Rotten Orange News.
Category: sexual behavior
Preferences for height were and are certainly not just due to an association between height and social status (and health and good nutrition). It is likely that height was selected for, and appreciated, at least for men, because increased size gave men an advantage in combat, both for mate competition and also in warfare (this during pre-technic periods of human evolution). Selection for height also includes extreme sexual selection by women for male height (which continues to this day); this preference is no doubt an evolved one, given the superiority of larger males in combat, providing protection for the women and offspring, and the ability to pass on these genes for tallness to the woman’s male offspring. Further, as has been noted in a recent book review at VDARE, given that women select (or at least used to) for male intelligence as well as height, there seems to be a general trend for height and intelligence to correlate, although of course the bell curves overlap to a considerable degree.
There are of course costs to height, which may explain why, despite advantages to being taller, some ethnies are shorter than others, on average. For example, looking at the well-known difference between taller Northern Europeans and shorter Southern Europeans (the latter, as Der Movement tells us, are low-IQ cringing subhumans), we can consider some selective pressures against height. Larger people tend to do better in cooler climates rather than in the warmer clines of the south. Further, larger people require a greater caloric intake to maintain their mass, which necessitates more calorie-dense foods. Northern Europe’s generally cool and wet climate allowed for agriculture that provided a diet rich in calorie-dense foods, such as (red) meat and dairy. In the warmer and drier south, a more plant-based diet would have been insufficient to maintain a significant fraction of the population of larger size; in this latter scenario, smaller people would have had a long term survival advantage that more than balanced out the advantages (combat and mate competition) of height. Thus, the advantages of male height are a net evolutionary gain only in circumstances in which the environment can maintain a sizable fraction of the population being larger and with greater caloric requirements.
As Sailer suggests, cancer rates are higher in the tall; it may be in part cell number as he mentions; in addition, the increased caloric needs of the tall may help fuel cancer growth through diet (there are associations between diet/energy consumption and cancer, particularly between caloric-dense foods and cancer), and increased growth signaling, particularly in the young growing stage, may prime the body for later cancer, not only by increasing cell numbers, but, possibly, by epigenetic and other changes in the cells themselves.
However, this cancer link is generally not counter-selective against height, at least not in human evolutionary history, as cancer typically is a disease in the older (Sailer’s case being one exception, as are childhood cancers and some of those due to inherited mutations), past prime reproductive age, individuals. It is a cost of height, though, at the individual and public health levels.
As to Sailer’s main thesis, why “heightism” is not a SJW issue, we must consider that Female Privilege plays a role. Milady always gets her way (Roissy being correct about the “Fundamental Premise” – females being considered more valuable, and catered to, because eggs are more valuable than sperm). Male height is a female preference, so discrimination against short men is socially acceptable. Female thinness is a male preference, so that is socially unacceptable “fat shaming” – instead we must celebrate “curvy women” – an euphemism for disgusting piles of sweaty lard, with the BMI of a neutron star, rolling around the landscape, each consuming more calories in a day than the entire world population of blue whales does in a year. When you consider that men really can’t do anything about their height, while women can certainly lose weight, the fact that an immutable characteristic is “shamed” while a changeable one is not tells you all you need to know of the raw dominant power of Female Privilege (aka, the Yeastbucket Advantage).
Yet more stupidity, lies, and cowardice.
Hmmm…who was it who predicted the downfall of the Alt Right – that the Alt Right fever would eventually burn itself out?
“Movement” failure can be chalked up to three inter-related reasons:
1. A defective ideology; the same old tired fossilized memes, sweaty racial fantasies, obsessive ethnic fetishism, rigid dogma, all with a healthy helping of solipsism, self-delusion, and pseudoscience.
2. A failed leadership. Affirmative action leads to incompetence, and this holds true not only for “women and minorities” in the broader society, but also for “cuck naggers” in Der Movement.
3. A significant fraction, possibly a majority, of rank-and-file activists are Type I Nutzi defectives.
So, the defective ideology justifies the affirmative action policy and attracts the Nutzis. The failed leaders grasp onto the ideology that props up their own “leadership,” while the Nutzis support and enable the tragicomic failures of their leaders.
Neither the leaders nor the followers will condemn themselves and break the cycle, and they certainly will not denounce the ideology that forms the center of (what passes for) their identity.
A New Movement needs to arise to displace the crumbling ruin of the Old. Do I believe that will happen? No, but I will continue being a “voice in the wilderness” and hold out hope.
Roissy endorses this comment:
One thing that beta male white knight faggots don’t want to hear about is the obsession that bitches have with wanting to fuck mass murderers. […]If you want to live in some fantasy dreamworld where “they’re not all like that” then go ahead, but if you don’t accept the truth you’re just going to go through your entire life getting fucked over by these skanks.Conversely, if you look at them as what they are – stupid, wild animals – they you might have a chance to make a relationship with one work. Just always remember that as a boyfriend/husband you are basically a zookeeper, trying to keep control over a twisted amoral beast.
I endorse the comment as well, the description is 100% correct. It goes off the rails with its subsequent prescription: we need “game” you see, which is, in essence, pure pussy pedestalization; men need to modulate their every word and action, down to the most minute detail, to appeal to these “twisted amoral beasts.”
How about this: NO.
Sir MGTOW vs. the Yeastbuckets!
Yeah, and there’s no god either, but Frannie boy won’t tell you that.
The Sallistrian religious paradox: The higher one goes up the religious hierarchy the less likely one is to actually believe in god or all the other religious nonsense.
Some old hag fumbling with her rosaries in church believes unconditionally, a priest has his doubts, a bishop understands the value of religion for social control, and the college of cardinals, and the pope derived from then, knows full well the truth and its ideological utility.
Surprise, surprise. “America’s Senator” fails again.
Hey Jeff, just do what you do best: stand around helplessly, looking like a Howdy Doody doll without the ventriloquist.
Dem Russkis are already ahead of us and pulling away fast. Hint: having a nuclear deterrent that dates from the 1960s and 70s, with some sprinkling from the 80s, is not going to scare Russia or China. Another hint: the constant US trend to downscale its nuclear bomb arsenal in both numbers and yield per weapon is not going to scare anyone either. I realize, Donnie, that your Presidency, nay your entire existence, is all about empty blustering, but the hard men of Russia and China are not going to be deterred by your windbag exhortations. No, only true force will do the job, and true force includes missiles than are not older than the fathers of the men whose fingers are on the button, and true force includes nuclear bombs than actually have yields greater than the early atom bombs of the late 40s.
Chinese Nationalist Whore writes:
As a Chinese, I come from a highly collectivistic society and I find it deeply naïve to think that Jews as a group will not have a major advantage over individuals who do not network in the same ethnocentric way.
Yes, indeed, and one good reason (besides of course their alien genotypes and phenotypes) Chinese should not be allowed into Western nations and should not be allowed on Western blogs.
As a kind Japanese writer named Riki Rei at Counter Currents points out, the Chinese elite is in bed with the Jewish elite.
Of course, the MR Silkers who say that any criticism of China is due to the critic being “a Jew or someone who sucks Jewish cock” (their words, not mine, in case you the reader are offended by the vulgarity).
Of course the Chinese are “in bed” with the Jews – the problem is that the Silkers want the Chinese to be in bed with them, literally, preferably all those Chinese girls with guns who are going to the “border guards of the West.” Among White manlets, Silk Road White nationalism is nothing more or less than masochistic yellow fever fetishism.
In der news.
I’m no fan of Johnson, but the action of the gym is despicable.
The Far Right Seattle community should just pitch in and buy weights and whatever equipment and set up their own gym is some space, for their own people. Tin cup panhandling could pay for it, I suppose. Just make sure Hermansson and Lewis don’t show up.
If you want to build “community” you can start with your own gyms, instead of using commercial gyms co-owned by whining Jews.
Yet another objective, ethnically disinterested post by Dienekes Pontikos.
We put Trump in office. We elected a renegade candidate. We achieved what many thought impossible. The entire establishment opposed him, the corporate overclass opposed him, the lying press opposed him, but we elected him anyway. And yet fascinatingly, incredibly, public policy hasn’t really budged even a tick with him in office. What do we actually have to show for it? I mean, is there anything, anything at all? A Muslim ban that isn’t even close to an actual Muslim ban? A budget-busting mega-bill that pays for walls in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Tunisia, but allocates not one cent for a wall along our own southern border? How many millions in aid dollars to China, a nation with a booming economy and a GDP that surpassed ours a year or two ago? A massive tax giveaway to the rich, written by banksters and oligarchs? John Bolton and the resurrection of the Bush regime? Nothing meaningful has changed. Nothing meaningful at all. It’s sheer black pill.
When Trump invited her to his suite, he boasted about being on the cover of a magazine, and she wasn’t impressed, she said. After telling Trump, “Someone should take that magazine and spank you with it,” she did exactly that, Clifford told Cooper.
Yes sir, nothing says “alpha male” like being spanked, with a magazine with your own picture on it, by some low rent porn star.
This fat embarrassment Trump isn’t even doing the one thing for which I supported him and voted for him: causing racial balkanization and societal chaos. Anti-Trump hatred remains, but it is now merely personal and political, not racial-based, and we’ve reached the point that some leftists view Pence’s religiosocial conservatism with more alarm than Trump’s milksop bumbling.
Apparently, Mudshark Annie does not trust Trump any more. Roissy weeps.
Behold your leadership. Hail Pepe! Hail Kek!
That pug looks brachycephalic and thus not a true Nordic. To the ovens with you!
Women: less self-awareness than a retarded slug.
“Using her body.” Is there any other way?
Fresh from tearful courtroom testimony. Don’t objectify milady (Jewlady) though, it’s uncouth! Those pictures are art, high art, just like the Mona Lisa. And don’t you forget it, you vulgar patriarchal bastards. You Go Grrlll!
It’s all one.
Sex workers. And now please tell me how that is different from ordinary female behavior – exchanging sexual favors in return for “goodies” from men (including beta male commitment).
If you think this is stated just for the misogynistic shock value, think again. Consider: what is meant by a “trophy wife?” A “Mrs Degree?” A woman “looking for a good provider?” The meaning of the fact that on dates typically men are expected to pay for everything, plan for everything. In each case, what is milady providing in exchange for male resources? Answer: sex or at least the promise of sex. It is essentially legalized prostitution. The honorable behavior for women is motherhood (and, later, grandmotherhood) – family formation and nurturing. The contribution to genetic continuity is worthwhile, but the typical cunning female exploitation of male sexual weakness is nothing more or less than glorified whoredom.
By the way, fresh from tearful courtroom speeches and #MeToo Activism, the female always returns to her roots: trade sexuality for attention and resources. You Go Girl! A rotifer has mores self-awareness than a typical woman.
Even a morally deficient cognitive weakling like Derbyshire notices the obvious:
My question: Nassar was doing the stuff he was doing for twenty-five years. How’d he get away with it for so long?
Part of the answer, I’m sure, is the same as the answer to the same question in the matter of show business sexual harassment. In both cases there was a thing that the harassees wanted very, very badly —so badly that they, or in the case of younger victims, more likely their parents—might have considered that submitting to harassment or molestation was a price worth paying for that thing.
In the showbiz cases the thing wanted was a movie part; in Nassar’s case, a shot at competing in the Olympics.
I don’t say that’s the whole story, and I certainly wouldn’t say that all the victims took that cynical view. Twenty-five years of silence needs explaining, though. I’ve no doubt that’s part of the explanation.
The media likes to concentrate on the isolated cases when complaints were made and were ignored, while blithely not mentioning the fact that many of the victims said nothing at the time, and are now being hailed as Tankgrrl Heroines for marching into court (after being emotionally soothed by a Labrador retriever wearing a tie) and browbeating the NEC pervert (or, simply, and non-redundantly, the NEC). Consider that powerful male celebrities are suffering auto da fe if accused of looking at a woman the wrong way back in the Ice Age. So, if the entire woman’s Olympic gymnastics team, and their parents, had complained, nothing would have been done? If all of “America’s darlings” had come forward publicly, together, nothing would have been done? Yeah, sure. If you believe that, I also have a bridge to sell you, spanning Manhattan to Brooklyn.
No, just like all the women who went to visit HuWhite Harvey, despite “it was known all over Hollywood what was going on”, and like all the women going to the office of Levantine Lauer (and his door-locking desk button) despite his own reputation, sometimes Tankgrrl ambition gets in the way of right thinking, eh ladies? Or like those actresses who publicly decry being “objectified” and then post scantily-clad pictures of themselves on social media for all the world to see – a complete lack of self-awareness and adult-level agency.
A not-so-secret secret revealed to the women reading this blog: likely, most of the men you know and interact with on a regular basis have a well-disguised contempt for your sex, and it is justified. When you act like children but demand to be treated as more-than-equals, supported by a hysterical SJW System, the contempt is well-earned.
My problems with the gamesters is essentially one of prescription, not description. With respect to sexual matters, the game crowd are correct in their fundamental analysis.
For example, Johnny Redux:
A sexless marriage, in many (if not most) cases, is the result of a man marrying a woman his own age, and after time losing all sexual interest in her as she quickly morphs into an old woman before his eyes, much quicker than he is aging.
As they say: when a man gets older, he looks more and more like Sean Connery, and when a woman gets older she looks more and more like….Sean Connery.
Indeed, one wonders how much of the retroactive outrage pouring out from #MeToo past-their-prime yeastbuckets is due to the bitterness of aging, sagging hags, who have all the charm of rotting meat and all the grace of a wilted flower, looking back with desperate longing to the days when men actually found them attractive – before the inexorable ravages of time worked to make milady into a pathetic and pitiful shell of her former self. Unlike Dorian Gray, it’s the woman herself, not her portrait, which decays with every passing day, to the dismay of every man who looks, disapprovingly, upon her.
Some good advice for (White) women: gain some humility, marry and have children in your 20s, suppress your urge to hypergamy, and cultivate a pleasant personality so you will be tolerable when your looks fade (which will occur sooner rather than later). You’ll want to have something to fall back upon when you hit the wall, other than the love of a good cat.
The connection between sexual behavior and EGI should be, I hope, obvious to the reader. We are, after all, a sexually reproducing species.