submissive and loving to people oppressing you can be both beneficial and detrimental.

The issue with rebelling is that it comes with significant risk and if you are in a bad position for it you might end up dead or in an even worse situation. On the other hand being too nice will invite people to abuse you since they know that you will not retaliate (this seems to be a contributing factor for early christian persecution in the roman empire). People often laughed at the christians as they were eaten alive in the collosseum.


movie: Quo Vadis
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#5
r / K theory within humans
This nonsense is sometimes pushed by the alt-right and similar.


Only the poor have to choose between quality and quantity when it comes to reproduction (depending on how generous welfare is) but if you do well financially reducing reproduction to invest more into each child really doesn't make sense.

Furthermore you can still invest into some of your children more even if you reproduce in high numbers. You can discard some children (such as for adoption) to focus on the ones with the genes best suited for the environment.

People on the left are actually reproducing less on average, not because they want to invest more into each child, they just don't value having children.

Usually when humans abstain from reproducing in wealthy countries it's to pursue consumerism.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dinks.asp
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#6
Why commercial survival of the fittest is a stronger force than political survival of the fittest
States will need to be competitive on the international market. Economic issues are generally valued highly by the citizens so politics will have to cater to business interests. In addition a strong economy is also very important in building a strong military.

We are currently seeing this with the left, they were more or less forced to accept capitalism even though they hated it. This is why we have been seeing a shift towards identity politics away from focus on economic equity.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#7
Why genetic survival of the fittest is stronger than cultural, political and commercial survival of the fittest
Which cultures that can spread will in large depend on genetics. People will reject political/cultural views they are not genetically compatible with. Political views are in large part genetic.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154620300553

When corporations make product they have to cater these product to the desires of individuals, especially individuals within the government.
 

CoomNconsoom

Active member
Messages
31
#8
the r-k selection theory is not the first alt right topic that they got wrong. They also got wrong hypergamy meme.

The hypergamy meme exposes alt righters to extreme embarassment. The reason is because for a feminist it is extremely easy to twist the argument arguing against patriarchy, as there is no doubt that the hypergamy is observed inside of hierarchical systems.

I am not a sociologist either, the point is that I can read. Hypergamy theory doesn't stand. And I expect some of the leftard youtubers to debooooonk it at some point, with a video similar to the one where they deboooooooooooonked alt righters that discussed r-k selection.

The hypergamy meme is completely wrong, but what's an embarassment for alt right is that it exposes a contradiction of their theories.

The alt righters often claim the advantage of patriarchy and they say patriarchy is best. But, hypergamy is also more likely to happen in a patriarchy, so they basically contradict themselves if they oppose what they define as "hypergamy".
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#9
The alt righters often claim the advantage of patriarchy and they say patriarchy is best. But, hypergamy is also more likely to happen in a patriarchy, so they basically contradict themselves if they oppose what they define as "hypergamy".
Banning females from working would make it a lot harder for poor males to get a wife since the females would have to depend on males for their income. As long as females are not just the property of males females are going to select in favor of some males, what you can do however is to change the decisions they make by changing the environment (which will in turn affect the reproductive success of individual males).

If you only institute political patriarchy (having a male-dominated government) society itself can still be highly gynocentric. It's a mistake to assume that male leaders are going to cater to male even in cases where there is no real political competition to them.

Dictatorships might pander to males fit to fight a bit more but since they can just disarm people it's not very significant.
 

CoomNconsoom

Active member
Messages
31
#10
You can bet yuor ass that leftards are going to contact a sociologist to receive a ready debooooonk of hypergamy theory. I warned altrighters many times, I told them that they are just going to get embarassed again.

Anyway. The leftards will forever attack the low level alt righters, so if you are not stupid don't worry, the leftards will not even touch you. Leftards start attacking when they already have victory in their hands, or else they stay silent, they also meticulously avoid those that can answer them.

So their strategy isn't that problematic. Hypergamy meme remains wrong. It's simple, it's because hypergamy is observed in hierarchical systems, caste systems. Many scholars blame hypergamy for the lowering of genes quality for this reason. Feminists too can blame hypergamy, they blame it on patriarchy, the feminists say that hypergamy (caused by patriarchy) forces females to get into relationshits with fugly motherfuckers.

This topic isn't something that an alt right eceleb can manage, that's why they will get crushed and embarassed again. But I warned them, they didn't listen of course.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#12
Abortion and infanticide
First let's start with some basics with regard to bodily autonomy. While the right to refuse a medical treatment is very valuable that is not the same as the right to access any medical treatment you want regardless of consequences.

I believe that the government has the right to prevent someone from accessing a treatment he/she want in order to safe lives. For example if someone want's to kill himself/herself the government should have the right to prevent that from happening, you shouldn't be able to just access assisted suicide because you suddenly became depressed, we should protect each other in society.

People naturally feel empathy towards human life (even if it isn't yet conscious) especially if it is someone genetically close to them.

It is currently unknown when consciousness is developed in a child/fetus and it does not matter, if consciousness is developed in the fetus it will simply reincarnate after the abortion.

In the past infanticide was most likely a common method to avoid starvation, some children were also abandoned because of laziness or lack of time/resources.

It takes a lot of time and resources to raise children so it does make sense to focus on children who show promise rather than pouring resources on children who will never contribute anything to society, in the case of some disabilities reproduction isn't even possible so killing them early would also be beneficial in terms of individual survival of the fittest.

Even a child with average genes however might turn out to be valuable, thus forcing a female to give birth against her will can be useful for society.

Aborting your own child is often genetic suicide but if a female aborts her child it will also result in her husband spreading his genes less, thus it's often in the interests of the husband to prevent her from having an abortion. Of course the genetic interest argument could be continued indefinitely, what if your sister or identical twin is planning to do an abortion/infanticide?

The issue with trying to have the government decide when abortion is going to be allowed is that there are a lot of these cases to decide which demand a lot of effort of the government in order to properly make these decisions. For that reason we want general simple rules to follow. Example of a simple system is to allow abortion in the following cases

0. Nobody wants to raise the child.
1. There is a medical issue with the child making it unworthwhile to continue the pregnancy.
2. Abortion will significantly increase the chance of the mother surviving.

That means that if there is no proper medical justification for abortion females can be forced to give birth if someone else (such as the father or the government) is willing to raise the child. If someone else (not father) is willing to raise the child he/she will have to have the resources needed to actually raise the child or make a deposit on a government-controlled account. The mother will not be obligated to support the child financially in these cases of forced births.

If more than one individual wants to raise the child then people genetically close to the child will be prioritized (such as a brother or grand-parent).

When a child is aborted a specific genetic configuration is eliminated before we know much about how good that particular combination is, this is only a good form of eugenics for obvious defects but it is not ideal if we want to improve average iq. In the case of down's syndrome the child would not be able to reproduce anyway and thus aborting them will have no direct eugenic impact.

Females suspected of wanting to do an abortion can be monitored to ensure that they do not harm the baby. If a female attempts to do an illegal abortion she will be restrained until she has completed the pregnancy. If a female successfully does an illegal abortion she will be impregnated again forcefully.

The emotional arguments for opposing abortion are very weak, you do not have to watch any abortion being done and you can simply pretend it isn't happening.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#13
abortion makes a bad demographic situation even worse
The notion that abortion restrictions wouldn't reduce the total number of abortions (including illegal abortions) isn't supported by science. When something is illegal (especially when punishments are severe) people will be unlikely to do it.
Fertility rates were compared over time between states that varied in the timing of abortion legalization. RESULTS: States legalizing abortion experienced a 4% decline in fertility relative to states where the legal status of abortion was unchanged. The relative reductions in births to teens, women more than 35 years of age, non-White women, and unmarried women were considerably larger. If women did not travel between states to obtain an abortion, the estimated impact of abortion legalization on birth rates would be about 11%.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508542/

Being competitive as a society is highly dependent on demographics. More people being born mean you get more future soldiers and more future workers for the economy.

Socieites that implement anti-natal policies (such as allowing elective abortions) in an attempt to save the planet will merely end up committing societal societal suicide and be replaced by societies not willing to commit suicide in a way to save the planet.

Of course merely restricting abortion is not enough to reach fertility above replacement but banning elective abortions is still a step in the right direction.
The west is lucky that the main enemies of the west (China, Russia) also has terrible demographics in large due to china committing societal suicide earlier with their genocidal one-child policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

The issue here is that unless you control the entire planet you will have to consider societal competitiveness in order to create a sustained society that is actually good for humans to live in.

https://vintologi.com/threads/the-ideal-society.982/

Another reason for restricting abortion which is currently the dominant reason is of course that humans are naturally empathetic towards human life (regardless of to what degree it's conscious).

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000615
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#14
okay I’ll start you off with a list of documented cases of mothers killed by abortion. All the sources are there to prove each case. This isn’t a complete list and it needs to be updated but it should start you off https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZjrHYvYnAZVjC1crH8lA9B830kWcGc0IT8IvA_YZ8fQ/edit?usp=sharing

next I have a list of studies that prove abortion bans reduce the rate of abortions.

if I typed a // in front of the link it means this study calculated for the rate of illegal abortions too. If I typed a (G) it’s from the Guttmancher Institute Restrictive state-level abortion policies are associated with not having an abortion at all

// https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621000794

Approximately one-fourth of women who would have Medicaid-funded abortions instead give birth when this funding is unavailable … Studies have found little evidence that lack of Medicaid funding has resulted in illegal abortions.

//(G) https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/medicaidlitreview.pdf “Women who lived in a state where abortion access was low were more likely than women living in a state with greater access to use highly effective contraceptives rather than no method” Not only are abortion rates lower where abortions are illegal, but unwanted pregnancy rates too. People are more careful.

(G) guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2015/05/state-abortion-context-and-us-womens-contraceptive-choices-1995-2010 29% of Medicaid eligible pregnant women who would have an abortion with Medicaid coverage, instead give birth

// https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-019-0775-5 Analysis of statewide data from the three States indicated that following restrictions on State funding of abortions, the proportion of reported pregnancies resulting in births, rather than in abortions, increased in all three States.

// https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1580169/pdf/pubhealthrep00193-0013.pdf We find that a 100-mile increase in distance to the nearest clinic is associated with 30.7 percent fewer abortions and 3.2 percent more births.

// https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.22263 rate of abortion is found to be lower in states where access to providers is reduced and state policies are restrictive.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9099567/ A wait time as short as 72 hours is enough to start decreasing abortion rates.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1049386716300603 Abortion decreased after being restricted: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4050978/ Michigan banned Medicaid from paying for abortion. Abortion rates dropped.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8135922/ The farther away a mother is from an abortion clinic, the less likely she is to get one: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2134397?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Some restrictions were enacted in Eastern Europe in the 80s and 90s. The rates of abortion AND pregnancy rates both decreased.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/380475 Fetal development information and required waiting periods lead to less abortion: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/418044 A study in Louisiana and Maryland found that laws against abortion were effective at stopping abortions https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226004

life begins at conception:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324079511_Mammalian_reproduction
https://www.earthlife.net/mammals/reproduction-3.html
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
https://ldh.la.gov/page/986
https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book:_Introductory_Biology_(CK-12)/12:_Vertebrates/12.02:_Placental_Mammals
https://byjus.com/biology/human-life-cycle/ https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

abortion increases the risk of breast cancer aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/18/4/1157/164698/Risk-Factors-for-Triple-Negative-Breast-Cancer-in

Abortion is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of abortions increases. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24272196/ The results support the inclusion of induced abortion among significant independent risk factors for breast cancer, regardless of parity or timing of abortion relative to the first term pregnancy https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1060338/

From Denmark (Both Denmark and Finland require comprehensive reporting of all maternal deaths. The USA doesn’t even require abortion deaths to be reported as abortion-related in many states.): compared to women who carried their first pregnancy to term, after adjusting for age and birth year, the cumulative risk of death for women who had a 1st trimester abortion was significantly higher in all periods examined from 180 days (84%) through 10 years (39%). https://aaplog.org/abortion-and-subsequent-maternal-death-rates-first-new-study-from-denmark/

Finland: the age-adjusted mortality after induced abortion was 3 times that of those who gave birth and 1.5 times that of women who were nonpregnant. https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(04)00813-0/fulltext

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14981384/

Abortion makes lethal side effects in future pregnancies more likely placenta previa https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7315904/ increases risk of ectopic pregnancy https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8582994/ significant increase in the risk of premature delivery and miscarriage in women with a history of previous induced abortion. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23470063/
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#15
Pro choice activists prioritizes extreme libertarianism/environmentalism over human compassion
It's normal for humans to feel compassion towards humans including humans not yet born, especially if it's someone we are close to.

21-months-old

Human compassion is not about things like "sentience" it's about we having evolved to care about people we are related to even if they have not yet gained consciousness.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21559320/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3982664/

We naturally want to protect children and this is also important for the society.

One common talking point among people in favor of letting the woman choice is that then she will only have an abortion if it's needed, this however is not what the actual studies show. The overwhelming majority of all abortions are completely elective.

When people are allowed to choice far to many people choose deaths, this is why we need the government to be involved.

https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#16
The fact that many people have to go through hardships doesn't justify abortion
One common dishonest talking point is "you are not really pro life unless..."

The fact that someone disagrees with you politically (such as preferring having tighter school security over gun restrictions) doesn't mean that they want people to die after they have been born.

Would you abstain from saving the life of an adult because he is poor and the government is corrupt?

We shouldn't resort to killing children in the womb because our politicians aren't willing to support parent's enough.

Pain and hardships is a natural part of life, overcoming hardships can be a great aspect of your life that you are proud of. Why not give people a chance to live rather than just killing them because they would be poor or that they would risk dying later?

There will always be issues we face as a society. Giving up on human life before it's even born isn't the answer to that. We can do better as a society.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#17
Debunking: people mostly have late-term abortions for medical reasons
Finding any decent data on this was very difficult. The only decent article i found was one written by a pro-life publication

https://www.liveaction.org/news/roughly-80-percent-late-abortions-elective/

I did check this myself looking at the original data.

https://www.azdhs.gov/documents/pre...cs/abortions/2017-arizona-abortion-report.pdf

Late term abortions (21+ weeks): 157

We see that "maternal characteristics and fetal medical condition" were cited as a reason only for 31 abortions at 21+ weeks
Maternal characteristics and maternal medical condition were cited less than 6 times for abortions that took place at week 21+
This indicate that we can not just leave this decision to the pregnant individual since if we do many children will needlessly die for no good reason. Of course it would still be wrong even if it wasn't the case for most abortions.

Here are a sample of 11 cases of third trimester abortions and the reason stated by the 'patient', does this seem medically necessary to you?
Afraid Parents will find out, Can’t concentrate on school
Rape/Incest Victim
Wanted to participate in rodeo as a barrel rider
“Shocked” to find out she was pregnant
Not sleeping well at night thinking of situation
Troubled, split, poor family
Conflicting statements concerning suicidal thoughts
Threatened to kill self or beat child, if born; Aware of pregnancy only 1 wk.
Loved basketball; Pregnancy took fun out of sport
History of panic attacks. Neuhaus labeled her as “unable to function".
In “some danger of hurting herself”
operationrescue.org/archives/disturbing-reasons-for-third-trimester-abortions-based-on-eleven-cases/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

At 25 weeks the child can very often be saved even if the pregnancy cannot continue so most of the abortions done for medical reasons will be about fetal abnormalities (such as not wanting to raise a child with downs syndrome).
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
2,837
#20
The redpill and the blackpill are both depressing
This was written by a member of our discord and reminded us about how lame modern society is with regard to dating.

i think i finally figured out the formula of evolution. i post in finance section.

Firstly there is Nikola Tesla gigablackpill energy. Normies dont experience this as much as incels. Firstly we describe what is an incel. Firstly Nikola Tesla had above average looks from other males. An incel is a male who has not had sex in 6 months. We define sex as non masturbation sex. The Nikola Tesla gigablackpill energy is when an incel sees a beautiful female, for instance even a rare glimpse of her lips, not neccesarily that she is smiling but is not even frowning, then gets a oneitus of her beauty. The incel feels a gigablackpill forcefield of energy, restricting the movement of the incel, the incel cannot move due to blackpill energy. The incel realizes that women on fetlife 99% or more do not top, women never approach or chase, women do not desire males. The incel recognizes and praises strong agile women that replace traditional male jobs. This does not make an incel a cuck, the incel is already cucked by strong blackpill energy, the realization that human males are not desired by females.


Part 2: so in order to find a female the incel reads redpill books and how to pick up chicks. Most of this kind of redpill content is depressing, I will explain why. First the redpill states a sort of blackpill, that by default women are not attracted to human males, and males must perform a set of steps to overcome this. Second part is redpill entails a loss of freedom, the male is no longer free to do anything other than mimic the specific set of attributes redpill says is required of the male. Usually this is some gobledegook about how women dont want a male that wants them, or some nonsense about how males should play hard to get and wait for women to chase them, or how males need to appear emotionally mysterious around women, or how males cannot talk around women or else they will get friendzoned. Furthermore, a male must conform and obey to the latest fashion trends of sex-haver normie males. Whether or not redpill advice is even true is debatable, and it well may be true, but what redpill offers is not freedom or mobility to males, but just a way for more male conformity. By following redpill a male implicitly accepts their status in the implicit social heirachy delegated to males.

Part 3: So if a male follows the redpill guidelines, they are really a beta male conforming to normies and sex-havers, but are supposed to appear alpha at the same time. But, even if every redpill guidline is followed, that is not the final test. Following the redpill was simply to get a date, and the date is the final test. On a date is like a job interview and thus, is dependent on economics. If a female detects the male is too financially poor that heavily reduces their odds of success on the date. Their are exceptions, many stories of males in poverty somehow getting laid with females, but generally speaking finances strongly affect the outcome. So, reproduction is heavily decided by the economics of a society. Even a hardworking male that works 5 days a week, may not even have enough finances to raise a family of 2 kids, maybe they can afford only 1. Such an amount is insignificant to evolution. Only very financially well off males could raise a large family such as 10 kids, but even 10 kids is insignificant to evolution, when the human population is around 10 billion, such an amount has hardly any effect on genetic evolution whatsoever, and in the future people will probably be cyborgs with customizable DNA anyway.

Part 4: In a functional and rational society, you would expect some secretive group to guide evolution by preserving unique and vital DNA samples. In my opinion no such group exists. Some claim that ufos grab people to create human alien hybrids, however such claims are not sufficiently proven, and even if the claims are true thats not exactly the same as storing various DNA samples in an array for future generations. For example, some people metaphorically believe they have poop that does not smell bad. But I litterally I have had poop that did not smell, I had to put the poop 1 inch away from my nose to smell it, and even then it just smelled a bit like rubber. Such a genetic trait would be highly valuable. I met someone who has immunity to the cold, you could put them in freezing cold, with no winter garments, and they would be fine for hours. There was also someone who could eat metal, rubber, someone who could eat vehicles, yet they were incel and did not reproduce. To my knowledge, no secretive group collected their DNA to preserve it for the greater good of society. Instead, all of evolution is funneled into capatalism and redpill, if someone obeys redpill, then they are funneled into finance, if and only if they have enough finances to raise a family do they reproduce, if not, they are a mere sex-haver that does not reproduce. A genetic feature like the ability to eat entire vehicles may take millions of years to form again, and may never form again. Yet it is tossed to the wayside, all is funneled into mere capatalism, genetic worth merely evaluated by how many things someone sells or buys. Humans sit passively, toss by the tides of fate, instead of taking fate into their own hands. Some would say its playing god. But the purpose of a god is to regulate a system, to maintain order in the system, would you run a railway a train with no conductor, no engineer on the train, no one in the control room? But society just passively allows this for all of genetic evolution, to be funneled and reduced into mere capatalism.

Part 5: What is evolution? So first we must define what evolution is. Because some say that evolution is simply whatever reproduces, thus is natural selection. So then there are R and K selected. Since males lack dating agency, a common male strategy is just find a female they don't really have much chemistry with, and go from there. I question if this is even evolution. For example, lets say a male is a hobbyist, and has 150 iq, and is horny and tired of being an incel. He goes to a pub and the women he wants aren't single, a few months later he settles for the first woman who doesn't reject him. He isn't particularlly attracted to this woman, their personalities have nothing in common, she has no interest in any of his hobbies at all, and she has an iq of 100. So their progeny, when they reproduce, will have an iq of 125, with a diminished interest in the hobbies. I question if this is evolution at all? Keep in mind this is an overly simplified example, just to illustrate a point, IRL iq and hobbies are probably not purely from genetics, but this example is just to help clarify things. So, one realizes that evolution can only be driven by love. Only until you find a female who loves you the way you want to be loved, with genetics as strong as your own genetics, then marry and reproduce. So one would seek out females with strong genes, in order to make improved evolution. But first I have not even defined what is evolution? More on that in the next chapter.

Part 6: So what is evolution? As I said earlier anyone can just say evolution is those who reproduce, and those who do not reproduce are not evolution. So I ask this... if a noble prize genius reproduces with a 75 iq human lifeform, is that evolution? No that does not make sense to define that as evolution. It doesn't make sense to say that evolution is about getting less powerful, more susceptible to ones environment. So, the moment you've all been waiting for... I now define what evolution is? Evolution is mastery of one's environment. So we can say if someone has physical muscles, that is evolution, muscles allow mobility of ones environment. If someone has brains that is evolution, since brains help one to master one's environment. If someone can run fast that is evolution, though not as much evolution as other things. Then there are evolutionary trades, for instance if someone is 200 iq but has physical difficulty moving around, then the reproduction causes an evolutionary trade. So for the example of a polar bear that "evolved" by happening to have the right color of camoflage for their environment, I do not consider this "real evolution". There was nothing really wrong with the other bears that just happened to have the wrong color for the environment. Being born with the right colors don't count as "real mastery of one's environment", there is no actual power over the environment, if on wednesday the environment suddenly changed they would not be able to do anything about it. Similar we can extract ways this can apply to also humans. Like if the environment suddenly changed only those who work as office cucks 60 hours a week reproduce the most, and must obey at all times, its not real mastery of environment since you are doing what your told and not having a good time of it either. So then there is the concept is of total evolution or total local evolution. Total evolution would be everyone having good quality of life, thriving, building, living as gods. Total local evolution would be just one lifeform, such as an AI or something, having total control of the planet. The total local evolution could result in more or less total evolution. If the AI is good it could increase the amount of total evolution, if it is bad then people might have less quality of life, less mastery of environment.

Part 7: So now that you've learned all that, you've learned what evolution is, what next? Well you may have noticed there are some downsides to evolution, for instance less ability to get lost. Evolution is mastery of ones environment, so when you first play a game you get lost, then the process is learning the game, evolving and mastering the game. Thus the process of evolution can be entertaining but if someone is fully evolved then there is stagnation, thus the downside of evolution. That may be why some say the journey is more important than the result. Then you may notice some conclusions with redpill. Havign to obey redpill is not evolution, reproducing with a woman you do not truly love is not evolution. By love in this context I mean wife material. There are different loves such as wife love, fuck buddy love, etc. Many short and petite women make fuck buddies, and a girl much shorter than oneself could be a wife also. But ideal marriage would be a partner of similar height. Ideally, with a woman about as tall as yourself.

To be clear, you could *maybe* argue that if you have sex with dozens of petite women, that is evolution, because this increases the volume of your genes, even though your genes almost certainly lose all the tallness and you are giving up height. Obviously, if a hot petite woman begs for sex then give her sex. I'm just saying you ideally want someone with genes somewhat similar to yourself. And if you analyzed redpill correctly then you know this, following redpill is not the path of true love. The path of true love is to be shemale, to look like a female but have a functional penis, dating a afab female who has similar height to your own height, who will love you as you want to be loved, an almost equal amount of love. It is clear that men chasing after women who do not want them is not love. It is also clear that many women are TERFs, and that by following redpill can lead to reproduction. So the path you choose is your own. By following redpill you may evolve in some ways but at the same time of less evolution, you are choosing to submit to the society. It is a tough ball to balance with no clear answers.

Part 8: So it is with seeking out stronger women and taller women than oneself, one results in a society of stronger and taller organisms. Fruits are determined by the seeds that are sown. If you have 100 locomotives, by adding 4 more locomotives you increase the energy of those locomotives. There is the longing for the masculine woman, the woman with a machine gun at her hips, but also the simulatenous feeling of intimidation, that by being born male, one is not worthy and that one will always remain as incel. If genes are not organized, catalogued, in rational ways, then dispersed accordingly, humans are but castles made of sand, blown by the winds or tides.
 
Top