Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Genetic Math: or how to destroy patriarchy if you really want to

"Trump hates women. Trump grabs em' by the pussy. Trump is literally Hitler, blah blah blah," they say. So what. Trump still gets more pussy than you.

Remember that the next time you side with feminists. Feminists are women. Who do you think is providing the pussy?

Mathematics of Male Desire

What if a man could have sex with a new young hot woman every day?

And what if every one of these women was ovulating?

And what if he starting having sex with them at age 15 and stopped at age 80 when he died? And what if 40% of these sex acts resulted in pregnancy? And none used birth control or got abortions? And none had STD's? How many women would he have sex with? And how many children would he father?

80 - 15 = 65 years of sex x 365 days per year = 23,725 sex acts.
1 leap year ever 7 years = 9.57 leap years on average in 65 years (let's just say 10 leap years) = 10 extra days.
23,725 + 10 = 23,735 sex acts
x .4 = 9,494 children

Worldwide, 1.01 males are born for ever 1 female.
1.01 + 1 = 2.01
2.01/1 = .49751243
9,494 x .49751243 = 4723 daughters
9,494 - 4723 = 4,771 sons

In summary. A man would have sex with 23,725 unique women from across the world and father 4,723 daughters and 4,771 sons, and have a total of 9,494 children, assuming only 40% of the sex acts produced offspring. Multiply everything by 2.5 to get the 100 % rate.

This math is almost instantly appealing to any male reader. Is it not? Let us explore why.

When Women Reward Male Dominance

The world is male dominated for a reason. Women like the tall man, the strong man, the confident man, the rich man, the successful man, and the "grab life by the ____ man." These are all the traits of a dominant male.

Of male dominance.

The individual preference adds up to the collective preference. If men weren't interested in being in charge before pussy rewarded it, they sure would be afterward. Women are sexually attracted to the thing that enslaves them. Woman is the only creature that literally breeds her own captor. Male dominated societies out-reproduce more equal societies for a reason, and this birth rate differential is exponential.

Doing some more back of the envelop calculations...
If my male dominated society has an average of 3 children per couple every 20 years, with people living an average of 80 years, and it starts with a population of 100 thousand people who all breed;
Then after 6 generations my population will peak at 459 million and then go extinct by the end of the ninth generation.
If your "feminist" population has an average of 1.5 children per couple every 20 years, with people on average living 100 years, and it starts with the same population of 100 thousand who all breed;
Then your feminist population declines steadily until going extinct at the end of the fifth generation. If you can replace the ones you have lost through attrition you wind up terminating the genetic lines of an additional 150 thousand converts.
Your population can even live longer and still die faster. And it can die way faster and still grow even faster.
If a group of Somalis has an average of 6.67 children per couple (their actual birth rate) every 20 years, with people on average living only 60 years, and it starts with the same population of 100 thousand who all breed;
Then after 10 generations the population will be 4.177 billion.

It pays to live fast and die hard on Earth.

And this is why patriarchy rules the world. Because the more education women receive the fewer children they have, and the more education a woman receives the less of a slave to the cock she is, the less babies she has, and the less of a conquering force her race is.

The more religious you are the more children you have.
The more male dominated you are the more children you have.
The more power and status men have relative to women the more children you have.

There is a reason that women prefer the dominant male: historically, he is the one that produces the most children. Evolution is a gene reproduction maximizing algorithm. The gene wants to copy itself as many times as possible. Rationally, she may know that male dominance is bad, violent, etc. But sex does not occur on a rational level. It is animalistic in character. Attempts to put it in the consent box by feminists will always fail. And no straight woman really wants it anyway. She wants a merciless pounding that, in the words of Zane, "make her tummy hurt."

When a woman votes for invasion by rapeugees she is making a genetically logical choice. She recognizes that the white man is not going to put 6 or 7 babies in her. She also recognizes that the Somali man will, by force if necessary. Her genes want to spread, and she will vote accordingly and rationalize the choice post hoc. One part of the feminist program is at war with another because women will always chose greater male dominance over less, on the grounds of genetic inclination. It spreads genes faster.

Conversely, this is also why males instinctively want to kill people, and take their stuff. Genetic spread is proportionate. It does not care if a man produces 5 babies in a population of 10,000 or kills the 5 most genetically distant enemies in a population of 10,000. Proportionately his genes have increased in prevalence with the population by exactly .0005. As long as there are other males who share his Y chromosome, his genes are increasing prevalence. Both sex and genocide can pay off from evolution's perspective.

But the problem is that there is no way a man can guarantee that the ones he kills are the people most genetically distant from himself. The victim may be a distant cousin. Reproduction is guaranteed to spread a man's genes directly. Killing is not guaranteed to reduce competitor genes. In a tribal environment where everyone is related to each other, it is impossible within the tribe. Thus, humans evolved in an environment that made them less murderous towards the in-group and more murderous towards the out-group. Capitalism may be slowly reversing that tendency since people are no longer surrounded by their relatives. It may be making humans indifferent.

Basically, the programmed inclinations of both men and women are the outcomes of genetic math.

That math is different for women than men. If a man has a son his Y chromosome survives. If he has a daughter the X chromosome of his mother survives.

In contrast, if a woman has either a son or daughter then one of her two X chromosomes is passed on. Genetically, it does not matter if she has a son or daughter. Similar logic applies to all other related offspring.


In the first generation of offspring all her children will carry one of her two X chromosomes.
In the second generation 2 out of 4 potential grandchildren will carry 1 of her X chromosomes.

Now compare this with a man who has children;

In the first generation 2 of a mans 4 potential offspring, (and only sons) will carry his Y chromosome.
In the second generation 2 of a mans 4 potential offspring, (and only sons) will carry his Y chromosome.
In the first generation 2 of a mans 4 potential offspring will carry the X chromosome of his mother.

In essence, the X chromosome has an incentive to cooperate with more familial relationships than the Y because no matter who reproduces, one of her two X chromosomes will be passed on.

But with males this is not true. The only way the Y chromosome perpetuates itself is if the man has sons and grandsons. From the Y chromosome's perspective, having only daughters is tantamount to extinction.

So genetically and mathematically, women have an incentive to be more altruistic while men do not. And men have an incentive to be hostile to competitor males, since only the male relatives and decedents of the man carry his Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is less likely to be reproduced in all circumstances, and has zero potential for reproduction if the resulting child is female.

Male genes inhabit a more competitive environment, while female genes have a more cooperative environment. This means that males have an incentive to treat the X chromosome as a territory to be colonized, controlled, and conquered. Furthermore, since aggressive, dominant males spread their genes farther and wider than passive males, it makes genetic sense for woman to cooperate with male dominance, and to reproduce with the most dominant male. It makes genetic sense for hypergamy to develop as a personality trait in females since this is the trait that assists in the maximum spread of one's genes. Essentially, all women use men to conquer other woman.


The immediate cause of male dominance is the hypergamy of women, but upon further examination we find that hypergamy itself has a cause: namely, the genetic math of the Y chromosome, which places the Y chromosome at an arithmetic disadvantage, and incentives men to treat women as a territory to colonize. Men are more violent than women, and women are more cooperative than men for a reason, and this reason is rooted in a gene-centered theory of human behavior which finds competition among men, and cooperation among women, to be the gene maximizing behavior for each respective sex. But it is also the gene maximizing behavior of women to cooperate with male dominance, since this displaces the genes of competitor females in the conquered populations, because dominate males impregnate women successfully at higher rates.

So You Want to Destroy Patriarchy?

There are at least three solutions, each more devastating and potentially disastrous than the previous. Bear with me because they are absurd.
Possible Solution (1) Start a feminist cult where women are required to have four children per couple in order to get into heaven.
Possible Solution (2) Create a worldwide reproductive licencing regime and discriminate against male dominated societies on a massive scale.
Possible Solution (3) Radical mad science genetic modification of the proportions of the X and Y chromosome in order to balance their incentives.
I might write about this in a future post. But it begs the question: what would legitimize any genetic modification of the human species? I am not saying that playing God would be wrong. What I am saying is, why do our morals get to determine genetic modification? Are not our morals the product of our genetics — at least in part? Since our morals come from our genetics interacting with our culture, to modify our genetics according to some moral sense is recursive. The modification will produce another moral sense. That new moral sense will then create new genetic modifications. Where does it end? You could possibly end patriarchy with genetic mad science. But would the "nu-humans" that you created respect you for it? And since these new humans have new genetics they will have new moral values. Will they judge your actions correct according to their new morals? Or would they view their creator as monsters?

And besides. Feminism is just a modern obsession.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't post under the name Anonymous or your post will be deleted. There is a spam bot using that name and I just delete everything he posts.