Sign into an existing account

There needs to be a purging or conversion of the overclass jews and the underclass niggers.

This ultimatum only goes out to the men, the women will be rounded up and married off to men, with those who aren't married by the end getting the ultimatum of getting married or getting the fuck out, or dying where they stand.

We won't tolerate non-working men or single women.

BTW, for the men, the only valid work is labor which actually contributes some
needed value of the society, not the kind of working jobs that don't.

WE NEED TO SEIZE THE DORMANT YOUTH SUBCULTURES, OR MAKE OUR OWN FROM SCRATCH - Whatever it is, we need at least a uniform, an artstyle, a language, and a soundtrack, but potentially there should also be a set of hobbies and a menu as well:

Right Wing Punk Rock.

Right Wing Gothic Rock.

Right Wing Heavy Metal.

Take the kids, and make them feel like being far-right makes them "cool" (counter-cultural).

He who controls the "cool" controls the kids, he who controls the kids, controls the culture, he who controls the culture, controls the future.

By far right, I mean anything from the extreme ends of capitalism, nationalism, or religion and the occult, as an extreme of either threatens the world order.

Ideological diversity is an advantage here. As is creating an army of youth cultures and subdivisions within them.

It should be a rebellion against the most prominent aspects of modern culture, just as with culture, subculture and counterculture are not necessarily limited to just music, aesthetics, and slang, but a host of things that distinguish it, for subculture and counterculture, those elements are often explicitly at odds with the greater society that surrounds them.

If they say that eating meat is a luxury, we have a counter culture that eats meat in every meal.
If they say that racism is wrong, then we have musicians whose band names and song titles are explicitly adopting racist terms with pride.
If they want to crush an ideology, we gatekeep ideologies rivalling the one they want to crush from the communities, and explicitly target them in all aspects of our culture for hatred and derision.
Everything should be an equal and opposite reaction to dominant cultural forces, which should be producing a pushback that weakens the mainstream culture's influence, and serves as a breath of fresh air to rebellious teens and jaded young adults, an escape from the acceptable culture that is suffocating in some way.

Keep you separated, you can't fight a civil war without an army.

keep you paranoid, if every call to arms is treated like a trap, no one will answer.

keep you tied up with abstract concepts like morality or principles, if you find the very concept of rebellion distasteful, you will never rebel.

There's other plans as well to ensure civil war never kicks off, but basically, some guerilla domestic terrorists who take a country over peace by peace will be doing major damage to the current global agenda right now.

They don't want it, it's the last thing they want, it's the first thing they fear.

So yeah, I have to disagree, now, Russia and its allies are also causing problems for the NWO right now, and the western countries are trapped because they cannot go to war while internal tensions are so strong within their borders, the moment they send their country to an international war, is the moment when civil war kicks off within them.

The people are not to be underestimated, even unarmed, they can seize weapons from local officers and use them to begin taking more and more from the enemy.

Most civil conflicts begin in rural locations with the first event of armed conflict between civilian and state representatives occurring there.

The current agricultural disputes are prime ground for the people to start killing the protectors of the state with the goal of overturning the entire government.

It's never more than ten percent of the population who is needed to be on board with civil conflict for an official civil war to break out.

On the other side of the oceans, we have the fall midterms, these will be very contentious considering that a lot of Americans haven't forgotten the blatant theft of the presidential seat from Trump.

Disputes over the integrity of this election will be enough to set off a war in the USA.

Around the world people are hoping for civil war, not because they want it, but because this ever worsening peace is so intolerable to them.

You could be amazed at why we haven't had it break out yet, that's because the elites know how to keep it from happening.

The alt right was a threat because it got people who were unhappy with the current state of things together, and gathering is a requirement for rebellion.

That's been effectively shut down. Internet is easy for them to listen in on, and it ianeasy for them to interfere with. Best to keep us malcontents on here.

There's the meme about going innawoods and living off grid, this is effective because it divides us further, and makes bagging us easier when they inevitably do it.

Same thing with the American revolution, whether it was the colonists or the British crown, the jews were poised to back the winners, and bail out the jews on the losing end of the conflict.

For a good illustration of their technique, you should read the manga "liar's game" at the part where they play the game "minority".

The game of "minority" in case you don't know how to play, is to be one of the last players standing after a series of votes that each eliminate the majority, which means you need to be the one to be in the minority of each vote to remain in the game till the end.

"liar's game" is one of those manga about people stuck playing a single game or a series of games in order to either win money, pay of a debt, or save their own lives. In this one, it's the "debt game" variety, combined with the "win money" genre, it's a series of gambles over various games ranging from children's games, to party games, to straight up casino style gambling, always with an element of forced teamwork and sudden betrayal in order to win.

So the crossdressing and flamboyantly gay villain of the series is acting like the jew does, he makes his alliances with many groups of people who each decide to split their votes in half, and share the reward money via contracts issued and enforced by the Liar's Game, the villain is therefore playing every side, and whoever loses, they win, especially because they managed to shuffle of the debts of their contract early before the game even properly began (and was still in demonstration/tutorial).

Some naively idealistic vision of reality which is simply assumed to be true by those who would greatly prefer it be so.

Then trying to prevent people from learning that their assumptions were wrong, or at the very least, unjustifiable.

Then the denial requires actions to hide the evidence which contradicts the narrative, and a scapegoat to blame for the evidence people do see.

The scape goat is often those to whom it would be of interest for the reality behind the socially acceptable "truth" to be known.

As the reality become harder to deny, the deniers will ramp up the persecution of the doubters and their associated group to compensate.

Eventually it gets to the point where the scapegoats are done away with, by which I mean actively killed to preserve the big lie.

Eventually this leads to the lie being exposed, and the collapse of the society that has by this point been using the lie as a foundational mythology, building up everything upon its a priori assumption to be true.

It becomes the bedrock for the morality of the society, without it, all the pillars would fall, and society ends up having to reevaluate the ideas that ended up at the center of their cultural foundations.

Racism would return, it's inevitable that there will be a return to racial thinking, this this laughed at in liberal circles, but it's nevertheless something that's going to have to happen, especially as we learn more about genetics.

The lie of egalitarianism is becoming much too evident to ignore, the impact of ignoring it upon people is top great and too personal, we will see a death of the assumption of equality, both in ability and morality, between the races.

As we approach this great reveal, we can expect the hatred directed toward white people, the designated scapegoat, to escalate to horrifying levels, open war will be called, and there will be racial purges of whites unlike that which we've seen up til now, the media will cheer it on, as they are in fact some of the greatest purveyors of this type of cultural mythology.

What should happen as a response that will save us is that we react in a similar way, the natural effective counter to being a hated race of people is to adopt an ideology of supremacy for our race.

We try to make the best case for our people, and that includes making the case that other races are far inferior to our own.

The centrists and mainstream right want to meet them halfway, agreeing with the myth of egalitarianism, but denying the scapegoating of whites as the cause for the observed discrepancies which threaten this dogmatic assumption.

This doesn't work because removing the excuse means revealing the truth, and making it evident, but refusing to make your denial of the facts seem reasonable.

If the evidence that egalitarianism is false is right there, and there is no excusing it without admitting the falsehood of the egalitarian assumption, then it's essentially the same as rejecting the claim that all races are statistically the same when it comes to personality and ability.

It's like telling a Christian to openly express doubts regarding the beliefs of their faith, it's not an position they would accept because doubt is the gateway to disbelief amd we all know it to be true. It why they require faith to begin with.

Also consider that the state which our countries are in rest upon the assumption of egalitarianism in so many ways.

The assumption covers for the jews, it makes the holocaust unjustifiable, without the jews being unjustifiably mistreated by the nazis, we lose our symbol of evil in Adolf Hitler.

Without a definition of evil, a society cannot function, I've said before that the essence of a civilization is the police, everything else is able to be discarded but the enforcement of some law.

For laws to exist, we need to know what evil looks like, without egalitarianism, we lose that vital aspect of our society.

So how about we propose an alternative? That's what the centrists and mainstream right does.

Yeah, and they suggest the foundation of what their countries used to be built upon, things like liberty.

The problem is that our countries don't have that as their foundations anymore, much construction was made after the switch occurred, and all of that will come tumbling down if we try to change it back.

It's much easier to transition from freedom to an imposing government than it would be for the reverse to be done.

This is because after the government implements all this expansion, it becomes the new monopoly on these services, people adapt to the safety nets that were put up, and when you remove them, a lot of people will just up and die as a result.

New Hampshire used to not have animal control, they got on fine as it was founded by settlers who had done the work of keeping the wildlife under control, they knew how to live such that bears wouldn't be a problem.

This was forgotten after a time since the animal control services were put in place within the state.

So when the libertarians removed animal control, there was an outbreak of people being attacked by bears, both in the state and in neighboring states as well.

In the short term, removing some supporting service upon which people had come to rely, will result in those people suffering and dying because the thing they needed is no longer there.

Libertarians aren't surprised that things get worse once they assume power and start stripping out government to get it down to the most indispensable components, they know damn well what would occur when they cut a government monopoly and leave things to the private individuals to sort out for themselves.

They do it because they know that the private alternatives which do emerge in absence of government will be superior, and the government will no linger be able to use the power that its monopoly gives it against its own people, the suffering will be well worth it in the long term.

Most leftists failed the marshmallow test, they ate the sweet immediately, rather than being able to wait until the amount of sweets they would get was multiplied.

They see the immediate fallout and assume it'd be a permanent fixture of the place, that the outbreak of a crisis is a sign that libertarian policies fail.

They don't realize that it's all part of the design, and that the libertarians are playing the game with their eyes on the long term effects, not just the immediate.

When you stop trying to make things appear as if egalitarianism is true through laws which produce the racial discrimination that makes the numbers "look right" (as if all races were equal).

When people and businesses can discriminate against any individual or group on any basis they choose, the result is a meritocracy.

Under a meritocracy those with lesser amounts of the abilities which are in demand will be left without a place in society, they will be poor and at the mercy of others, a sizable number of blacks will become dependent upon the kindness of whites, for example.

Furthermore, with these freedoms of disassociation, races will segregate themselves into their own communities, there will be mixed areas between, but no one will actually live there except the very poor.

For the most part, each race will keep to themselves, various micro ethnostates Will form, and they may even split up even further from there.

That's not something that most people will support of they were to see the whole picture.

MikuMiku

Make it so that these fuckers can't sleep at night.

They deserve not a wink of rest.

There are various jews who aren't anti-white, and even some select few who are actively for us, most I assume are ignorant and apathetic, probably full of confidence about whatever anti-white position they hold due solely to their personal convenience, I think we can win some of the jews over, and make allies of them.

It should be noted that there are various jewish people who I have respect for, particularly among the scientists and doctors.

I'm interested in knowing how many different jewish perspectives of white people exist, and whether there are those types among them that would be open to discussion, I think we could talk things out, and learn a great deal about each other, confronting them with different opinions regarding whites and asking them why they hate us, we could also ask if they know the reasons why some of us have hatred towards them, and of the crimes their people had committed against us since the dawn of our people's first encounters with one another.

I think that before this, we need to push back against them, by using the exact same tactics and strategies as they had repeatedly used against us.

We focus on education, about the various times and way our people had faced different forms of injustice and persecution from other races, as well as a clear series of events that would explain the actions our kind are shamed for, perhaps a full timeline would reveal tat white people aren't as evil as we were made out to be, but just people trying to overcome the obstacles set before them with the same concerns that any reasonable and moral people would have.

We could also talk about the different forms of persecution, discrimination and in justice that white people face today, as well as what we had experienced historically, and demand equal rights, followed by a demand for reparations. We could have entire rallies lasting months, with each day or number of days devoted to a different wrong whites face that we want righted.

Most nonwhite people I encounter seem like decent folk, some of them I know are good law abiding and productive members of society, I think the gulf of communication isn't always going to be as large or unsurpassable as we may think, I think that with some people, we could have a conversation, get to know the perspective of the other side, share knowledge, and foster a more amicable and cooperative address of white grievances, not all are going to be the same, there will be some with some degree of opportunity for us to practice communication and cooperation with.

I want to know how the members of other races think, surely its not one way across the board, and they could be grouped into various subtypes based on their perspectives, then we can find those who are most receptive to us, and form a partnership tat benefits our people in advancing their interests and demands.

I at least want all the information to be laid out, because I want to know he everyone sees everything, I want to find what it is that they want or fear, and use this knowledge to get them to become willing to give us what we desire, I also want to know what I don't know, Because I think I'm not seeing the full picture here.

They really don't need to keep people quiet, they just need to keep people from listening to those who do leak information and taking anything they say seriously.

IF anything, just trying to silence these leakers will be counter-productive to keeping the conspiracy from being threatened, the better route is the one they go down, which is also what cults do: focus instead on discrediting the people speaking out, and establish a tight culture among the people who reinforce conformity by viewing those who do not conform with contempt, thus creating a bunch of victims who punish those who wish to escape victimhood, the prisoners will keep each other in line.

It's certainly worked it's magic on you, I can already present you with testimony after testimony from people involved deep inside each of these conspiracies, and you will reject each one, no matter who they are, what they say, and how much evidence they have to back up their claims.

Heck, I can even show you videos of key conspirators themselves straight up telling you what's been going on in detail, bragging about their plans, goals, and how they've achieved things thus far, they can have full presentations and you will still be unwilling to listen.

Any platform they could use to speak out on is treated by our culture as if it was just untrustworthy sensationalism motivated by greed.

Even though they are far less profitable than state-supported mainstream news stations, tend to be far more nuanced about the issues they cover, and have been consistently correct in their predictions compared to the mainstream, which keeps getting things wrong or outright lying to you.

Furthermore, there are real reasons for why some shady conspiracy could exist without there being any leaks at all, as I said, there are techniques that exist within cults for creating condition that ensure their people stay in line, and there are psychologists who've been studying and perfecting these techniques to create obedient followers, an entire field for such mental manipulations exists called behaviorism, and these have been applied with great effect in the realms of business (such as advertising), politics (such as propaganda), the military (such as in boot camps), etc.

The people working within a conspiracy have needs, and these needs often mean they require money, which means they need their jobs, their jobs often also tie into the other parts of their lives, in fact, it can make up a huge part of their identity, as many aspects of their lives will be relating to their employment, on top of that, they may have invested a lot into their occupations, and are unfit to do anything else, as well as without the time or ability to learn to change careers, and there's also the matter of their reputations and legacies, which could be threatened along with their employment.

Simply holding someone's livelihood hostage is enough of a barrier to keep them from disobeying or betraying the people they work for by revealing their secrets, but there's more. They exist as people, with all sorts of parts of their lives that could be affected by them stepping out of line, I've already revealed quite a bit of what you have tied up in conforming to some cultural narrative (reinforcing it in the process), these people have all that held at stake too.

Imagine all that, and knowing that all this will be sacrificed for revealing a truth to a world that you know will disregard what you have to say anyways, and all this comes before getting on a shit list that might also be a hit list, where you will be found having died or disappeared, with an improbable conclusion being drawn up by police officers who, like your collegues, know not to make waves.

In fiction, coming out and exposing the conspiracy is glamorous, you get a wide audience who are receptive to your message, the reality is that you will have a very limited audience that will be receptive to your message, and they will be the pariahs of their society, barely able to effect any change, everyone else will either ignore you, or look upon you with contempt or embarrassment, your revelations will not make you any sort of hero or mysterious person or celebrity, it will make you an outcast, it doesn't matter how much you got to expose the goings on, because ultimately, people don't make decisions based on information, they make them based on the immediate consequences they'd be personally facing.

People aren't motivated by much more than their need to react to their immediate desires and fears, we are pulled toward what gets us the things we want to happen, and what gets us away from the things we want not to happen, by manipulating these immediate desires and fears, we can get people to accept conditions that would otherwise be intolerable for them, and which will also earn them a worse outcome in the future, only a very limited amount of people can think in the long term, most make judgments and decisions based on immediate results.

For example, you won't listen because listening gets you called stupid, evil, or some other label of real negative effect in your life, it loses you friends, makes family avoid you, makes people fear you or disrespect you, makes businesses fire you and refuse you service, it makes communities expel you from their presence, and it makes the government se you as a potential threat, they will harass you and likely try to ruin you when the opportunity comes.

Worse, it means a loss of self, you will lose parts of your identity, and that will hurt you the most, you will be left questioning what kind of person you are, what kind of world you live in, what kind of life you've lived, and what kind of life you can live now that your entire philosophical foundation has been rocked, so much of your opinions will need to change now that the assumed reality behind them has been altered.

So even when the truth is right before you, as plain and obvious as it could be, you will reject it on some improvised, often fallacious, reasoning.

The other approach will have you pretend to be reasonable by feigning knowledge and rejecting having your assertions subjected to examination, such as pulling out some alternative explanation that fits the new information, while still preserving the general narrative, or just refusing to listen.

Like preserving the idea that all races are equally likely to commit crimes by saying that the reason so many blacks are convicted is because the entire justice system has it out for them, or that it's because they are poor, uneducated, and living in bad conditions which forces them to commit crimes to survive.

This isn't bad by itself, in fact, it's a key component to the scientific mode of thinking, which is how an open mind caring for the truth would analyze anything it encounters, so long as you are open to actually testing those hypotheses, but this is where you, and most people fail, you will instead treat these possible explanations as if they were established fact, without being willing to submit your assertions to being examined or tested, and we know that you know that when we do look into these possibilities, we will come back with ample data that shows they don't hold up to even the most basic level of scrutiny.

For you, it doesn't matter how solid the excuse is, the purpose of an excuse is to have some rationale for denial, rather than just admitting that you are denying the facts just to avoid the negative repercussions of openly expressing or accepting the facts as they are (in this case, likely social rejection or even hostility for being a racist).

You've already made up your mind, and everything you hear is going to be filtered through your preconceived notions in order to conform your preexisting biases. You don't care about evidence, you only care about appearing to give a fuck about evidence because that makes your chosen position look reasonable.

Your position is taken not because of any good reasoning or evidence, but because the consequences for taking another position are more personally damaging to you than just refusing to budge, it will only be when you know that openly accepting the truth will not cause you more harm than persisting in your current stance that you will even be open to the possibility of changing your mind from it.

I'm repeating myself, aren't I?

Well, there's also the other matter, what if everyone accepts the truth about the misdeeds of powerful people in their society? what the hell will people do about it? riot in the streets?

Most likely not, most likely they will seek change in peaceful, lawful, and absolutely ineffective ways. We've been conditioned to think that change can come to an establishment without the need for violence or unlawfulness, and we look down on those who use violent or unlawful means to affect change.

Most people who point out the lack of outrage on the part of others as a reason to not be outraged themselves is as hilarious as a family that goes to a restaurant none of them like to eat at because they each assume that the other members of that family wouldn't be going there unless they liked eating at the place. Not one would stop to think about how maybe everyone else is just like them on this subject, this is a good sign for how our lack of awareness is destroying us as a people.

Even when it's obvious that the corruption within the system is so widespread and concentrated among the most powerful that there's little to no chance of making any changes from within the system itself.
You can't vote them out, even with the impossible unanimous vote from the common people, because they ultimately get to decide the victor, and the people's vote is merely a suggestion as to who it should be.
You can't try to litigate against them, because they are the courts, and they decide who wins each case, they will always rule in their own favor.
We will, continue to try these methods until we can't anymore, because we've been programmed by culture to see these things as possessing a sort of magical quality that can force powerful people to do certain things, all we need to do is use the right magic words and rituals, and then the people holding certain official titles will be forced to act in accordance with some magic words on some magic sheet of paper somewhere.
Like all this can overtake the wills of these men and women.
In reality, people act based on immediate personal incentive, we see positive incentive as something which attracts us, and negative incentive as something that repels us.
Talking to them about the future of our country, their own futures, or some abstract philosophical or political ideals and principles isn't going to do much good, it has to be personal and immediate.
That means it has to effect something in their lives that personally care about, and it has to do so immediately, not somewhere down the line in the distant future.
For example, while the threat of a bullet going through their skulls or a knife trough the throats of their loved ones is an almost universal motivator to get anyone to listen to what you have to say, it doesn't have to be so sensational of a situation, merely threatening their jobs or freedom is enough, being fired or going to prison will have about as much of an effect if you can show that there's a real possibility of this being the consequences to their next actions, the threat of losing money, or having their reputation destroyed, or just being denied the things they love, like good food or sex with someone they find very attractive, is also quite good at motivating actions. Even the threat of losing a friendship might be enough for some people to change their minds.
Three things: personal, immediate, and realistic.
This is why boycotts work, or people threatening to leave an area, or someone having their secrets exposed.

No one ever made change when limiting themselves to flyers and protesting, they've always went beyond those tactics to create change, you need an actual strategy that lays out the timeline for what you are going to do, and how it's going to change things, then keep a plan B ready for another route to change, place the more extreme tactics at the back of your bag.

At the very least, do what MLK and Gandhi did, and form a peaceful lawful group that works alongside another group that does the more extreme stuff in the name of your cause.
Do not be openly affiliated with them, in fact, have the peaceful and lawful group you lead condemn the extreme actions of the other group, and have that rivalry over difference in tactics be returned in kayfabe theatre, at the same time, have your top brass coordinate your group's actions with their leadership in secret meetings.

Hey, if you want to be successful, look to successful people, even if those people are your worst enemy, you don't have to like someone to learn from them, the best teachers on the battlefield could easily be the opponents you face there, sometimes there are simply better and worse ways of doing things, no "jewish" or "gentile" ways, just those that work, and those which do not.
adopt, adapt, improve, then return them the fire they directed at you, reverse engineer their strategy for your own cause, and you will be victorious, do not let your pride lead you to your doom, know them, and know yourself, become them without losing yourself in the process, it takes doing the impossible to achieve impossible things.

I think we can all live in harmony and liberty, we can have equal justice for all, and each of us could have a future.

So long as we are able to make our own decisions and do as they please, so long as they don't infringe upon the ownership rights of others.

It's not the government's place to police culture, and laws like those against discrimination or hate only exist to impose a set of cultural values upon people.

Sometimes the path to a white person coming to not hate or fear a group of people requires they be allowed to self segregate away from them for a time.

If a business owner truly owns their business, it means they own all aspects of their operation, they should be allowed to make their choice regarding who they serve, how they serve them, what the requirements are for the provision of services to any customer, who they hire, who they fire, how their workers work for them, and so on.

Any contract or agreement thay doesn't violate the ownership rights of others should be able to be made, and the government should enforce their terms by law. This includes the agreement not to sell certain things to certain people.

Any law that tries to combat racism only makes it worse, and it hurts the entire country in the process, not just economically, but in every other way.

Let people be left well alone unless they cause direct harm upon the person or property of others, and everything will improve.

Libertarianism works.

Yes, we do. We just use our spices properly, and haven't destroyed out food by adding such unnecessary amounts of spice that we rendered it inedible.

I've eaten west African cuisine, the food is just I've eaten a lot of African food, it's usually disgusting, far more disgusting than anything you'd find among British food.

Often it's disgusting because spices are expensive, and using them to a ridiculous excess in whatever you make is what Africans do to earn themselves status.

Black people are like women, they care most about the perceptions of others around them, black men are chock full of female hormones, which is why they behave like bitches tend to do.

Also, when taking about spicy food, the hottest peppers in the world were cultivated by white people.

We handle capsicin very well as a people, the opposite of the assumed stereotype.

It's a long lost reason for why men inherently prefer virginal women to sexually experienced ones.

It fills in the gap for evolutionary psychologists, one they had observed for some time, as merely knowing that the baby was theirs isn't enough of a reason by itself to prefer virgins to used goods.

From an Evo-Psych perspective, its nothing but beneficial for the woman's genes to have every one of the men who jizzed in her cum-receptacle to contribute some part of their genes to the baby.

No matter how much of the father's 50% are displaced, her genetic contribution to the child remains the same, and the health of the child is more adaptable to different environments,

If the woman was fucked by multiple men in a primitive environment, it must mean she's travelled a fair bit, as women would essentially be the property of men, resources that they kept in their homes or by their sides, and which they were possessive over, sexual needs belong at the bottom of the Maslow's hierarchy, after all, they are a primal need.

However, for a man, Microchimerism is a big problem, as that means less of his genes are going to be in the child, and he's going to be wasting his time on a child that's carrying the genes of other men, who are not unlikely to be his evolutionary competition, even if it's only in the field of gene propagation, and they are friends of even family outside of that, they are still rivals from a genocentric POV.

Even if it's an identical twin brother who sleeps with his wife, Hamilton's laws aren't violated by this, they do have some genetic differences, and while Hamilton does mean that you'd prefer that your brother mate and reproduce than not, it's only because he shares some part of your genes with you, which means that under Hamilton's laws, it's preferable for you, who has a guaranteed 100% of your own genes in you, to be the sole man to mate with your wife, than it is to tolerate your identical twin to do so and possibly taint your future child with any genes he has which are different to your own.

Yes, your identical brother will have some genes that are different, even if it's only the result of epigenetic factors influencing the way they are expressed, it also impacts heritability, so yes, even with him, you don't want him to poke his prick inside your chick, under Hamilton, you want him in other chicks, which aren't yours.
Of course, the opposite applies for you going after the women of other men, it's good for your genes to cuck other guys on the sly and get away with it, only in modern times under cultural marxism can you find a man who'd be willing to tolerate some other guy sleeping with his girl.

Anyways, back to Microchimerism, it's very similar in many ways to the male preference for recessive genes (men have a very unique fascination with the more easily overridden physical traits like blonde or redhead hair, blue or green eyes, etc.), and how that's a lesser preference in women partners.

Women know who their child's father is with much more certainty than the degree to which men know whether the child is theirs, and women benefit more from mating with men whose genes displace hers, while men lose out more genetically from such a thing on the part of their female partner.

If fact, more than these two facts, there's a lot of ways how women's genes are benefitted on the genetic level when it comes to how human inheritance works.

So how do males compete? The answer's obvious in many ways, I'm sure you know them intuitively, we just weren't able to say them out loud for a while, now thanks to the tranny athletes we can acknowledge some of them with female permission (lime we needed it), and we can also cover the rest with a bit more ease now that we are looking at wars breaking out across the world and it's no longer cool to have the GI Jane type "strong woman/warrior waif" fantasy (civil wars of discontent people vs government, international wars of bric vs nato, isreal being a country run by supervillains again, etc.).

It brings us to the advantages men have in the primitive conditions during which our blueprint for sexual behavior was written.

Men are bigger, tougher, stronger, faster, smarter, wiser, and more perceptive than women are, we are just all around better, and that is something we took advantage of for the sake of our genes.

We don't carry the child, we impregnate women, and support them while they incubate the child inside them, during this time, we can poke multiple other women, and indeed, whether you do tourney mating or pair bonding, men would pursue having a harem of multiple women, ideally from various genetic backgrounds, or very similar genetic backgrounds, as both could be used for comparison sake (looking at the genetic similarities and differences in the children from each mother to gauge his own contribution to the child), having sex with multiple women at once means that the children would be conceived by him at the same time, making such comparisons easier.

- Men can control and dominate women, we can make them property, keep them as slaves, or like we do livestock, in the most primitive world where men became what we are now, females are a useful resource in a game played by men against one another, rather than being players themselves, so we would just grab them and take them home, then lock them up like we did with our gold or goods of value before the banks existed, they are a commodity, especially if you are a father looking to arrange a marriage for his daughter in exchange for the other things which he desires (goods, services, status, etc.).

Yes, the old "caveman just bonk cavewomen on their heads and drag them back to the cave for a good struggle snuggle" assault, kidnapping, and (implied) rape joke is in fact rooted in some fact, and our genes are a testament to that, especially the ones which produce psychological traits that seem universal to each sex, and which differ between sexes.

- Men are depended upon by women, if women can win by withholding their sex, we can win by withholding our services and the goods that primitive women were generally unfit to acquire themselves, women would pitch in on the tasks men would do, yes, but in a supporting role, as they'd not be as blessed as men were where it came to slaying the mammoths. This means that Wherever men went, women need to have regular access to them, such as a home to which he'd be counted on to return, without a man, women are screwed. Women are evolutionarily programmed to crave commitment above all else, she'll die without it, and so would her kids, so women are willing to tolerate the shittiest of partners in exchange for the one thing they still give them, commitment, that they can be expected to return to the cave and protect/provide for them.

- Women are more capable of being sexually active with a wider arrangement of partners than men are, psychologically speaking, they can be attracted to more things, willing to try more, and become aroused by a wider array of stimuli, such as partners and activities. Women have less fetishes than men, because rather than hyperfocusing and fixating, women tend to be more broad and shallow with their desires.
The reason for this is also natural when you think of our origins; where men are needed to reproduce, as well as to protect and provide at optimal levels, men are only needed for the last two items on the list at OPTIMAL levels, almost anyone (or anyTHING) can offer some level of protection and provision for a woman and her children.
Yes, it might be much less than what a man could do, but it's certainly more than what she could get on her own.

The list of potential partners includes men of lesser quality (women settling, and even getting aroused by having an inferior partner who makes up for it with a far greater level of commitment), other women (hence why all women are naturally bisexual, and a woman claiming to be bi has little to no meaning beyond "I'm a woman" compared to the greater significance of a man who says he swings both ways), and even animals (like dogs, which happens to be women's number 1 animal where it comes to female zoophilia, and horses, another domesticated animal that early humans made great use of, though at a significantly later time than dogs). I bet even the sexual activity with plants or inanimate objects could even have some attachment to this origin, it's not like the process of adaptation is all that well targeted, it might be a byproduct of evolution being lazy and just going with whatever works, easier to say "women are able to cum from anything" than to say "women are able to cum from this long list of things that might offer some level of utility to her as compensation". I might also be another accident of evolution or human design that so many naturally occurring inanimate lifeforms and objects are able to be used as masturbatory tools by lonely women, and that there's a demand from women for phallic-shaped plants and objects, to which the free market naturally would supply for.

- Furthermore, if some other man comes along and kills her husband and male relatives, it's better for her genes is she would cut her losses and go with her conqueror than to resist him, and so in the sexual sense, women are natural traitors who would prefer to fuck the invaders than to fight them.

Invaders; like, say, the shitskins pouring in from africa and the middle east (west, central, and south asia)? remember, she might consciously think that we invited them in or whatever, but what matters here is not what her conscious mind thinks, but what her unconscious mind does, and that mind is motivated by her genes, which still perceive everything in the terms of our primitive origins, our primitive ancestors would never tolerate cohabitation with another tribe like this except in extreme or temporary circumstances.

Anyways, just thinking about sex, from a broader evolutionary perspective.

Or maybe God just made women whores, I remember some 4chan post about how God made women horny for the man energy, and that not getting bitches is because you give off bitch energy, which women weren't made to respond to, except in other bitches, especially as a mans of getting attention from a man whose male energy is great enough for more than one bitch to handle.