Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:00:35 UTC No. 16629816

>>16629795
>smart monkeys
>our worst.

Define "smart". Define "worst".

Female monkeys picked smart monkeys that were smart AND strong. I doubt they'd actually pick the monkey equivalent of a NEET.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:03:26 UTC No. 16629820

>>16629795
>that choosed smart

quality [osting hours I see

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:09:55 UTC No. 16629824

women are hedonistic capitalists who control he sex market, so for a beta orbiter to be selected by a woman, he has to cater to her needs.
Fortunately the likes and dislikes of any woman are famous:
-women love alcohol
-women love entertainment
-women love sex
-women love money
-women love devotion by their orbiters
-women love virtue signaling
-women hate any responsibility
-women hate physical contact with physically repulsive or average men


So a beta male has to give as much free stuff that a woman loves, in order to be chosen by the woman. The easiest way is to give a woman free money and be good looking.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:10:21 UTC No. 16629825

your a logic robot programmed by society's construct of smart to scam and enslave you into academia

True smart monkey adapts

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:13:16 UTC No. 16629828

If you were actually smart and not some antisocial bookish, body neglecting loser you wouldn't have this problem.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:17:12 UTC No. 16629832

>>16629795
>anymore
It never was.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:27:17 UTC No. 16629925

>>16629816
>Female monkeys picked smart monkeys that were smart AND strong
If they picked strong, we would look like neanderthals. Not pathetic lanklets we are now

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:49:15 UTC No. 16629934

>>16629824
They don't control the sex market any more than they control themselves.
This is where the crux of social pressure comes in, to determine what the woman believes she wants. The dysgenic society has no means to correct what it has done.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:51:48 UTC No. 16629939

>>16629795
Sexual selection isn’t 100% accurate to genetics or survival.
In order for a gene to propagate, it MUST provide a sexual advantage - either through increased survival meaning increased odds of reproduction (just by numbers) or through “gaming” of the sexual selection system.
There’s no feature that tells you how smart someone is just by looking at them. So you have to look at things that correlate with intelligence (i.e. success).

In other words, the traits and activities that correlated with high intelligence in the past, may no longer have anything to do with intelligence. Being a particularly intelligent hunter-gatherer would help you immensely with recognizing movement patterns of wild game, where things grow, even things like how to make traps and tools, etc.

Being a particularly smart peasant farmer? A particularly smart McDonalds wagie? Not likely to help you obtain the social and material success that is the sexual proxy for intelligence.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:53:12 UTC No. 16629940

>>16629939
Basically picrel

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:49:00 UTC No. 16629967

>>16629795
Don't think it ever was. It was just correlated with wealth and power which is what women actually find attractive

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:51:45 UTC No. 16629968

>>16629795
>Why being smart isn't sexualy attractive anymore?
Never was.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:59:56 UTC No. 16630041

>>16629824
>-women love sex
Sure?

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:16:45 UTC No. 16630065

>>16629940
>The definition of succes is female values.
Kindly choke on your own vomit without delay.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:51:51 UTC No. 16630085

>>16629824
Those are not women, those are wenches.
>>16630041
I have very bad news for you.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:07:20 UTC No. 16630096

>>16630085
When I google this it seems like no one has realized that it's descriptive of the current degeneracy in Western civilization.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:18:08 UTC No. 16630499

>>16629939
>>16629940
If that was remotely true they'd choose only millionaires and high status men. and you might think "but they do!!", no they don't, they choose retards and then become single mothers or they choose some normal betabux. women are serially monogamous, they don't just get with the highest tier chad and stays loyal to him, because if that was the case then we'd be actually polygynous instead of it just being some arab meme.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:22:00 UTC No. 16630502

>>16629795
Being smart was NEVER attractive, the greeks and romans hated women for a reason.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 05:18:52 UTC No. 16630557

>>16629795
It never was.
Most people confuse wealth and status for intelligence and most woman are stupid so they wouldn't be able to recognize intelligence anyways.
>>16629816
Female picked strong and only strong. Intelligence is more of a fluke than anything else.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 05:33:06 UTC No. 16630564

>>16629795
Lmao. The guy in white doesn't even want the chick, the chick is a fucking slut and the guy must make a call to get her to pull away.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 05:38:41 UTC No. 16630568

>>16629925
More like Smart AND strong monkeys formed a social pyramid and raped the female monkeys, who were already fucking the strongest, more aggresive monkeys in the first place. This scheme of power has only been overturned recently. As the pyramid grew, more lanklets but smart could reproduce and have good social standing. As Christ came they started to focus on manhood as a whole and not as a pyramid (womanhood not included) This kept being the norm for nearly 2000 years until suddenly women chimp out, the social structure is overturned, and the semblance of justice=merit goes in shambles reverting to pre-hominid monke society. You are HERE.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 05:46:11 UTC No. 16630575

>>16629939
>Being a particularly smart peasant farmer?
Actually it provides a lot of breeding advantage.
Intelligence greatly correlate with work performance. Smart peasants would be much richer than dumb, would be much more desired for arranged marriage in patriarchy and can sustain more kids.
(and if you think dumb people do manual labor all right you live in the ivory tower and never dealt with proletariat).

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:06:11 UTC No. 16630590

>>16629795
>ugly
>not masculine
>submissive
wow why do heckin womenerino not like me

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:10:31 UTC No. 16630797

>>16629824

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:09:30 UTC No. 16630871

>>16629828
ok faggot

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:22:59 UTC No. 16630884

>>16630797
swedish data showeed women positively selecting for iq in males, the problem is that educating women completely inverts their fertility curve with the smarter women reducing their total fertile years chasing debt and careers, while the girl who gets knocked up at <16 drops out of school and spends her time chasing dick and pumping out kids on welfare is currently the optimal female strategy

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:10:18 UTC No. 16630965

>>16629795
It is dingus

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:59:56 UTC No. 16631010

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:51:50 UTC No. 16631060

>>16630884
Post the data

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:28:16 UTC No. 16631104

Being smart is a fucking trap. Being smart doesn't build a house. Being smart doesn't earn you a good living. Hard work does all that, and being smart only allows you to understand how to work more effectively a little more quickly, if you don't have expert instruction.

>>16629795
The guy in the over-tight polo there might be dumb but he probably has a job lined up, maybe making millions doing pavement. The "smart" guy is probably going to go back to college for six more years

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:38:48 UTC No. 16631117

>16631104 more
Being smart is kind of like being a nigger. Grow up a nigga now, and every day you'll hear "you've been oppressed, you'll get what you deserve though because society is going to pay you back one way or another."
Now grow up smart and every day you'll hear "you're so bright you're going to be so rich you'll make a million dollars every year when you invent something!" Whether these statements are right or wrong is meaningless, what really matters is the poisonous mindset they instill, that you deserve something.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:39:01 UTC No. 16631118

>>16631010
But I am rich

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:58:34 UTC No. 16631150

>>16631117
>that you deserve something.
First of all we didn't choose to be born so we deserve a living from those who started the survival program. To be born without deserving anything is abuse and will lead to anti-natalism which is already happening considering the low fertility rate of the only human beings on the planet who have self-awareness in contrast to rapidly reproducing monkeys who look vaguely similar to human beings.

Second of all if we don't deserve anything from others then others don't deserve anything from us and we will all die because no one feels the need to provide anything for eachother anymore.

Third learn to read what a social contract is.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:26:02 UTC No. 16631173

>>16631150
My signature is the buckshot in your skull.