Thuletide
22.6K subscribers
5.96K photos
542 videos
27 files
2.8K links
Nationalist, Classical Liberal, moderate centrist (circa 1900). You can plagiarize any of my writing & content. Follow: t.me/racerealismchannel
Download Telegram
Since the popularity of magic weight loss drugs (Ozempic/GLPs) is skyrocketing, I think it's important to redpill everybody on the Fat Pig Question.

Obesity is almost has heritable as IQ, at ~70%. Heritability is highest during adolescence, lowest during childhood.

The physiological traits that make an individual susceptible to weight gain may be adaptive under conditions of sporadic food scarcity, but we do not live under such conditions.

Moreover, mere susceptibility to weight gain does not make an individual fat. This is largely caused by the psychological/behavioral traits that correlate with fatness: Low IQ, low impulse control, various mental disorders, etc.

In brief: Fat people are dysgenic, and the fact that fat people can now mask (and spread) their fat genes via magic weight loss drugs is an unmitigated catastrophe. Do NOT breed with ex-fatties.

NB: Optimal body fat range for men and women is 18-24% and 21-28%, respectively (best for metabolic health, hormone balance longevity, etc.)
European Broadcasting Union released new guidelines for covering women's athletics to "crackdown on sexualizing camera angles."

These guidelines epitomize the schizophrenic sexual gaslighting that plagues the West: women aggressively flaunt their sexuality, then chastise men for being attracted to them. I have seen literal OnlyFans whores on twitter complaining about "creeps" and "the male gaze."

Obviously, this is all an attempt for women to absolve themselves of accountability while gaining — or, more accurately, maintaining — power over men. They want pre-sexual revolution constraints on male behavior but unlimited freedom for themselves. "My body, my choice; your feelings, my choice. Heads I win, tails you lose."

https://www.ebu.ch/guides/open/report/raising-the-bar
Prime example of what I was describing in this post: Concept creep warping the definition of "pedophilia" and thus trivializing actual pedophilia (the sexual attraction to and/or abuse of prepubescents, the latter causing immense and long-lasting harm).

I have seen people accused of "pedophilia" for: liking short women, liking women with small breasts, liking women with pink feet, playing a videogame that has attractive adult female characters, a two year age gap between adults in their early 20s, etc.

We are at the point where the colloquial definition of "pedophilia" is so far removed from the official definition that it would be more sensible to use a completely different term entirely - perhaps "child sexual abuse" or "child sexual attraction"? Although, I would rather not use the latter term as it is reminiscent of the whitewashed "minor attracted person."
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Marco Rubio on the rising threat of leftist terrorism.
It's real. "Indians generate so much AI CP that it autofills in your Google search bar"
When choosing a long-term mate, men value looks (fertility and genetic health) slightly more than women, while women value wealth and status (ability to provide and protect) significantly more than men.

However, when choosing a short-term partner (one-night stands, etc.), both men and women value looks above all else. This effect is particularly pronounced on highly superficial looks-based dating apps, like Tinder.

Sources:
- Walter (2020), Sex Differences in Mate Preferences Across 45 Countries: A Large-Scale Replication
- Buss (2016), Evolutionary Psychology
- Witmer (2025), The relative importance of looks, height, job, bio, intelligence, and homophily in online dating
- Li (2006), Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates

#fertility