Evolutionary Psychology
(It is True as it happens)
Notes from Upsetting the Clique
By Sophia Siedlberg
Copyright 2008
http://www.intersexualite.org/Evolutionary_psychology.html
You see, this is what makes the eugenics movement so comical. What they want the human race to become is akin to something that used to swing in the trees and served little purpose other than being cat food. You see the more they try to make sex dimorphism obvious, the more they over emphasize the characteristics. Well what would an ultra macho man be other than a killing and rutting machine? What would an ultra girly female be other than a biological hazard breeding. The end result would be nothing more than a biological car crash and then perhaps when humanity ends because of this the rest of life looks back and goes: "What was that, huh, monkeys!"
http://www.intersexualite.org/Evolutionary_psychology.html
What, according to the ideals of eugenicists and evolutionary psychologists is the pinnacle of human evolution? The answer is a world populated by knuckle scraping man-apes and bouncing breasted bimboes and these are referred to as "The male of the species" and "Female of the species". They are not as popular science would have it, the pinnacle of evolution however. Observe the physiology of these "ideal" human beings and you will notice a few flaws. Aside from being grotesque in themselves, they are in truth an impossibility, and therein lies the problem.
When the Clarke Northwestern Clique of psychologists actually take the time to describe what they consider "normal" in terms of social and biological evolution, they are in reality describing their own "genetic software".
I have observed this because my thinking is considered "abnormal". (I am now the proud owner of a personality disorder it would seem). I suppose this is perhaps the best point of reference really, my "personality disorder". Let's look at my reaction to the idea that on this planet there are "ideal men and women" (That is men and women who fit the ideals laid down by the Clarke-Northwestern). When I was asked what I would think of such men and women I replied: "Vermin and scum". When I was asked why I said: "They are an evolutionary liability, like a virus, which started life as a means of passing genetic information between one organism and another, a sort of message in a bottle; however, today a virus is a replicating machine that serves no other purpose than to replicate, ideal men and women are like that, a virus". When asked to give another example I said: "Well, there are cancers. Look, the world is overpopulated but it is the ideal men and women who do the most damage to the planet that nurtures them all because they are pre programmed to hog resources and breed". Other comparisons have included infestations, infections and so on. Basically any comparison between ideal men and women and various pathogens would be perhaps the most accurate way of describing my viewpoint.
While what I have said can sound a tad genocidal, it is usually the genocidal super race types of people that are my target. I will say that two wrongs do not make a right, I do not for example advocate screening blond hair and blue eyes from the human gene pool, nor do I advocate wiping the same off the face of the earth. So my thinking is not pathological hatred, but as J Michael Bailey would say "A rational description of a group of people". But J Michael Bailey and his minions fail to recognize that what he holds up as an ideal, (The perfect physical and racially "pure" specimens of heterosexual manhood and womanhood) I regard as a disease. You see my "personality disorder" is not down to my considering a group of people to be a disease, but who I consider to be a disease.
Let's look at this another way, a biologically pre programmed unease about a group of people would differ from a more logical unease motivated by environmental management. Bailey has a particular disgust for "Latinos, Blacks, Intersex people, Gays, Transsexuals, Bisexuals and Homosexuals". This is clearly motivated by the "yuk factor". (A fear of difference). The Clarke Northwestern, the HBI and Bailey are motivated towards advocating the elimination of various people because they have characteristics that somehow disgust Bailey and his minions. None of the groups cause harm to the gene pool. Many of them either do not partake in it (As in the sexual minorities) or contribute by keeping a wider form of biodiversity. (Biodiversity needs melting pots basically). That really makes the HBI (Human Biodiversity Institute) a bit of an oxymoron quite frankly. My motivations are different I suspect the genetic make up of the ideal man and woman are if anything little more than evolutionary retrogression. And if they are allowed to over breed and dominate, then humanity will be running in reverse from an evolutionary standpoint. I mean look what happens when you introduce rabbits to the wrong environment, or Italian snails. Ecological disasters happen. If any species gets too successful it will destroy its environment.
I am thinking in terms of ecological management, not eliminating people I do not like.
Now please keep in mind I only look at these situations that could feasibly be resolved by breeding ideal man and woman out of the gene pool. But I am not suggesting there be eugenics; well not if Bailey leaves the sexual minorities alone, because sexual minorities are natural population controls. However, if Bailey started talking gas chambers then I would then be forced to advocate gassing ideal man and woman to maintain the natural balance.
And I, not Bailey, am the one with the personality disorder. What does that say? The logic I am using is a perfected version of that peddled by the HBI in particular, and the HBI would have to concede that my logic is far superior to theirs simply because I am immune from a lot of the evolutionary thought processes that inform them. I am sexless and as such can spend more time considering logic than considering when the next rut will happen.
I could say that I agree with people like Galton about the human gene pool. I just think that Galton had the wrong targets in mind. I mean ideal man and woman would perhaps be the most destructive beings ever to come out of controlled evolution, ideal man would be bred to the point where he would be covered by the dangerous dogs act, he would be a psychotic roid raged, naturally androgen addled monstrosity. Ideal woman would be a harbinger of so many venereal diseases (Because of her inherent promiscuity) anything she touches would probably drop dead given the rate at which micro organisms would have to be in constant battle with her accelerated immune system. Oh, yes she may have immunity and kill off most of the human race but her and ideal man would so restrict the human gene pool in the longer term we would end up with a race of genetic degenerates.
The point is, if you apply eugenics and evolutionary psychology to their logical conclusion you can kiss the human race bye bye. Because these people want to breed into the human gene pool the most destructive and degenerate characteristics. Am I wrong for pointing out that places like Auchswitz were visible examples of just how criminal ideal man and woman can get? They wiped out millions of people from the human gene pool (The usual "Suspects" of course) and then expected some golden age of a planet populated by what exactly? Ideal man the androgen addled killing and rutting machine and ideal woman who breeds much more than just babies. Am I wrong in thinking that mass murder in the name of some flawed ideal is not only wrong but downright criminal?
Duh!
It seems to me that the exclusive legacy gene in some people running around going "I must pass on my genes and preserve my pure bloodline" has mutated to drive some people pathologically insane. The best part of it is, I am not a loony left liberal who claims that everything is a social construct. I am a geneticist who sees this stuff for what it is, humanity's longest suicide letter. Let’s rename the "exclusive legacy gene" (Actually it is a self referring complex of 67 genes of which one of the clique, Eric Vilain has only seen 50).
Lets be brutal here, and totally honest. What the HBI, the Clarke Northwestern, Bailey and Greenberg are striving for in their talk of eugenics is a degenerate genetic mistake that is the only true definition of "Dysgenic". Why don't the HBI rename themselves the HMI or "Human Monoculture Institute". And they know I am right, because I am using exactly the same science and points of reference they are. That is what makes the irony so delicious.
