Women lifting to become "muscle mommies" as a form of transgenderism (autoandrophilia) is one of my theories, but I'm sure somebody proposed it before I did.
Aside from narcissistic autoeroticism, women are retards who think traits they find attractive in men are traits that men find attractive in women; they wear heels (height), get high-paying jobs (resources), tattoos (dangerousness/ruggedness), buccal fat removal (chiseled features), etc. These are all forms of soft transgenderism resulting from the breakdown of gender norms.
When women learn that heterosexual men are generally not attracted to stereotypically masculine traits, they respond with total bewilderment ("But I'm a 35-year-old DOCTOR! Why can't I find a husband?!") or belligerent obstinance ("A REAL man would find [masculine trait] sexy, but you're just a small penis porn-brained incel").
All of these horrifying trends are amplified by female conformism and their obsession with status. For example, it's plausible that the astronomical whorishness of women online today was at least partially caused by the popularity of Onlyfans girls, leading to runaway whoredom. Women see that nudity = "status" (in their minds, followers + male attention = status), and conclude that they must post nudes to compete and become "high status."
Many of the behavioral traits that correlate with being an internet whore also correlate with trooning out in the gym, getting tattoos, piercings, etc., which reminds me of the Spiteful Mutant Hypothesis (or "social epistasis amplification model"): Dysgenic people reach critical mass in a society, acquire some level of cultural dominance, and negatively influence the behavior of would-be normal people around them. Those who resist these trends are generally theorized to be more genetically healthy (mentally stable, etc.), although this may not necessarily be the case; natural nonconformists (autistics, psychopaths, etc.) may resist these trends out of pure disagreeableness.
Female intrasexual sabotage (encouraging unattractive behaviors among sexual competitors, distinct from being a spiteful mutant) undoubtedly contributes to these trends, but I'm unsure to what extent. "Wow, girl, you look GREAT with 12-year-old boy hair. You should go bald next. Fat? No way, you look beautiful. In fact, you should eat even more!"
Regarding women trooning out in the gym, specifically: Many are "former" anorexics for whom lifting became a "healthy" (obviously, they are not healthy, they are infertile) outlet for their body dysmorphia and obsessive-compulsive thinking around food and weight.
Anyway, to conclude: Every healthy society in human history has been structured in a way that mitigates the natural retardation of women. We must repeal their rights for their own good.
Aside from narcissistic autoeroticism, women are retards who think traits they find attractive in men are traits that men find attractive in women; they wear heels (height), get high-paying jobs (resources), tattoos (dangerousness/ruggedness), buccal fat removal (chiseled features), etc. These are all forms of soft transgenderism resulting from the breakdown of gender norms.
When women learn that heterosexual men are generally not attracted to stereotypically masculine traits, they respond with total bewilderment ("But I'm a 35-year-old DOCTOR! Why can't I find a husband?!") or belligerent obstinance ("A REAL man would find [masculine trait] sexy, but you're just a small penis porn-brained incel").
All of these horrifying trends are amplified by female conformism and their obsession with status. For example, it's plausible that the astronomical whorishness of women online today was at least partially caused by the popularity of Onlyfans girls, leading to runaway whoredom. Women see that nudity = "status" (in their minds, followers + male attention = status), and conclude that they must post nudes to compete and become "high status."
Many of the behavioral traits that correlate with being an internet whore also correlate with trooning out in the gym, getting tattoos, piercings, etc., which reminds me of the Spiteful Mutant Hypothesis (or "social epistasis amplification model"): Dysgenic people reach critical mass in a society, acquire some level of cultural dominance, and negatively influence the behavior of would-be normal people around them. Those who resist these trends are generally theorized to be more genetically healthy (mentally stable, etc.), although this may not necessarily be the case; natural nonconformists (autistics, psychopaths, etc.) may resist these trends out of pure disagreeableness.
Female intrasexual sabotage (encouraging unattractive behaviors among sexual competitors, distinct from being a spiteful mutant) undoubtedly contributes to these trends, but I'm unsure to what extent. "Wow, girl, you look GREAT with 12-year-old boy hair. You should go bald next. Fat? No way, you look beautiful. In fact, you should eat even more!"
Regarding women trooning out in the gym, specifically: Many are "former" anorexics for whom lifting became a "healthy" (obviously, they are not healthy, they are infertile) outlet for their body dysmorphia and obsessive-compulsive thinking around food and weight.
Anyway, to conclude: Every healthy society in human history has been structured in a way that mitigates the natural retardation of women. We must repeal their rights for their own good.
X (formerly Twitter)
Melian Refugee (@escapefrommelos) on X
I don't remember where I first heard this, but there's the theory that some women want "abs" for the same reason some transexual men like to cross dress... in the men it has a name, "Autogynephilia": getting turned on by seeing yourself with something you…
Sex differences in general knowledge:
Test measured 19 domains of general knowledge, grouped into six first-order factors and one second-order general factor.
Men significantly outscored women on the second-order general factor and four out of six first-order factors: Current Affairs (0.82d), Physical Health and Recreation (0.75d), Science (0.58d), and Arts (0.31d).
Women significantly outscored men on the first-order factor of Family (-0.46d) but, surprisingly, there was no sex difference in the first-order factor of Fashion (-0.01d).
Women outscored men in the domains of Fashion, Popular Music, Medicine, and Cookery.
"Data obtained from 469 female and 167 male undergraduates"
Source: Lynn, Irwing, Cammock (2001)
Test measured 19 domains of general knowledge, grouped into six first-order factors and one second-order general factor.
Men significantly outscored women on the second-order general factor and four out of six first-order factors: Current Affairs (0.82d), Physical Health and Recreation (0.75d), Science (0.58d), and Arts (0.31d).
Women significantly outscored men on the first-order factor of Family (-0.46d) but, surprisingly, there was no sex difference in the first-order factor of Fashion (-0.01d).
Women outscored men in the domains of Fashion, Popular Music, Medicine, and Cookery.
"Data obtained from 469 female and 167 male undergraduates"
Source: Lynn, Irwing, Cammock (2001)
Forwarded from Race Realism Channel
Average annual and lifetime net cost per migrant, by country of origin.
Danish and Dutch data, respectively.
Danish and Dutch data, respectively.
Forwarded from Race Realism Channel
National average IQ vs. lifetime net fiscal contribution per migrant (Dutch data):
The only significant net-positive contributors were Northern Europeans, North Americans, and the Japanese.
Every non-White ethnic group made a net-negative contribution, excluding the Israelis and "Four Asian Tigers" (Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore), who made a minor net-positive contribution, and the aforementioned Japanese.
The only significant net-positive contributors were Northern Europeans, North Americans, and the Japanese.
Every non-White ethnic group made a net-negative contribution, excluding the Israelis and "Four Asian Tigers" (Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore), who made a minor net-positive contribution, and the aforementioned Japanese.
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Big Balls (former DOGE employee): “White men in particular have been completely villainized in society… and our older generations have kind of just let it happen.”
Restore Britain is pro-youth and pro-freedom:
"I am with the young British men and women who feel crushed under inflated house prices, stagnating wages, record tax burden and just generally a really piss-poor standard of living that is falling embarrassingly far behind countries we once competed with."
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/2039702964852392212
"It wasn’t that long ago millions of young people had some of the best months of their lives stolen from them all to unsuccessfully avoid what was a nasty cold for the overwhelming majority. To suggest youngsters have not sacrificed anything in recent years is offensive guff."
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/2039939670616760500
"The way to give our young people their future back is not more tax, more regulation, more government. It's to cut. Cut, cut, cut. Slash it back. All of it. A regulation bonfire visible from space."
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1995493230193045824
"I am with the young British men and women who feel crushed under inflated house prices, stagnating wages, record tax burden and just generally a really piss-poor standard of living that is falling embarrassingly far behind countries we once competed with."
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/2039702964852392212
"It wasn’t that long ago millions of young people had some of the best months of their lives stolen from them all to unsuccessfully avoid what was a nasty cold for the overwhelming majority. To suggest youngsters have not sacrificed anything in recent years is offensive guff."
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/2039939670616760500
"The way to give our young people their future back is not more tax, more regulation, more government. It's to cut. Cut, cut, cut. Slash it back. All of it. A regulation bonfire visible from space."
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1995493230193045824
"Restore Britain is the party for young British men and women who are treated like a piece of dirt on the shoe. We will cut your taxes, enable you to buy a home, help you to raise a family and deport the third world sex pests harassing you in your towns. We are on your side."
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/2039670701280391538
Very rare to see a right-wing political party courting the youth in opposition to the boomer gerontocracy.
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/2039670701280391538
Very rare to see a right-wing political party courting the youth in opposition to the boomer gerontocracy.
X (formerly Twitter)
Rupert Lowe MP (@RupertLowe10) on X
Restore Britain is the party for young British men and women who are treated like a piece of dirt on the shoe.
We will cut your taxes, enable you to buy a home, help you to raise a family and deport the third world sex pests harassing you in your towns.…
We will cut your taxes, enable you to buy a home, help you to raise a family and deport the third world sex pests harassing you in your towns.…
Tinder increased promiscuity but not long-term relationship formation or relationship quality. Dating inequality rose, especially among men, alongside rates of sexual assault and sexually transmitted diseases. It may have improved mental health but only for women (boosted their egos?).
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20240455
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20240455
New Danish twin study on tattoos:
Heritability estimates for getting tattooed were low, i.e. the rate of tattooing for identical and non-identical twins (~100% and ~50% shared genes, respectively) was pretty similar. The authors noted that this is an abnormal finding for a behavior study; typically, behaviors are ~50% heritable. Replications may find a slightly higher heritability estimate for tattooing.
If this paper's findings are accurate, it indicates a strong shared environmental influence: exposure to the same culture, fashion, media, overlapping friendship groups, etc. This shared environment influence on tattooing persisted throughout adulthood, which led the authors to conclude that "tattooing is a cultural group clustering phenomenon." In other words, tattooing is a self-reinforcing and somewhat self-perpetuating cult (the term "tattoo bubble" is sometimes used in research). ~50% of people get their first tattoo to bond with friends/family and the number of close friends with tattoos significantly predicts the probability that an individual will get tattooed (β = .244, p < .001).
The male-female tattoo disparity (~30% vs. ~41.5%) is also evidence of this notable environmental influence, given that women are significantly more conformist and status-obsessed than men. The average woman is completely beholden to the values and expectations of their peers and society at large. They easily succumb to peer pressure ("All the girlies are getting tattoos, you don't want to be the LOSER of the group, do you?") or see some tatted Onlyfans whore on TikTok with millions of followers and think: "If I get tattoos, I'll get male attention too!" (the opposite is true, men on average hate tattoos on women).
The Danish study does not invalidate recent data showing that tattoos correlate with mental illness, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, low IQ, low socioeconomic status, impulsivity, drug abuse, criminality, obesity, etc. In fact, the authors found that smokers were over twice as likely to have tattoos as non-smokers (65.2% vs. 29.3%). Moreover, young women are approximately twice as mentally ill as young men (see here), which is reflected in their greater propensity for tattooing.
Tattoos are still a fairly reliable predictor of negative behavioral traits and they should be avoided when selecting a partner (note that more/bigger tattoos = more dysgenic). At best, they indicate that your would-be spouse is an impulsive conformist and not particularly intelligent.
The Danish paper notes that while tattooing was less prevalent in parental generations, the behavioral traits associated with tattooing may have been present. It is extremely unlikely that dysgenic selection among Whites played no role in the rise of tattoos. Nevertheless, it is equally unlikely that dysgenics alone can explain the meteoric rise in tattooing, particularly among women:
Early 1990s ~1% or fewer had tattoos
Early 2000s: ~15%
Early 2010s: ~25%
Early 2020s: ~35%
In conclusion, this paper is a whitepill because it implies that tattoo prevalence can be reversed, to some degree, by propaganda alone.
Heritability estimates for getting tattooed were low, i.e. the rate of tattooing for identical and non-identical twins (~100% and ~50% shared genes, respectively) was pretty similar. The authors noted that this is an abnormal finding for a behavior study; typically, behaviors are ~50% heritable. Replications may find a slightly higher heritability estimate for tattooing.
If this paper's findings are accurate, it indicates a strong shared environmental influence: exposure to the same culture, fashion, media, overlapping friendship groups, etc. This shared environment influence on tattooing persisted throughout adulthood, which led the authors to conclude that "tattooing is a cultural group clustering phenomenon." In other words, tattooing is a self-reinforcing and somewhat self-perpetuating cult (the term "tattoo bubble" is sometimes used in research). ~50% of people get their first tattoo to bond with friends/family and the number of close friends with tattoos significantly predicts the probability that an individual will get tattooed (β = .244, p < .001).
The male-female tattoo disparity (~30% vs. ~41.5%) is also evidence of this notable environmental influence, given that women are significantly more conformist and status-obsessed than men. The average woman is completely beholden to the values and expectations of their peers and society at large. They easily succumb to peer pressure ("All the girlies are getting tattoos, you don't want to be the LOSER of the group, do you?") or see some tatted Onlyfans whore on TikTok with millions of followers and think: "If I get tattoos, I'll get male attention too!" (the opposite is true, men on average hate tattoos on women).
The Danish study does not invalidate recent data showing that tattoos correlate with mental illness, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, low IQ, low socioeconomic status, impulsivity, drug abuse, criminality, obesity, etc. In fact, the authors found that smokers were over twice as likely to have tattoos as non-smokers (65.2% vs. 29.3%). Moreover, young women are approximately twice as mentally ill as young men (see here), which is reflected in their greater propensity for tattooing.
Tattoos are still a fairly reliable predictor of negative behavioral traits and they should be avoided when selecting a partner (note that more/bigger tattoos = more dysgenic). At best, they indicate that your would-be spouse is an impulsive conformist and not particularly intelligent.
The Danish paper notes that while tattooing was less prevalent in parental generations, the behavioral traits associated with tattooing may have been present. It is extremely unlikely that dysgenic selection among Whites played no role in the rise of tattoos. Nevertheless, it is equally unlikely that dysgenics alone can explain the meteoric rise in tattooing, particularly among women:
Early 1990s ~1% or fewer had tattoos
Early 2000s: ~15%
Early 2010s: ~25%
Early 2020s: ~35%
In conclusion, this paper is a whitepill because it implies that tattoo prevalence can be reversed, to some degree, by propaganda alone.
SpringerLink
Tattooing is Mainly Cultural: A Representative Twin Study of Tattooing Determinants
Behavior Genetics - Tattooing has become increasingly common in recent decades, yet little is known regarding factors that influence tattoo behavior. Sources of influence will be important, for...
New study on adolescent troons (n=2,083) finds that they become significantly more insane after medical gender reassignment.
Another longitudinal study presented similar results in 2021. Both papers also found that adolescents with gender dysphoria had higher baseline (pre-treatment) levels of mental illness than the control groups.
The 2026 paper criticized existing research on troons as follows:
"Medical [gender reassignment] is often suggested to be beneficial, even vital, for the mental health of adolescents suffering from [gender dysphoria], but the evidence supporting subsequent improvements in mental health, quality of life or functioning is very limited... The few longitudinal studies have been of low quality and provided inconsistent results. The sample sizes have been small; there usually has been no control group, follow-up periods have been short, and the measures of assessing changes in mental health have varied. Loss to follow-up has often been substantial."
Another longitudinal study presented similar results in 2021. Both papers also found that adolescents with gender dysphoria had higher baseline (pre-treatment) levels of mental illness than the control groups.
The 2026 paper criticized existing research on troons as follows:
"Medical [gender reassignment] is often suggested to be beneficial, even vital, for the mental health of adolescents suffering from [gender dysphoria], but the evidence supporting subsequent improvements in mental health, quality of life or functioning is very limited... The few longitudinal studies have been of low quality and provided inconsistent results. The sample sizes have been small; there usually has been no control group, follow-up periods have been short, and the measures of assessing changes in mental health have varied. Loss to follow-up has often been substantial."
I forgot to mention genetic confounders from this paper, which inflate the shared environment influences relative to heritability.
Firstly, assortative mating results in both parents carrying traits that correlate with tattooing, which shrinks the differences between identical and non-identical twins, meaning genetic effects are "masked" and attributed to shared environmental effects. This mechanism is mentioned briefly in the paper.
Secondly, homophily (or assortative friendship): People choose friends who are more genetically similar to themselves than random members of their ethnic group. Typically the relationship is genetically equivalent to third cousins. This means that the shared cultural environmental effect on tattooing is also genetically influenced.
Homophily wasn't accounted for in the twin study and I have no idea how one would even begin to calculate the effects of this. The paper included neither multivariate genetic analyses nor polygenic scores, so direct genetic correlations and indirect genetic effects could not be quantified.
Anyway, the rapid rise of tattoos could be due to the fact that significant proportions of the population are "genetically primed" to embrace this social contagion. These members of the population cluster together, become influential on social media or in other entertainment, and then negatively influence otherwise normal members of the population. Edit: leftism spreads the same way.
Firstly, assortative mating results in both parents carrying traits that correlate with tattooing, which shrinks the differences between identical and non-identical twins, meaning genetic effects are "masked" and attributed to shared environmental effects. This mechanism is mentioned briefly in the paper.
Secondly, homophily (or assortative friendship): People choose friends who are more genetically similar to themselves than random members of their ethnic group. Typically the relationship is genetically equivalent to third cousins. This means that the shared cultural environmental effect on tattooing is also genetically influenced.
Homophily wasn't accounted for in the twin study and I have no idea how one would even begin to calculate the effects of this. The paper included neither multivariate genetic analyses nor polygenic scores, so direct genetic correlations and indirect genetic effects could not be quantified.
Anyway, the rapid rise of tattoos could be due to the fact that significant proportions of the population are "genetically primed" to embrace this social contagion. These members of the population cluster together, become influential on social media or in other entertainment, and then negatively influence otherwise normal members of the population. Edit: leftism spreads the same way.
Telegram
Thuletide
New Danish twin study on tattoos:
Heritability estimates for getting tattooed were low, i.e. the rate of tattooing for identical and non-identical twins (~100% and ~50% shared genes, respectively) was pretty similar. The authors noted that this is an abnormal…
Heritability estimates for getting tattooed were low, i.e. the rate of tattooing for identical and non-identical twins (~100% and ~50% shared genes, respectively) was pretty similar. The authors noted that this is an abnormal…
Gavin Newsom's wife (who had consensual sex with Harvey Weinstein) states:
- Her and Gavin are working on legislation that censors tech companies to prevent young men from becoming right-wing.
- Every problem in society could be fixed if women made all of the decisions.
- Had more women been in control of tech companies, they would have never allowed "so much bigotry, racism, misogyny and hate online."
- Female leaders would have abolished anonymity long ago.
Were Newsom to become president, America would fall under censorial gynocratic tyranny like nothing we've ever seen before. It would make 2016-era censorship look like a joke.
- Her and Gavin are working on legislation that censors tech companies to prevent young men from becoming right-wing.
- Every problem in society could be fixed if women made all of the decisions.
- Had more women been in control of tech companies, they would have never allowed "so much bigotry, racism, misogyny and hate online."
- Female leaders would have abolished anonymity long ago.
Were Newsom to become president, America would fall under censorial gynocratic tyranny like nothing we've ever seen before. It would make 2016-era censorship look like a joke.
Charlie Kirk on the Dignity Act: "This is worse than 'soft amnesty.' This de facto ends the mass deportations Americans just voted for."
This act gives work permits, deportation protection, and infinitely renewable legal status to most immigrants who arrived pre-2021.
It was sponsored by Latinx immigrant María Elvira Salazar, and co-sponsored by 20 Republican and 20 Democrat traitors.
It is being pushed as "the only serious bipartisan immigration package in years."
This act gives work permits, deportation protection, and infinitely renewable legal status to most immigrants who arrived pre-2021.
It was sponsored by Latinx immigrant María Elvira Salazar, and co-sponsored by 20 Republican and 20 Democrat traitors.
It is being pushed as "the only serious bipartisan immigration package in years."