So there is obviously the "soy boy" meme, which most folks here are familiar with, as well as the science that backs it up (soy leading to increased estrogen production, etc.) Then you have the generalized yet seemingly accurate "leftists are usually fat/ugly people, right-wingers are generally attractive/not ugly" statement. This seems to line up with my real world experiences (while acknowledging my own biases) and what I see reported on the internet (ex. anytime there is a viral video of a leftist freakout, it's usually some gross abomination of a human). In his latest video, PJW delves into this with his trademark wit:
Some choice bits:
-study that illustrated links between T-levels, dominance, and smiling (the soy-boy "glory-hole grimace") [5:16]
-"left-wing beliefs are predicated on a lack of personal responsibility and self discipline..." (sums up the fat acceptance movement quite well)
-"...that's why there's hardly ever any left-wing gym bros" - brutal shiv, never though about it like that before [6:35]
-Paul cites the "clear correlation" between being ugly and being left-wing, he even cites a headline from the Guardian of all places that mentions this [6:08]
This pattern has turned into something too accurate to ignore, especially as humans are divided further and split up into their respective tribes/politico-value oriented groups. This is something I've been mulling over, as humans we are usually taught to "not judge a book by it's cover." While I'll treat anyone well regardless of looks until they show themselves to be a shithead, I think this is entrenched social programming to minimize hurt feelz and promote equality. Humans have zeroed in on visual cues for sussing out good mates over thousands of years; a human male can determine if a human female is fuckable in less than a second. The disgust reflex is just as fast. As the esteemed Heartiste (RIP) used to always say, "physiognomy is real."
An article I happened upon (possibly in one of Roosh's article dumps) delves into what the author calls "Biological Leninism." I would definitely recommend reading it, it's a three article series but I found it very interesting.
https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/...-leninism/
The author goes into how the Socialist(leftist) party grew in numbers and came to power. Some main points (bold/italics are mine):
Some of this stuff is RooshForum 101
Sound familiar?
When I was young I scoffed at the subject of history because I thought it was "boring old shit that didn't relate to me." I've gotten more into it as I matured and realized how fake and edited everything we are taught is.
(see also: the degeneracy of post-WWI Weimar Germany)
It's really starting to blow my mind how history is starting to repeat itself because we have grown so comfortable in our modern society and the majority of people just don't give a fuck. 'Bread and circus' and all that, or in today's age: "porn and corn."
I'm curious as to how the effects of the dysgenics (the study of factors producing the accumulation and perpetuation of defective or disadvantageous genes and traits in offspring of a particular population or species/ opposite of eugenics) of the human population will play out over time. I believe we are seeing a cladogenesis of the human species.
cladogenesis: “Cladogenesis is an evolutionary splitting event where a parent species splits into two distinct species, forming a clade”.
-from an interesting article: https://medium.com/@dontshootthemessenge...44f2fbabbd
*Generally speaking*, over time as attractive people mate with other attractive people and ugly people mate with other ugly people, this creates a split as attractive people become more attractive, and ugly people become more ugly as the desirable/undesirable genes proliferate within the two groups. Maybe this is why in old pictures from the Civil War and that time period, people generally weren't really attractive or really ugly, but just all kind of looked like regular people? I've wondered about this.
The article I linked above this paragraph maintains that the west has been subsiding dysgenics and funding the proliferation of undesirable traits through welfare over the last 80 or so years. Obviously whenever anyone brings up eugenics/selective breeding in regards to humans someone yells "HITLER!!!" I'll end this tangent here and wrap this up.
Apologies for the TL;DR, I didn't think it would be this long (that's what she said).
I thought I'd throw some of these ideas out here because I thought it'd make for some interesting discussion. I'm not a scientist and this isn't hard science so there might be some errors in there, feel free to correct me on that. Thanks for reading my rambling screed and I look forward to reading any replies/personal anecdotes/refutations if anyone feels so inclined.
-BBC
Some choice bits:
-study that illustrated links between T-levels, dominance, and smiling (the soy-boy "glory-hole grimace") [5:16]
-"left-wing beliefs are predicated on a lack of personal responsibility and self discipline..." (sums up the fat acceptance movement quite well)
-"...that's why there's hardly ever any left-wing gym bros" - brutal shiv, never though about it like that before [6:35]
-Paul cites the "clear correlation" between being ugly and being left-wing, he even cites a headline from the Guardian of all places that mentions this [6:08]
This pattern has turned into something too accurate to ignore, especially as humans are divided further and split up into their respective tribes/politico-value oriented groups. This is something I've been mulling over, as humans we are usually taught to "not judge a book by it's cover." While I'll treat anyone well regardless of looks until they show themselves to be a shithead, I think this is entrenched social programming to minimize hurt feelz and promote equality. Humans have zeroed in on visual cues for sussing out good mates over thousands of years; a human male can determine if a human female is fuckable in less than a second. The disgust reflex is just as fast. As the esteemed Heartiste (RIP) used to always say, "physiognomy is real."
An article I happened upon (possibly in one of Roosh's article dumps) delves into what the author calls "Biological Leninism." I would definitely recommend reading it, it's a three article series but I found it very interesting.
https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/...-leninism/
The author goes into how the Socialist(leftist) party grew in numbers and came to power. Some main points (bold/italics are mine):
Quote:Quote:
Leninism is, of course, applied socialism. Socialism was huge before Leninism was even a thing, and that Marxism was and is still popular is not due only to Soviet patronage. Socialism works by hacking the Social Calculus Module that humans have in our brains. Remember, humans care deeply about status. Status is what drives human behavior. Everybody works to achieve more status, and to avoid losing status. Socialism of course sells egalitarianism. It tells people with low status that they can get some more. The Industrial Revolution had forced millions of peasants into the cities, and they all felt they had lost status in the process.
Quote:Quote:
So these socialists come by and tell them they have this plan to make them gain status, big time. That was huge. Yes, sure, Christianity had also started promising the meek that they were morally higher than rich people; they’d all go to heaven unlike those perfid rich guys. But that didn’t translate into actual, real-world status. Socialism was promising actual goods. And so it became huge. It’s still huge.
Quote:Quote:
Socialism works not only because it promises higher status to a lot of people. Socialism is catnip because it promises status to people who, deep down, know they shouldn’t have it. There is such a thing as natural law, the natural state of any normally functioning human society. Basic biology tells us people are different. Some are more intelligent, more attractive, more crafty and popular. Everybody knows, deep in their lizard brains, how human mating works: women are attracted to the top dogs. Being generous, all human societies default to a Pareto distribution where 20% of people are high-status, and everyone else just has to put up with their inferiority for life. That’s just how it works.
Some of this stuff is RooshForum 101
Quote:Quote:
Socialism though promised to change that, and Marx showed they had a good plan. Lenin then put that plan to work in practice. What did Lenin do? Exterminate the natural aristocracy of Russia, and build a ruling class with a bunch of low-status people. Workers, peasants, Jews, Latvians, Ukrainians. Lenin went out of his way to recruit everyone who had a grudge against Imperial Russian society. And it worked, brilliantly. The Bolsheviks, a small party with little popular support, won the civil war, and became the awesome Soviet Union. The early Soviet Union promoted minorities, women, sexual deviants, atheists, cultists and every kind of weirdo. Everybody but intelligent, conservative Russians of good families.
Sound familiar?
When I was young I scoffed at the subject of history because I thought it was "boring old shit that didn't relate to me." I've gotten more into it as I matured and realized how fake and edited everything we are taught is.
(see also: the degeneracy of post-WWI Weimar Germany)
It's really starting to blow my mind how history is starting to repeat itself because we have grown so comfortable in our modern society and the majority of people just don't give a fuck. 'Bread and circus' and all that, or in today's age: "porn and corn."
I'm curious as to how the effects of the dysgenics (the study of factors producing the accumulation and perpetuation of defective or disadvantageous genes and traits in offspring of a particular population or species/ opposite of eugenics) of the human population will play out over time. I believe we are seeing a cladogenesis of the human species.
cladogenesis: “Cladogenesis is an evolutionary splitting event where a parent species splits into two distinct species, forming a clade”.
-from an interesting article: https://medium.com/@dontshootthemessenge...44f2fbabbd
*Generally speaking*, over time as attractive people mate with other attractive people and ugly people mate with other ugly people, this creates a split as attractive people become more attractive, and ugly people become more ugly as the desirable/undesirable genes proliferate within the two groups. Maybe this is why in old pictures from the Civil War and that time period, people generally weren't really attractive or really ugly, but just all kind of looked like regular people? I've wondered about this.
The article I linked above this paragraph maintains that the west has been subsiding dysgenics and funding the proliferation of undesirable traits through welfare over the last 80 or so years. Obviously whenever anyone brings up eugenics/selective breeding in regards to humans someone yells "HITLER!!!" I'll end this tangent here and wrap this up.
Apologies for the TL;DR, I didn't think it would be this long (that's what she said).
I thought I'd throw some of these ideas out here because I thought it'd make for some interesting discussion. I'm not a scientist and this isn't hard science so there might be some errors in there, feel free to correct me on that. Thanks for reading my rambling screed and I look forward to reading any replies/personal anecdotes/refutations if anyone feels so inclined.
-BBC
