The difficulty we have as individuals is in divining specific differences within that 0.1%, for instance whether AWALT or NAWALT is true, both must fit in that 0.1%, and still leave room for EVERYTHING else that differentiates one human being for another.
If you are having difficulty with this, consider that fact that Human and Chimp DNA is 95% the same, the other 5% is responsible for everything.
Human beings also hate the idea that as individuals the concept of individuality and free will is basically moot… I have been separated from one of my kids since it was in nappies (I a deliberately avoiding stating the sex or anything else) and now the skank ho ex is exasperated because the kid fucking hates cream, eats the chocolate from inside bourbons and leaves the biscuit itself, and several other things, all of which are IDENTICAL to me as a child…
The brain is largely along for the ride, and “selling” DNA and environmental predispositions as self made choices, which gets interesting when you look at people with addictive personalities, habitual thieves, habitually violent people, habitual liars, and just for the feminist skank ho’s, habitual sex offenders….
When I was a child it was thought that being homosexual or being left handed was learned behaviour, and you could be trained out of it, now we go the other way, to the other extreme, lying to the police about being raped is a hormonal problem, and the liar is both a victim and sufferer…
I find this with the Internet Dating game, an appalling number of people claim to want to find Mr Right, while studiously ignoring the fact that Mr Right would find anyone who trashed a marriage because as it says on your profile you “needed your own space” utterly fucking appalling, disgusting and degenerate… so anyone who accepts you is by definition anything BUT that which you claim to seek.
Lots of MRA guys glibly dismiss this as the wimminz rationalisation hamster driving the wheel at 900 RPM, and in doing so they utterly miss a fundamental truth about all human beings, and wimminz and skank ho’s too.
That it is the tiniest possible variations in incredibly minor aspects of each individual that make the difference between the wonderful person and the hateful person, and that most of these tiny variations are largely programmed in by DNA, in conjunction with programming during the formative first five years of life.
Should you accept the evidence of your eyes and ears and mind and all that is around you, and accept this hypothesis as a solid working hypothesis, that choice is largely illusory, and far less extensive or long lasting that we like to think, then prepare yourself for some very rough and unpleasant truths indeed.
It means that your skank ho ex did not choose to be that way, she was made that way, which means hating her is as pointless as hating the rain for making you wet… it also means trying to change her is as pointless as trying to make the rain give you a sun tan…
Think about that.
She perhaps has a choice of WHO to fuck over, but she simply is not a nice person, she has to fuck SOMEONE over, leopards and spots, the cliches are there for a reason.
If she is made this way, then every single strategy that attempts to deal with her nature is doomed to fail, it’s like giving counselling to a pig.
If she is made this way, then a lot of other things also suddenly have, of necessity, to contain more than a grain of truth, so along with observable differences between wimminz and men, we have observable differences between races, we have observable differences between nations, we have observable differences between ages, we even have observable difference between people with different belief systems and diets.
AND NONE OF THESE DIFFERENCES ARE ELECTIVE… you can’t change any living individual into anything but what they are and what they were born.
You see where this is going?
Were about three logical and inevitable progressions away from saying, “Hey, Hitler was right!” except maybe he got the bit about Jews wrong, he should have eradicated all the lawyers instead… but you start to get into really cloudy water then, because Hitler didn’t hate the jews, sure, he signed the policy, but it wasn’t his idea, and it didn’t focus on the jews, it hated all non caucasians equally, and he did hate lawyers.
Which is exactly what everyone wants, you’ve just been Godwin’d, since these deductions lead to answers that have something in common with some stuff the Nazis did, these deductions are evil and wrong.
Science doesn’t work like that, just ask the german rocket scientists that sent Aldrin to the moon, or the guys who designed the aerodynamics of the ME109, or the guys who designed the Autobahns, or hell, ask IBM, who supplied enough equipment and expertise to the Nazi party.
There was a famous quote interview with a serial killer, he was asked why he stabbed his 5th victim, his answer “I didn’t have a hammer” because he killed the rest with a hammer see…
The point is, he was going to kill, no matter what, the method and tools used are irrelevant to the killer, the killing is the thing.
NOT supplying tooling to make mini guns to crazed despots doesn’t make them nice people, or reduce the number of people they kill, Robert Mugabe has hardly fired a bullet in anger, yet his economic policies do quite nicely what Stalin did with the 9mm pistol round… lack of Intel i7 CPU’s has not transformed North Korea into a workers paradise.
This is what happens when you ignore the facts and science and start acting and making policy on beliefs and wishes.
Giving wimminz the vote has ALWAYS been the death of the society that does it.
Fiat currencies have ALWAYS been the death of economies that allowed it.
and these things happen because the devil is always in the tiny details, and everyone simply ignores all the tiny details as being far too tiny to be of any importance, and yet it is always the tiny details that not merely make a difference, but actually define the greater whole and determine its nature.
a tiny detail like a right to a fair and public trial makes the difference between Stalin and Pol Pot and Kim Jung and dubya and Obama and Blair and so on, and leaders who nobody knows the names of in places like Switzerland and Belgium and France and Norway.
it is always, always, always, in the tiny details that everything in life is decided.
it is in the tiny details that your choice of a mate should be decided, is this just a skank ho to fuck and forget, or is it just possibly a decent woman, and one of those tiny details may well be what will the laws be in your country of residence in five years time?
In the UK we introduced a little know law that changed the age of legal consent to have sex from 16 to 18… not many people know about it, they think that anyone who is 16 or over can consent to have sex with anyone else who is 16 or over.
But the age of consent is 18, if there is ANY kind of previous relationship between the two people, like a Former pupil, who left school at 16 and THEN had sex with their old teacher, or a former girlfriends daughter, who after you split up with the mother decides to have sex with you, or even your mates slightly younger sister, who you were once asked to “babysit” a couple of years ago.
All these and far more circumstances mean that the person below 18 cannot legally give consent, so it is statutory rape, no defence possible, and the tiny tiny tiny detail that you want to watch here is the one about “any kind of previous relationship” meaning anything where there was any kind of power differential at all…
… which to the wimminz and niggerz, means, or soon will, any man anywhere, because in the patriarchy being a man means you have power over the wimminz, so as soon as you speak to them, to chat them up, you are forming that power differential relationship, so then when you have sex, even if they instigate it, you are guilty of statutory rape.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I found out about this law when the police tried to nail me with it, unfortunately for the feminazi misandric skank ho police officer, the chick in question was 18 before the law came into force… that was the first I fucking heard of it, but the cunts would have charged me with statutory rape even though the girl herself stated she was 17 when we met and first fucked, in a country where the age of consent is alleged to be 16… and the cunts have moved along some since then and refined their technique and pushed the wedge in further to enlarge the definition of “any relationship” and “power disparity” as part of an ongoing process.
You’d better not fuck anyone less than 18, no matter what….. tiny tiny tiny details, playing the percentages, the tiny tiny ones that all hide in that 0.1%