REFUGEES WELCOME


You might wonder what could be a link between feminism and recent BLM protests?

I am kidding, nobody could ever ponder this useless question, although, it has a definite answer that makes a lot of sense on its own.
The link is the prominent among white female "protesters" sexual theme of symbolic offering themselves to black males (in their slogans, ostensibly, but we are not interested in other aspects beyond speech, emotions, feelings).

This recent wave of "I only suck black" plaques rolling the streets of western cities rhymes with the almost identical "refugees welcome" wave, consisting of white female of reproductive age. This outrageous phenomenon is very interesting if you manage to overcome your outrage. Again I implore you to set emotions aside, and look into the biological core of human behaviours, look trough the mist of emotions, like a party that has no skin in this game.

This particular behaviour in its ubiquity among the certain social strata constitutes an ocean of evidence in support of my Genetic Hypothesis Of Feminism (http://ee.bestmx.net/feminism.pdf).
I proposed this hypothesis a few years ago, and it never lacked evidence (why would I propose it otherwise?), but in the light of "I Suck Black" and "Refugees Welcome" my hypothesis shines like a diamond.

The hypothesis itself is very simple: <bold>if there is a "rape gene" that causes violent sexual behaviour in males, this same gene is causing feminism in females.</bold>

It was proposed in order to explain the feminist push against the presumption of innocence in our justice system (if you excuse me using the word "justice" in 2020).
The evidence I used to mention is: "Title IX", "rape shield", "Bill C-51", "Duluth model", "meetoo", "believe victims" and the multitude of nameless anti-justice feminist initiatives across the West, you name them. I am sure you know dozens names of unjustly destroyed men and boys -- unfortunately for the common sense these are not "evidence" from the vantage point of the Organized Science, because they are not official "scientific papers". Is "Title IX" published in Nature? So you can not use it as your "source".

Well, we are going to connect the dots between "a gene" and "a legal initiative" -- you can realize it is quite a task. But fear not, it is not difficult at all, and far from boring.

You can see the leitmotif of all the named feministic "laws" and the ENTIRE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE RAPE RELATED LAWS is the abolition of the presumption of innocence in rape cases. Only recently feminists started talking openly against the presumption of innocence, but in retrospection you must see that the relevant laws are growing progressively less provable for the last century. So the evidence is solid: on one hand they openly declare X, on the other hand the X is being gradually constructed over time, and you can not accuse me of "seeing X", because the X is also openly declared.

The biggest practical effect of such development is the removal of the distinction between legal and illegal (in our case between normal sex and real violence) -- without the effing presumption we simply can not determine the guilt! The Presumption is not a manifestation of humanism, it is a manifestation of cold dry logic and common sense -- it allows us to distinguish between criminals and falsely accused. Without the Presumption all false accusations result in convictions! And it removes.... It removes the motivation to obey the law!!! Since you are going to jail anyway, why bother following laws?
I tell you why! Because some people are just good regardless of the formal laws! Some males don't rape females because they DO NOT WANT IT.
And these people are going to jail just as well as rapists!
Thus feminism created a strong deterrent for reproduction of peaceful males, which is at the same time a practical reduction of reproductive capacity of those males -- you can not reproduce in jail.

By treating peaceful males as rapists, feminism (a) reduces the reproduction capacity of peaceful males (b) deters them from reproduction (c) increases the reproduction capacity of rapists (by flooding the courts with false accusations, thus reducing their capacity to prosecute rapists). Who profits?! The principal profiteer here... No, not j-lawyers, lawyers are kindergarteners by comparison. The Principal profiteer is any gene specific to rapists. Pay attention, this statement does not depend on the existence of a "rape gene": any gene that is prevalent in the population of rapists automatically receives profit from mistreatment of non-rapists in such a manner that increases the relative reproductive capacity of rapists (in our society as the limiting environment). This is a MATHEMATICAL FACT, not a moral judgement.

So, if a rape gene exists, then feminists are SELECTING FOR IT, through social and political mechanisms. And this is an observable fact since we clearly observe the link between feminism and the legal initiatives listed above.


Ronald A. Fisher, back in 1930, discovered the positive feedback loop from a sexually selected trait to a preference for this trait in the selecting sex, quote:
"
If instead of regarding the existence of
sexual preference as a basic fact to be established only by direct observation, we consider that the tastes of
organisms ... be regarded as the products of evolutionary change, governed by the relative advantage which
such tastes may confer. Whenever appreciable differences exist in a species ... there will be a tendency to
select also those individuals of the opposite sex which most clearly discriminate the difference to be observed,
and which most decidedly prefer the more advantageous type. 
...
The two characteristics affected by such a process, namely ornamental development in the male, and sexual preference
for such development in the female, must thus advance together.
"
(The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, pages 159..160)

I simplified his conclusion in the following thought experiment.
Suppose there are two competing variants of a gene in a peacock population:
one encodes a blue tail and another encodes a red tail. The blue one also encodes adoration of
the colour blue. However slight this adoration is, as long as it is greater than zero, the blue tail variant
is bound to win the competition. If we have a gene (or more likely a polygenic complex) that encodes
a sexually selectable feature in the selected sex, it is obligated to encode or cause in the selecting sex
some degree of selective preference in favor of the encoded feature (otherwise it will be dominated by
an alternative version that does the job).


We can now ask could sexual violence in males be sexually selected for by females?
It is not a colour, nor a tail length, it is a complex behavioural pattern -- how could we encode THE RECOGNITION of this trait?
And the recognition requires the demonstration and the observation!
The trait must be demonstrated to a female BEFORE copulation, then observed and recognized... and it is not a tail that is always with you and always outside.
And what massive cognitive machinery we must encode for the female's brain in order to distinguish this trait from its absence and fakes?!

In fact this particular selective behaviour is practically much simpler than preference for colours and tails, we could encode it with a single EMOTION, without a trigger, and without the recognition -- this selection always happens in circumstances that allow females to select by making NO DECISION -- because the outcome of rape is the copulation, and it is forceful by definition! Our female by definition selects for a male that makes his decision to copulate AGAINST HER DECISION. And since we already know his decision namely "to copulate" then her decision follows unambiguously "NOT TO copulate". With this forever fixed non-decision, a female could select for rapists as good as she exposes herself on the sexual market.
 
Well, how good is she exposed on the sexual market? Apparently attention seeking is natural for females and must be supported by very many genes that are out of the scope, but it is equally obvious that attention seeking exaggerated among feminists like peacock tails on peacocks. Yes, yes! The "REFUGEES WELCOME", at last!
It is obvious that this slogan belongs to a sub-population which considered feminism mandatory for its members, so we are not loosing the link to feminism here.
But in all other specifically feministic behaviours you can hardly see anything else besides pure attention seeking, e.g. "slut walk".

Do you see the beauty of the strategy? <bold>ATTRACT MALES' ATTENTION AND DISMISS EVERYONE</bold>
In a pre-historic society this algorithm is absolutely doomed to end with: "until you are raped".

We have both parts of this strategy present in feminism: seek all attention on Earth and be indiscriminately dismissive.
But there is more! They work together synergetically. If a female bonds with a male she dramatically refuses her exposure on the sexual market.
Thus a feminist who are refusing to bond, not only performs the second part of the strategy, but at the same time increases her exposure on the market (relative to bonding females) i.e. performs both parts of the first part of the strategy too, by simply "following her heart".

But there is more synergy! It is difficult to unsee that "I suck black" is meant to be AN INSULT to white males. Thus this symbolic offer, which we perceive as the first part of the strategy, attention seeking, is at the same time a manifestation of the second part, which is indiscriminate dismissal.

ALL PIECES OF THE PUZZLE FIT LIKE A CHARM!

And all this beauty is encoded and driven by A SINGLE EMOTION: the disgust to sexual intercourse.
If our hypothetical rape gene is capable of doing the simplest possible job for a gene -- cause some emotion -- in our case make a woman disgusted by sexual intercourse, the entire strategy described above starts to unfold.

And to complete the full circle back to feminism you only need to make one assumption: feminists believe what they preach.
With this "unlikely" assumption you nail the entire puzzle to the wall: Feminism is a social movement based on pseudo-logical rationalization of an individual's attitude caused by a strong inherited emotion, and the end result of this social motion as well as the individual attitude that caused it promotes the gene that caused the attitude. (And it all is possible because in males this gene causes sexual violence.)


P.S.

I told you it is not boring! So I need to add some mandatory defence for the scientific validity of the reasoning above. It somewhat depends on the sustainability of the reproduction by rape strategy, when it is supported only by a single sexual selection pattern, namely the universal dismissal of potential partners.
This contraption seems weak at first glance, but it is a strategy that excludes erroneous copulations.
While the cost of erroneous copulation outweighs the cost of erroneous failure to copulate.
The cost of erroneous failure to copulate is the cost of continuing the same strategy for some time determined by the abundance of males.
The cost of erroneous copulation is pregnancy and raising a whole child that does not contain the desired allele, this cost could be as high as half of all female’s reproductive resources in her lifetime, depending of how many children she could potentially raise to adulthood.
The disparity of the cost is so great that it is unlikely to make so many false negatives during a lifespan to outweigh a single false positive.
Still this strategy may end in zero copulations, but in historical perspective this outcome appears extremely unlikely -- how many virgins do you know?