Now it's tempting to say something like "foids have little small female brains and can't handle reality" but that's not what's going on here. That's not where it's at. That's funny and misogynistic but there is something more happening here, something more accurate.
You're a foid, right? Society hands you a baby. Maybe it's your baby, maybe it's not. Whatever. It will die unless you care for it. This is kind of like being handed a live grenade. You're the woman and that means everyone expects you to diffuse this bomb. It's like being the only explosive ordinance disposal guy in the whole unit. It's your job to deal with this, to deal with this baby. This is why women want the power to not get pregnant and to terminate the pregnancy even if it happens. You're the foid, and that means that society expects you to care for the baby. NO MATTER WHAT. There is a social expectation here but there is also a biological imperative. If somebody hands you a baby you can't help but be emotionally entrapped by your need to care for it. You know this about yourself, you know that you will be suckered in by its cute little face. You know you could easily be trapped taking care of this baby for 18 years. Maybe you want to do that, maybe you don't want to do that, maybe you want to do it but you don't want to do it alone. Whatever the case you want the power to choose whether you do it. This creates a social expectation of care from women, but it also selects in favor of the type of woman whose cognition would not even consider disposing of the baby. Throwing it in a dumpster is not an option, and we consider it monstrous when women do that. If men were the primary caretakers of babies the dumpster option might be legal. Actually scratch that, men would just make infanticide legal. We would probably have some sort of drop it in the mail lethal injection program. Or maybe we would have some sort of horrible game involving infants, wood chippers, and catapults. Perhaps I exaggerate a little. Or maybe not. Ever heard of the Aztecs? Do you think the priests were women? Men literally built the Roman Colosseum and forced their slaves to fight in it.
But the point is that nature heavily selects in favor of the kind of woman who would never even consider killing a baby. This is good, this is how women should be, and one wonders why men haven't also been made this way. Because it is not true that men won't consider killing babies. Men kill babies all the time by dropping bombs on people. Men kill their wives and children (rarely). Men shoot up schools and blow people up and this and that and the other thing. Something like 100,000 people died as a result of the Iraq war. You think men cared that some of them were babies? I don't know, have we built a memorial to them? Of course not, men are monstrous. Men will build monuments to the conquerors but not their victims.
So what's going on in the genetic soup that makes women one way and men another? Well the Y chromosome is the only chromosome that can gain genetic fitness through genocide. Yes really.
You see every man is a clone of his father. Let's back it up though and talk about women. Within a woman's cells the X chromosome borrows genetic information from the other X chromosome. Women have two X chromosomes and these share information with one another. When there is a defect on one of the X's it is compensated for by a strong allele on the other. The X chromosome basically uses the Y chromosome to reproduce with other X chromosomes. When a woman has a daughter her daughter gets one X from herself and one from her husband. That's another way of saying she gets that other X chromosome from her mother-in-law, her husband's mother. Also a woman passes on her X chromosome regardless of whether she has a son or daughter. During the process of reproduction the two X chromosomes will exchange information.
This means that any genocide carried out by women would result in a net reduction in genetic diversity for the female sex. This is why women don't carry out genocides. All women act like a hive mind because all women are (in a sense) the same woman. Every generation of women has borrowed genetic information from other women in the reproduction and creation of daughters. As a tangent, this may also be why men with mother issues are repulsive (creating a daughter basically means reproducing with his mother) and therefore a problem with the mother would indicate a problem with a future daughter by that man. Since genocide would result in a net reduction in genetic diversity there is a heavy selection effect against any personality traits in the female sex involving genocidal hostility. A woman killing countless other women would be reducing her own fitness.
Men are not like this at all. Every man is essentially a half clone of his father. He is what happens when his father's Y chromosome is combined with his mother's X. His father is what happens when the same chromosome is combined with a different X. His grandfather is what happens when the same Y chromosome is combined with yet a different X. Every single man in that man's lineage is the same exact man cloned over and over. Each clone is just the same man combined with a different female half. If that man fails to have a son he fails to pass on his Y chromosome. A man with three daughters and no son is in the same position genetically as an incel who never bothered in the first place. On some intuitive level men feel this which is why there is a misogynistic tendency in all cultures to favor sons. The Y chromosome contains palindromes (letters that read the same way forward and backwards). These palindromes repeat themselves over and over again billions of times. This is because the X chromosome is constantly trying to steal information from the Y, so the Y has adapted to fortify itself against this theft through massive levels of repetition. The X chromosome has already absorbed a significant portion of the Y chromosome, which is why the Y is smaller.
The "clone factor" means that if a man wipes out millions of other men who are not related to him he has proportionally increased the prevalence of his Y chromosome in the gene pool just as effectively as another man who had a few sons. The math works the same either way: more of me or less of them produces relative increase in genetic proportion. The man who can't get women to sleep with him might still increase the proportion of his genetic material in the species by wiping out competing males. This conclusion was so devastating to the geneticist who figured it out that he drove himself to suicidal altruism and eventually unalived himself.
Now of course nobody is actually thinking in terms of "how can I increase my genetic fitness." The human species is not that self aware. Thinking is not how evolution works. When we say that the gene makes people do something what we mean is that the gene favors the production of personality traits and cognitive biases which cause a person to do a particular thing. The person doesn't have to actually be aware of what they're doing, they're just doing it, and they're doing it because of an ancient neurological feature that biases them in favor of doing it. A man feels upset when he doesn't have any sons because the genes programmed into him an anger at not having sons. A man feels like killing all of the foreigners because the genes programmed into him a low key rage at their presence. A man is instinctively upset by a promiscuous woman because the genes make him feel insecure about his parentage (because men who did not feel insecure replicated their genes less).
It's all just math. It's literally numbers. The personality trait exists because the numbers favored it's propagation. This is true with all personality traits. Humans are a vast collection of thousands of these personality traits bundled with a general cognition engine. We are made of math. The algorithm "whatever replicates will recursively replicate the personality trait that caused it" is behind everything. Any neurological bias that causes some people to have more children than others will spread through the whole species, including things like "lack self awareness, think the Other is evil, exterminate them, and take over their hunting grounds." Humans who have too much self-awareness don't breed, which is why all humans have just enough awareness to know that the other tribe is evil and need to be destroyed, never enough awareness to understand their own capacity for evil. Humans think the world is "good versus evil" when it is really just evil versus evil, and all the evil humans think they are good. That's because that is the cognitive trait that spreads, that kind of blindness to one's own self is more effective at spreading than self-awareness. This is why I think we are all demons in hell, but now I am getting off topic...
One may make the logical argument that you cannot guarantee that all children should receive an education and healthcare because if you do, some men will go around replicating themselves as much as possible and dumping their children on the welfare state. If you guarantee that all children will be taken care of some men will become hyper exploitative of that system and their DNA will spread through the whole species like wildfire. They will impregnate as many women as possible in order to spread themselves around. Then the extreme selfishness and narcissism of those men will become the default operating system of humanity and the welfare state that created them will collapse under the weight of a new low trust society as these men do everything in their power to evade taxes, be as unproductive as possible, and scam everyone including the government. Basically it's a recursively self-terminating cycle. A society that is too altruistic will create systems that exploit it and promote the genetic spread of more selfish and corrupt people. If your reward the genetics of narcissism by subsidizing its reproduction you will get so much more narcissism and then eventually the system itself will collapse, terminating the subsidy, with a new society that is more corrupt and low trust than the old one. This is like how bacteria in a Petri dish will spread until they consume every natural resource and poison themselves with their own waste products. System instabilities continue until the process that created them self-terminates. The logical argument here is that you can't engage in an unlimited subsidy for just anyone having children, you must assess the quality of people and only subsidize quality. Every good thing in this world is probably the result of some out of equilibrium temporary condition that can be easily destroyed by the slightest breeze, that is only held in place by some cultural or legal scaffolding. This truth works even if the natural selection is itself cultural rather than genetic.
But is this argument really logical? It is logical in a world full of men. In a world full of women no one would ever think to exploit the system in such a way. Oh sure, there are women who dump their countless spawn on others, but those women are drug addicts. And in a world of only women would there even be any drug addicts? Chances are that drug addled girl who's had six children and lost custody of all of them was introduced to drugs by a man. One could just as easily make the argument that in a logical world, or in a world where the logic is female, there would be no need to worry at all about the proliferation of low quality humans. Women would all take care of each other's offspring. No women would have much more offspring than any other. And nobody would be flying heroin in from Afghanistan because nobody would have planes (invented by men) or the kind of malicious desire to profit from human suffering that only men could practice. Hell, there might not even be any pilots for the planes. And the kind of evil greed that motivates people to sell heroin definitely wouldn't exist. Women are not that ambitious, or at least not that kind of ambitious. Many all-female businesses struggle to get anything done at all. Not women owned, but all female.
So in Foid World the moral principle "everyone's children must be taken care of" might actually work. The nature of women would make it work.
The most obvious conclusion from this is the Radfem conclusion: men are demons who ruin everything.
Of course men resist this obvious conclusion. We are always gaslighting women. Every man knows that in order to get pussy there are certain truths you must never admit out loud, certain things you must never say. Never admit that you might enjoy killing someone. Never talk about that time you groped a girl, or how you voted for Trump, or the shit you talk online about the female sex, and definitely don't tell her you want to use her as a broodmare to perpetuate your bloodline, or how you find most of what she says tedious and boring, and definitely don't tell her about the standards by which men judge women. You have to lie to get pussy and every guy knows it. Women do no sleep with men who tell them the truth and the obvious conclusion from this fact is that the continuance of the species is built on lies — or perhaps one might say even rape by fraud.
Let's put it another way. We live in a man's world and that means all the obvious conclusions are masculine coded. When we say that something is logical or rational we are saying that there is an underlying psychology that we are modeling, and that we must look at cause and effect without any illusions based on the psychology we are modeling. But we are modeling male cognition and male cognition is not female cognition. There is a completely different world out there, a world without men, where every conceivable altruistic thing that the government does does not automatically get instantaneously exploited in the most horrific way by the male sex, because in this scenario there is no male sex.
"Logical" means male logical or logical according to an understanding of how men think and the deficiencies and motives of the male sex. There is another logical world that is female logical and this world works just as well when only females are factored in. This world is only impossible because of the presence of men. Now I am not some feminist saying the male sex should be exterminated, and I am a man, I'm just conceding the point because it's true, and because I need to make other points. A female logical world would be a world where only females exist, there are no males to muck up any process. That world probably wouldn't have certain features and technology because the current world needs a certain quantity of extremely autistic males (men with hyper masculine brains) to even have things like three nanometer chips for smartphones, transnational airlines, and pretty much the whole engineering field. Programmers are overwhelmingly male. But one might envision a world where women step up to do some of these jobs and also figure out workarounds; alternative "foid technologies" that let women get the same results in a distinctly female way.
Oh sure there would be a partial technological collapse. But we can't know for sure how deep that would be or how long it would last or how women would compensate.
The fact that we live under male logic is shown by how we build monuments to the conquerors and not their victims. There are great men and then there are terrible men we call great. Great Men cure polio and write Constitutions. Men we call Great slaughter millions. The point of building a monument to the victims is not to glorify victimhood, but to rub it in the face of their killers. Killing depends on a lack of self-awareness, it depends on thinking that others are evil and not yourself. As I already said society is not good versus evil, but one evil bastard who thinks they're good, versus another evil bastard who also thinks they're good. What's remarkable is that it has not occurred to anyone to build monuments of ridicule. Basically the opposite of a monument to glorify some man, but a monument to lampoon him, to ridicule him for the terrible things he did. Judging from the condition of the world these monuments should be everywhere. The purpose of such a monument is to force self-awareness on anyone who would consider emulating the "great" terrible man. A monument of ridicule is a feminine coded thing, a way for women to degrade the self-esteem of the kind of golem who thinks he is great by bombing children.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please keep it civil