The Master Class
Sympatric Mating Strategies by Androtype

This essay serves as a mechanistic overview of intra-group gene war – a classist conflict that is as ubiquitous, consequential, and inevitable as inter-group gene war, i.e. religious competition.

There exists a group of “rogue” and “based” academics and researchers, with a significant internet presence, who ascribes the societal ills of the 21st century as symptoms of ecological conditions which are different than those of humanity’s evolutionary history. The proponents of this argument hold that observations such as the high rates of infidelity, divorce, obesity, sexual deviance, mental illness, gamer a-sociality, and so on, are explained by the evolutionary mismatch theory. In turn, the argument is used to legitimize the “RETVRN” internet meme, which effectively promotes a return to a bygone era of so-called traditionalism.

This essay demonstrates that those observations are instead a natural result of the equilibrium in divergent androtypes who sexually compete with respective sympatric mating strategies. Not only is the evolutionary mismatch theory unnecessary to invoke, this essay absolutely debunks its applicability in this context. As we shall see, both the promotion of traditionalism and the “rogue intellectual” movement are mutually reinforcing components of a kleptogamous mating strategy.

Defining the Androtypes

To define the term “androtype”, let us first return to our early nomadic hunter-gatherer history with the Fit Bastard Theory (FBT). The default genetic strata of a homogenous group is as follows: culture creators as the elite and laborers as its commoners. In large modern populations, they are, ceteris paribus, genetically related to each other in that the commoners are the downwardly mobile younger relatives of the elites or those relatives’ downwardly-mobile descendants. That the order of birth would predict downward mobility is explained by:

  • the increase in mutational load of the male germline with the passage of time[12];
  • the fact that pregnancies are asynchronous;
  • the deduction that children born to older parents can only be more genetically distant to their parents relative to their older siblings;
  • the fact that genetic similarity predicts the fidelity of intergenerational information transmission (IIT)*.

* Genetic similarity implies brain similarity implies cognitive similarity implies receptivity and propensity for similar ideas implies the inheritance[17, 18, 19] of high-fitness cultural practices implies a greater evolutionary return on parental investment (especially in the form of IIT).

provided the fertility differential persists, and people with a religious allegiance mate mainly with people like themselves, the religiosity gene will eventually predominate despite a high rate of defection. This is an example of ‘cultural hitch-hiking’, whereby a gene spreads because it is able to hitch a ride with a high-fitness cultural practice.

Rowthorn (2012)

Thus, it should come to no surprise that those historic families who practised primogeniture attained genosupremacy at one point, e.g. the old European Nobility. Similarly, that female sexual preference would evolve to be upwardly biased[20] is to be expected.

As a social antler, ideology exists to promote the genetic interests of its creator by way of sexual access. By virtue of the fact that rules are derived from ideology, rules are themselves an extension of the social antler. How do rules promote the genetic interests of their creator(s)?

The practical consequence of rules is coalitional behavior (positive ethnocentrism). The more positively ethnocentric a group is, the greater its ability to organize, cooperate, and direct its resources to the advantage of the group. For example, property law protects the evolutionary interest of the group from parasitism and public works like roads facilitate commerce.

[…]

By virtue of the fact that the underclass has the least in common with the elite genetically, the social antler of the elite has the least benefit to its [long-term genetic replication]. In other words, the pro-social behavior of the underclass results in little to no evolutionary payoff. For reference, see [ Regime (2022a) ].

The pro-social behavior of the underclass neither grants it sexual access, nor does it result in more copies of their genes through their elite relatives since they are so genetically distant. This effect is particularly pronounced with high population size. As such, there is effectively no evolutionary basis for the underclass to engage in pro-social behavior in a large population. This explains why the underclass comprises the bulk of the prison population. Moreover, the historical use of the death penalty can be understood as a hard limit on genetic diversity – a systematic selection against mutation.

Regime (2024a)

Thus, in a population group where males monopolize females, those who are more genetically diverse have the least to lose and the most to gain by violating cultural norms, especially those related to female sexual access, such as rape and adultery.

We begin with a hypothetical ancestor population of nomadic (and thus isolated) hunter-gatherers; their mating system is synchronous polygyny (one man with many women at the same time). Our population begins with a size of 20 to 50 people consisting of families, extended families, and perhaps distantly related families. Due to the high risk of homozygosity, behaviors which maximize genetic distance in the offspring are strongly selected for (see Fit Bastard theory). Unlike ants, we do not have the luxury of outbreeding in a swarm-like manner and unlike monkeys we do not have the luxury of female dispersal; such are the conditions simulated by the [ Genes & Mating Systems Simulator (GMSS) ]. Under these circumstances, the next best option for maximizing genetic diversity is adultery.

Regime (2023a)

In this tiny ancestral population, 2 countervailing selection pressures find themselves in conflict. Firstly, there is the need to minimize homozygosity and in-breeding depression in both males in females.[2] Simultaneously, there is also a male-specific need to secure sexual access and to ensure their evolutionary return on parental investment (i.e. paternal certainty)[1] by way of mate-guarding.

From the ancestral male perspective, mate-guarding helps ensure that more copies of the father’s genes are copied by reducing the likelihood of cuckoldry. However, a small population ensures that if cuckoldry should occur that it would be done by a genetically related male and this fact results in a lower evolutionary cost to the male compared to being cuckolded by a genetically distant male.[5] In this scenario, the consequence of adultery is that a genetically related male produces offspring who is less homozygous than those which would have been made between the female and the cuckold.[11] Counter-intuitively, this is the best evolutionary outcome, even for the cuckold because the evolutionary payoff of copying some genes through fitter, more reproductive relatives is greater than that of copying all genes through unfit, less reproductive, in-bred offspring. Therefore, kin selection limits the effectiveness of male mate-guarding in a small homozygosity-prone population. Given that (ancestral) elite males are the most homozygous[8], the evolutionary payoff of this kin selection is greatest among them. Furthermore, this suggests the promiscuous female conditions which are necessary for the reliable achievement of true inter-generational upward mobility; it is noteworthy that, even here, equality remains elusive.

From the ancestral female perspective, there is no anxiety related to sexual access (as the choosers of males) or maternal certainty. As such, the female’s remaining concerns are the acquisition of the resources of an elite male and the genetic material of lower-ranked, genetically distant, and thus less in-bred commoners[11]. The successful acquisition of these means that the female’s offspring is fitter and has access to the inbred cuckold’s resources.

The GMSS-generated data demonstrates that the effect size of adultery on allele frequency is inversely related to population size.[8] In other words, as population size increases, adultery’s ability to lessen homozygosity declines, given that population size itself reduces the likelihood of in-breeding[2] to such an overwhelming degree that the statistical significance of adultery on incidences of homozygosity approaches 0. In turn, the evolutionary payoff of the elite male’s cuckoldry declines. As such, there exists an upper threshold in population size where the evolutionary payoff of this kin selection is outweighed by that of mate-guarding, at which point the limiting factor on the evolution of effective mate-guarding is removed, thereby selecting against cuckoldry.

From there, the prediction naturally follows that increases in population size will coincide with more successful monopolization of females and thus a greater evolutionary payoff to invest in and nurture offspring. This is corroborated by:

  • the shift to small animal exploitation at the root of Paleolithic population growth pulses[9] and the subsequent increase in generational overlap which enhanced “the transfer of information between generations as grandparents helped to educate and enculturate the younger generation” [10];
  • the agriculture-caused population increase of the Neolithic[3] and the subsequent transition to serial monogamy[4];
  • the monogamy-linked loss** of penile spines[38] and bone[39], and its phenotypic co-occurrence with the limitation of brain regions whose loss of function results in larger brains[38].

** Penile spine / spikes and the baculum (bone) are an adaptation to female promiscuity. The former scoops out the semen of a sexual competitor and the latter assists in erection maintenance required for the prolonged coitus necessary to maximize the scooping out of semen. The loss of these adaptations and the co-occurrence of increased brain size supports the coincidence of population size, female monopolization, and the nurture of offspring.

In turn, the very monopolization of females and the enforcement of cultural norms themselves entail the credible threat of violence to deter the genetically diverse underclass from engaging in rape (which, in the absence of that threat, is its most evolutionarily beneficial course of action). As such, the increasingly violent requirement of territorial enforcement over females entails the selection of martial qualities.

Androtype: a male type

At this stage of human evolution, a new androtype emerges which sexually outcompetes its competitors – the very martial male at the root of statecraft.

The Martial Androtype

With the emergence of the martial androtype comes a reversal of social mobility in line with large modern populations. Here, genetic relatedness, rather than distance, is favored by female sexual preference (thereby retaining local adaptations, such as the fidelity of inter-generational information transfer). Moreover, it would have previously made evolutionary sense for parental enthusiasm, investment, and nurture to favor the youngest most genetically distant offspring, whereas the opposite is now the case due to the mutation-linked positive correlation between disease and paternal age[13] – hence, the emergence of primogeniture and similarly-intended customs.

As with all populations groups, culture is the cohesive force that enables coalitional behavior with the promotion of ethnocentrism. For example, the very concept of a cultural expectation implies that some things are due to the collective community by its individual members. Philology corroborates the moral indebtedness model:

[Translation by Carol Diethe] Have these genealogists of morality up to now ever remotely dreamt that, for example, the main moral concept ‘Schuld’ (‘guilt’) descends from the very material concept of ‘Schulden’ (‘debts’)?

Nietzsche (2006)

Thus, the essential elite-commoner structure of culture-creators and laborers is retained within the martial population. Due to its existential nature, the most societally crucial form of labor is the indispensable use of state force, and this exceptional reliance on warriors by the elite incentivizes culture-creation to dignify warriors as the “highest among commoners”, in a population whose size is sufficiently large to allow for labor specialization, i.e. when military service is no longer a universal male requirement.

There are numerous historical examples of explicitly-defined socioeconomic strata known as the “Warrior Class” or some version thereof. Due to the Warrior Class’ cultural backing, they are the most sexually desired commoner males. In turn, the sexual access granted to them incentivizes the warriors to uphold the hierarchy and culture of the martial elite (the Master Class). Together, their shared genetic interests form the basis of a potentially mutualistic relationship.

The greater a culture’s sophistication, the greater its effectiveness in cohering males towards coalitional behavior, and the latter entails the respect and subordination of the Warrior Class to the Master Class. Kordsmeyer et al. (2018) demonstrates that the dominance perception of other males is what predicts sexual access, whereas females’ assessment of male physical attractiveness does not. Given that the formidability of the social antler – i.e. physical prowess and contributions of an artistic, scientific, or technological nature – predicts victory in male-male competition, less formidable males would be more subordinate and deferent to the expected victors which would make the latter the beneficiary of female sexual preference. This selects in favor of epimemetic complexity and, by proxy, traits which entail it, e.g. intelligence.

Choose Your Future
Choose Your Future

In a large population, there are 2 facts which ensure that when the gate of sexual access opens to one male, it closes to all other males:

  1. Females only cheat upward in mate value;[25]
  2. The gate only opens to the best possible male;[20]
  3. Therefore, there are no sexual options whose mate value offsets the risks associated with adultery.

Inherently, genetic superiority is the de facto mate-guarding strategy of the victor of male-male competition. Thus, it is in his genetic interest to promote it. Conversely, it is in the loser’s genetic interest to restrict it and, if a cultural system of sexual egalitarianism were to grant him a female, to adopt alternative strategies for mate-guarding that do not rely on direct competition. These strategies may include social-cultural practices aimed at controlling or limiting the autonomy of the female, such as imposing physical or psychological restrictions on her behavior, movement, or appearance (e.g. abrahamism).

Based on this, we derive the Fun Warrior Hypothesis (FWH):

  • the victors of male-male competition hold more libertine (fun) attitudes with regards to female sexuality, e.g. nudity, female-female adventures (not to be confused with polygyny), etc.;
  • funness is a costly trait which presents females with opportunities for adultery and only the victors of male-male competition can afford the cost;
  • females evolve to regard male sexual libertinism as a signal of genetic quality akin to the tail of a peacock,[26] i.e. funness becomes a sexual ornament;
  • through correlational sexual selection, martial traits and funness will increasingly co-occur;
  • funness creates opportunities for female-female adventures and, in turn, the fitness benefits of alloparenting[28] which might, in part, explain the high incidence of female sexual fluidity[27, 28] and the high male openness to female sexual exploration[29];
  • if the proposed origin of female sexual fluidity is correct, then we should expect that females from societies with greater funness have a higher incidence of fluidity compared to females from restrictive societies, due to the relative absence of female pair-bonding opportunities in the latter’s evolutionary histories;
  • in an egalitarian system which permits non-martial sexual losers to reproduce, that their evolutionary trajectory will diverge along the trait funness, such that they would instead be associated with boredom, unpleasantness, and the selection for extreme jealousy (the motivator of radical mate-guarding);
  • due to selected jealousy, anti-competitive mate-guarding strategies, in turn, would likely also guard against female pair-bonding by way of culturally restrictive attitudes on female sexual adventurism and thus forego the fitness advantage of alloparenting, e.g. the wives of muslim males live apart in different houses and do not partake in each other’s mating activities (which might seem like a bizarre arrangement for the fun martial male).

Note: In addition to Kuhle et al. (2013)’s proposed evolutionary origins of alloparenting by way of female pair-bonds, FWH suggests that the fitness benefits of alloparenting upon offspring, in themselves, favor the selection of female sexual fluidity, even without paternal absence.

The losers of male-male competition, who comprise neither the Master Class nor the Warrior Class, are a sexually rejected genetic underclass on the genocidal chopping block of female sexual preference. Among these oppressed victims of female undesire, there are only 2 possible evolutionary outcomes (in the absence of rape):

  • gene death, i.e. suicide or involuntary celibacy (incels),
  • kleptogamy, i.e. deceiving females to gain sexual access

This deceptive requirement for the acquisition of females selects for kleptic qualities in the male underclass. Within this genetic underclass, another androtype emerges: the non-martial kleptic male.

The Kleptic Androtype

To be perfectly clear: what follows is evolutionary evidence for the Promethean Transmission thesis.

The only way to acquire others’ resources without consent is theft. Prior to the emergence of the martial androtype’s mate-guarding, i.e. the martial patriarchy, members of the underclass could steal female sexual access (i.e. commit rape) more reliably. Afterwards, the underclass could no longer engage in such overtly aggressive tactics without significant personal risks. Thus, it was left with the only other remaining option: the passive-aggression of covert rape, i.e. obtaining a female’s uninformed consent for sexual access by fraudulent means. Indeed, kleptogamists are covert rapists.

In the context of kleptogamy, there are 2 possible strategies:

  1. Pseudo-Dominance. A form of social mimicry where undesirable males camouflage themselves with signals, behaviors, or appearances of the Master Class so as to fool females in their evaluation of a male’s rank within the social dominance hierarchy. Uninformed sexual consent is obtained when a female overestimates a male’s genetic quality due to the male’s fraudulent self-misrepresentation. Pseudo-dominance mirrors the culture creation of the Master Class, but in reverse. With the inversion of martial ideals (i.e. slave morality, “new era where 1st finish last & last finish 1st“), kleptic culture wins the favor of sneaker males (see point 2) by moralizing them[23] and promoting their sexual access[23]. For reference, see The Neuroscience of REM.
  2. Opportunism. A form of sneaky mating where undesirable males ingratiate themselves among females, and thus retain access to them, by signaling harmlessness (effectively bypassing the so-called “sh*t test“). The purpose of this prolonged or recurring female access is to maximize the likelihood that a sexual vulnerability in a female may present itself for the sneaker male to take advantage of. To ingratiate themselves among females, sneaker males existentially depend on kleptic culture. As such, their genetic dependence on pseudo-dominant males makes them highly susceptible to egalitarian ideologies and messianic gospels and figures, i.e. a savior who appears with the good news of a new era where the last (the outcast) shall be first and the first (the martial male) shall be last, e.g. proto-jewish cults, abrahamism, liberalism, Marxism, National Socialism***, Trumpism, etc.

*** While the promise of national socialism was equally messianic, it replaced the martial male with jews as the target of ressentiment. This ideological inconsistency with evolutionary science explains the symbolic incoherence of nazi propaganda where it identifies the Indo-European with symbols which connote cyclical time[34] (i.e. new eras, messianism, Swastika, Sonnenrad, Iron cross). To the contrary, it is in the evolutionary interest of the martial androtype to seek permanence and oppose cyclicalism – a will which has been culturally expressed throughout Indo-European history, e.g. for Zeus / Jupiter to eternally subjugate the Titans whose messianic savior, Kronos / Saturn, is a consumer of eras:

The Latin designation ‘Saturnus’ on the other hand is due to the fact that he is ‘saturated’ or ‘satiated with years’ (anni); the fable is that he was in the habit of devouring his sons–meaning that Time devours the ages and gorges himself insatiably with the years that are past.

Nonnus (5th AD)

The Hebrew adjective Sabea, שָׂבֵעַ, […] means “sated,” “satisfied,” and “surfeited.” Here we begin to gain a picture of Saturn [sheba, שֶׁבַע, root of Shabbat => Sāturni diēs => Saturday], the consuming god, in a manner, consuming the creation of the preceding Elohim (Gods) and making himself sated by it. The Jewish God as a terminus.

Brahmin (2020)

Due to the memetic output required for the successful execution of pseudo-dominance, only the most intelligent kleptic males would be suitable for this strategy. Therefore, all other kleptic males must default to sexual opportunism. In both cases, their mating objective consists of sexually supplanting the martial androtype and, more generally, the eldest male siblings (who are more likely to retain martial qualities due to lower genetic diversity). As such, their shared genetic interests potentiate a mutualistic relationship which parallels the mutualism of the Master and Warrior classes, where pseudo-dominant males are the culture-creators of opportunists while opportunists are the passive-aggressive enforcers of kleptic culture.

Here, a 2nd patriarchy emerges – the kleptic patriarchy. Aside from its kleptogamous nature, it further differs from the martial patriarchy in its mate-guarding mechanism in that, rather than encouraging sexual competition and thus ensuring the sexual victory of the martial androtype, it instead restricts competition by predating on female anxiety with the gaslighting tactic of providing a safe haven from the stress-inducing “evil” of the host nation. In other words, the creation and relief of female anxiety is a propagandistic, fraudulent, and predatory method of gathering brides and isolating them in an ideological (if not geographical) ghetto that is impervious to the mating call of martial culture.

The reasons as to why females are susceptible to being sexually victimized with the prospect of anxiety relief is two-fold:

  1. in response to the same stimuli, females are prone to higher levels of acute anxiety compared to men[24] and this suggests a greater female demand for immediate relief;
  2. acute anxiety not only has an enhancing effect on sexual arousal, but it is also positively affected by sexual arousal which can provide immediate short-term relief.[24]

The stress response differential may be due to evolutionary factors related to the safety and security provided by the martial androtype and the likelihood of romantic commitment in response to sexual access. Pseudo-dominance exploits this female predisposition.

Using comparative gender analysis, the Y-Dominance effect demonstrates that the difference between the female memetic footprint and the male social antler is entirely due to the Y chromosome (genetically and epigenetically).[22] By extension, it logically follows that differences between types of social antlers are similarly Y-linked. Thus, when a kleptic male produces offspring with a female, the inherited Y chromosome becomes a molecular inquiline, i.e. it exists among an autosomal host but remains ultimately alien to the genome.

As it relates to mating strategy, the female memetic footprint consists of what is colloquially referred to as “pick-me-ism” – a type of signaling which entails positively differentiating oneself from others (i.e. “I’m not like the others”). Given that males have the same autosomal DNA as their female relatives, they retain the ability to signal as such and the opportunist’s attempt to associate himself with harmlessness is one such example. Due to the ideals of martial culture, such feminine signaling is unlikely to be used in adult martial males. However, it is perfectly congruent with kleptic culture, albeit pseudo-dominants are also unlikely to resort to pick-me-ism, given that they rely on sexual camouflage to pass on their genes (i.e. they must maintain the illusion of being part of the Master Class). Thus, pick-me-ism is the refuge of the opportunist.

Since pseudo-dominants rarely ever include more than one female, the victim of covert rape, in their ideological ghetto, they are generally unable to form male coalitions. As such, there is no cultural system in place to cohere a coalition and this leaves no assurance that the offspring will imbibe the father’s pseudo-dominance. In fact, the father is unlikely to teach pseudo-dominance to the male offspring, due to the incentive to preserve crypsis, i.e. to teach pseudo-dominance exoterically would reveal the father as a fraud and covert rapist. In the absence of a coalition, the culture creation of the pseudo-dominant male defaults to personal reputation management; this might partly explain the incidence of narcissistic and anti-social tendencies (the latter of which serves to raise the social cost of any insinuation which would result in narcissistic injury).

Examples of individual pseudo-dominance in relation to females:

  • “I am a god among mortals”;
  • cheap displays of lavishness or sophistication;
  • “It’s DOCTOR John Doe!”;
  • Displays of false altruism;
  • “You are lucky to have me”;
  • Takes credit for the successes of others;
  • Takes no responsibility for wrong-doings;
  • is an eternal victim;
  • becomes overtly or covertly aggressive when reputation is undermined (physical abuse or emotional blackmail).

If, however, the hurdle of multi-female inclusion were to be overcome and males were to form an ideological ghetto, it would lead to group pseudo-dominance:

  • an esoteric kleptic culture which coheres the ghetto;
  • the covert generational transmission of pseudo-dominance;
  • isolated breeding;
  • in-group preference and pro-sociality;
  • out-group hostility and anti-sociality (towards the host nation);
  • the formation of a kleptic subgroup of the host nation.

In relation to opportunists, group pseudo-dominance mirrors the relationship between individual pseudo-dominance and females:

  • “we have a special relationship with god”;
  • cheap displays of intellectualism;
  • “we are a model for the world”;
  • “we are your greatest ally”;
  • “the world needs us”;
  • “wherever we go, prosperity follows”;
  • “if you believe we ever did anything wrong, you’re a bigoted conspiracy theorist”;
  • “no one has suffered like we have”;
  • becomes overtly or covertly aggressive when reputation is undermined (violence or blackmail****).

**** Blackmail can manifest in an overt form where the overt threat of propagating kompromat is made, or it can manifest in a covert form where a word is weaponized to deter people with anti-parasitic attitudes from undermining the reputation of the pseudo-dominant group.

Here, we enter the uncommon human case of autoparasitism which is the very 1st stage of human social parasitism (HSP).[7] In essence, a human autoparasite reaps the benefits of a martial society without having paid the evolutionary tax of producing martial males because the martial competition strategy, which is honest and non-kleptic, entails that only the minority of best males can win which means that the risk of failure is high, especially in the absence of martial traits. Among humans, there are only a handful of cases which qualify as autoparasitism (e.g. Cosa Nostra / ‘Ndrangheta, nomadic ethno-religious groups) and only one known case of alloparasitism which shall not be named (in compliance with hate speech laws).

Whether we look at individual or group pseudo-dominance, the necessary complicity of its culture creation in the pervasive and normalized act of covert rape defines kleptic culture as an inherent rape culture. Given that anxiety and resentment is the emotional driver of kleptogamy, neuroticism is necessarily under selection in kleptic males and neuroticism is linked with lack of empathy[35]. This is corroborated by the anxiety relief of kleptic culture[40] and that low empathy is a facilitator of covert rape and other forms of female exploitation, suggesting that it may not only be co-selected along neuroticism, but that kleptic culture provides an umbrella under which sexual deviance can be expressed; otherwise, secrecy would be required and this predisposes the deviant to being found out.

As such, sexual deviants require kleptic culture to engage in sexually perverted acts. Given that some sexual perversions are unreproductive, kleptic culture permits deviants to end their genetic line, whereas under martial culture, societal pressures would have forced them to pass on their genes through normative reproductive lifestyles. However, sexual perversions like pedophilia are not necessarily unreproductive and it is entirely possible for a kleptic culture to protect pedophiles, e.g. by stopping the stigma:

The primary label for people who are sexually attracted to children (“pedophile”) is conflated with sexual offending behavior and tainted with stigma. […] Our results allow deeper insight into reasons for adopting certain labels over others, as well as difficulties of finding a non-stigmatizing label.

Jahnke (2022)

Another example is the (kleptic) woke liberal appeal to human rights, tolerance, and support for pedophiles:

Whether you’re a young MAP who’s just learning about your sexuality or an experienced MAP-rights advocate, we’re glad to have you in our community! We provide a safe, supportive environment for MAPs and allies by prioritising privacy, staff transparency, and democracy.

We are inclusive of MAPs who hold a variety of beliefs on sensitive topics and may need a place to discuss or receive support. We understand that it’s not our place to judge you for your thoughts.

Open MAP Community

The martial (normative) family structure is the result of selection against all other kinds of structures. Where a deviance is observed, it can only be due to a new or inherited mutation. Due to the genetic diversity of kleptic males, they are necessarily more prone to alternative family structures and sexual deviance. Therefore, the mutational load of kleptic males and the safety net of kleptic culture ensures that pedophilia is, by definition, a phenomenon that is unique to kleptic males and that autoparasitism predicts a greater occurrence of pedophilia within such groups.

Here, we come to understand the emergence of pervert cults as a type of group pseudo-dominance:

  • Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile network
  • Israeli sex trafficking of Ukrainian women[37]
  • NXIVM sex trafficking
  • Charles Manson’s girls
  • Warren Jeffs’ LDS cult

Given the requirement of acquiring male respect to gain female sexual access, pseudo-dominance requires its culture creation to be appealing to as many males as possible. Since successful pseudo-dominance requires intelligence and only a minority of males are sufficiently intelligent for culture creation, its kleptic culture must extend its appeal to males who are not pseudo-dominant. The inversion of martial ideals is contrary to the martial androtype’s genetic interests which means that the only other possible male converts must be opportunists. In turn, opportunists are most attracted to kleptic cultures which enable pick-me-ism, i.e. the opportunist’s mating strategy.

Typical of abrahamic faiths and its ideological descendants like liberalism, the following are kleptic cultural components used for this purpose:

  • “I’m a white knight protector of females”;
  • “I’m a loser only because of the oppression of the elites”;
  • “one day, we will get back at the elites and exact vengeance”;
  • “the winners of society are evil”;
  • “martial males will hurt females but I’m harmless!”;
  • “weaklings like me are the male ideal and those who mimic me will be spared when we revolt”;
  • “we are all equals” / “we are born the same”;
  • various form of cultural deconstruction related to the blurring of human groups;
  • secret resentment against women.

In abrahamism, the tribe of judah is the pseudo-dominant cult whereas the nation of israel (israelites, christians, and muslims) are the opportunists. In the context of liberalism, the Hollywood nexus is pseudo-dominant and liberal males are opportunists. In cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt school and its descendant intellectuals are pseudo-dominants and male feminists within the BIPOC-rainbow coalition are opportunists. In communism, the Marx-Lenin-Trotsky-KGB nexus was pseudo-dominant and the proletarians were opportunists.

Sad Note on Child Abuse: Tragically, there are cases where martial males maladaptively engage in pseudo-dominance. Here, we briefly discuss the case of pseudo-kleptic males and their sad origins in child abuse or trauma. Specifically, klepticism is a learned behavioral adaptation to being on the weaker side of a power dynamic. Ordinarily, non-martial males resort to klepticism due to their power differential with females and martial males. However, martial boys in abusive households also learn to become kleptic as a survival mechanism. In this case, neurons for self-preservation are paired with neurons for deception and reputation management, whereas a healthy martial upbringing would pair self-preservation with the acquisition and exercise of power; when the brain gets good at a thing, it gets bad at all those other things (by way of synaptic depression). Over time, those neurons wire together such that once the male has been removed from the abusive environment, the brain still engages in klepticism, due to years of neuroplastic adaptation which is no longer suitable. Hence, pseudo-klepticism is a common symptom of learned disorders (e.g. PTSD, vulnerable narcissism).

It is widely believed by those researching the following topic that the ability of psilocybin to acutely reset the brain to a baby-like state of hyperconnectivity is what allows patients with “learned” disorders like PTSD to benefit from adaptive neuroplasticity. Thanks to its effect on the brain, it allows neurons to fire in every direction as they would in the brain of a baby and this allows signals to travel along paths that they otherwise could not have done. By using pathways which are adaptive, the brain preserves the synapses used even after the influence of the psilocybin has worn off, such that the vast majority of patients report a life-changing experience post-use.

Regime (2023c)

More research would be required to further ascertain[44] the effectiveness of psilocybin as a treatment specifically for learned klepticism in martial males and whether its effect size on population-wide pseudo-klepticism is statistically significant.

Population Cycle

First, let’s summarize our 4 androtypes with a visual which, for the purpose of referential familiarity, incorporates elements of modern culture:

Androtype

As we saw in the previous section, the monopolization of females is an evolutionary adaptation to the theft of female sexual access. When female theft takes the form of overt rape, female monopolization is accomplished by violent means. What happens in the case of covert rape?

Due to modern societal norms and the general ignorance of kleptic males as rapists in disguise, martial males do not have recourse to violence by lawful means. Moreover, societal moral reasoning tends towards proportional[30] and reciprocal[31] reactions to immoral actions which makes violence a reputationally insensible solution to a non-violent problem. Thus, only non-violent forms of mate-guarding can be used by the martial androtype to protect females against covert rape and to protect itself, once again, against covert cuckoldry.

In other words, the martial and kleptic androtypes develop defense mechanisms against each other’s mating strategies. Thus, the following population cycles are formed.

Memetic Cycle

In evolutionary terms, all forms of female sexual theft, be they in the form of overt or covert rape, constitute an act of cuckoldry; even if the female has no mate, a potential future mate risks losing out due to pregnancy, STDs, or emotional damage. The latter is true of overt and covert rape.

The only difference insofar as male adaptation is concerned is that the defense mechanism against overt rape is violent whereas, against covert rape, the defense mechanism is memetic. Either way, the same conditions which lead to the emergence of the martial male re-appear in a cultural form and lead to the memetic equivalent of the same defensive adaptations: mate-guarding by memetic means.

  1. Martial memes create sexual victors;
  2. Victors create losers;
  3. Losers create kleptic memes;
  4. Kleptic memes create sexual thieves;
  5. Theft creates defense mechanisms;
  6. Defense mechanisms protect martial memes;
  7. Repeat from point 1.

One common example of a defense mechanism is that of protected titles, such as military rank, accreditation, aristocratic and professional titles. Guild memberships are a similar example. One of the problems we find today is that such collective memetic mechanisms for mate-guarding are vulnerable to subversion and this has lead to the admission of kleptic males into academia, thereby debasing societal ranks and titles. Unsurprisingly, female students feel violated.[32] When collective mate-guarding solutions are no longer viable, the only other options are individual and, thus, we would expect a selection for males with self-reliant memetic mate-guarding mechanisms.

Here, collective defense mechanisms against sexual theft are to be understood as an attempt to centrally arbitrate reputational security competition. However, reputational anarchy is the default state in male-male competition[41] and, while central arbitration may initially be effective at mitigating pseudo-dominance, competition among title-holders (martial males) remains in a reputational state of anarchy where central arbitration plays no role.

Here, we see that the assumptions of neorealism are even more rigidly applicable to the cold state. Applying offensive realism to cold states, we come to our natural conclusion: families and organizations have an evolutionary incentive to maximize their reputational capabilities, both defensively and offensively.

This entails the continuous development of the most formidable social antlers possible and the collection of kompromat on other cold states (to the extent allowable by law). In other words, cold states must engage in reputational security competition to ensure their survival.

Regime (2024b)

Pseudo-dominance entails the creation of a false perception of social antler formidability with deceptive signals of cultural influence, i.e. with the attempt to pass off one’s cultural contributions as innovations. For example, it is common practice among modern academics to engage in scientific investigation and to then attempt to gain the clout of an innovator by deceptively using a label that is also used by a true innovator: “Richard Dawkins is a researcher and I’m a researcher. We are both contributors to science.”

In reality, Richard Dawkins derived a self-evident axiomatic model (Selfish Gene) and validated it by testing how well it fits with the real world; it turns out that his model was more predictive and informative. Thus, Dawkins is a true innovator who enlightened the scientific community with new knowledge and, thus, his social antler is profoundly formidable. By contrast, a scientific investigator merely compiles statistical data and forms interpretations, either confirming or ruling out a hypothesis.

Investigation, of course, is a necessary process of science. However, the attempt to equate it with innovation is a fraudulent attempt to create a false perception of social antler formidability. In other words, it is a form of pseudo-dominance and that an innovator would reject this false equivalence is a non-collective example of a memetic defense mechanism against covert sexual theft.

It is of particular note that this type of pseudo-dominance is egregious to evolutionary fields which are adjacent to population genetics, such as the notoriously misinformed field of evolutionary psychology.[42] It is thus informative to examine the case of OpenPsych‘s kleptogamous founder, Emil Kirkegaard, who recently exposed his pseudo-dominance with his embarassing refutation of The Revolutionary Phenotype (TRP):

  • Emil, the so-called truth-seeker, begins by voicing his stance on embryo selection or gene editing and then claims that he did not feel it relevant to inform his stance with TRP – a relevant theory endorsed by award-winning biologist Robert Trivers;
  • he justified his lack of interest in TRP with the claim that its innovator (J.F. Gariépy), a published PhD neuroscientist, is a “scientific nobody”;
  • a true theory is true no matter who creates it, yet Emil makes an appeal to authority whereas he himself only has a Bsc in linguistics – hardly a “scientific somebody” by his own standard;
  • mocks JF’s low publication and citation count on his ResearchGate profile, yet the bulk of Emil’s publications are on OpenPsych (his own platform) and his citations are largely by papers on OpenPsych – here, Emil holds JF to a standard he himself does not meet, yet he presents himself as a “scientific somebody”;
  • Emil, an unaccredited evolutionary researcher who makes appeals to authority, demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the very basic biological phenomenon of sterile labor (where he declares its human impossibility as the only serious argument against TRP in his entire review);
  • aside from his hypocritical attacks on JF’s credibility (which fraudulently imply that Emil’s is superior) and his ignorant closing argument, the remainder of the review consists of Emil’s emotional expressions of annoyance at the fact that JF introduces neologism for new concepts;
  • neologisms are a common (and often necessary) part of introducing a new theory whereas Emil’s work consists largely of confirming group stereotypes (i.e. things we already know). He has no experience illuminating scientists with a new theory like JF has and, thus, his unfamiliarity with scientific advancement explains his perplexing annoyance at neologisms.

Here, we see the hallmark of pseudo-dominance: the fraudulent attempt to pass himself off as part of the Master Class – an attempt at sexual theft (by deceiving females about his mate value with undeserved male respect). In fact, the majority of the “based academic” movement is fundamentally kleptogamous; its religious adherents are merely opportunists who desire to have their traditionalist ideals about the world confirmed by kleptic males like Emil and his male associates.

Another form of academic pseudo-dominance is the pursuit of moral superiority with the paradoxical compulsion of unbiased truth and reason which apparently emerged during the time of Nietzsche, i.e. the post-Victorian decline in in intelligence[43]. Then, it became characteristic of French scientists to renounce German science.[21]

[Translation by Carol Diethe]

[…] that venerable philosopher’s abstinence prescribed by such a faith like that commits one, that stoicism of the intellect which, in the last resort, denies itself the ‘no’ just as strictly as the ‘yes’, that will to stand still before the factual, the factum brutum, that fatalism of ‘petits faits’ (ce petit faitalisme, as I call it) in which French scholarship now seeks a kind of moral superiority over the German, that renunciation of any interpretation (of forcing, adjusting, shortening, omitting, filling-out, inventing, falsifying and everything else essential to interpretation) – on the whole, this expresses the asceticism of virtue just as well as any denial of sensuality (it is basically just a modus of this denial). However, the compulsion towards it, that unconditional will to truth, is faith in the ascetic ideal itself, even if, as an unconscious imperative, make no mistake about it, – it is the faith in a metaphysical value, a value as such of truth as vouched for and confirmed by that ideal alone (it stands and falls by that ideal). Strictly speaking, there is no ‘presuppositionless’ knowledge, the thought of such a thing is unthinkable, paralogical: a philosophy, a ‘faith’ always has to be there first, for knowledge to win from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist.

Nietzsche (2006)

The brain is a learning machine for not only making associations and predictions, but especially ones which are conducive to one’s evolutionary interests, i.e. social antlers and pick-me-ism. The very notion that a brain is capable of acting outside of its neurological domain by outputting memes which are independent of its learning (i.e. “unbiased truth”) is an obviously absurd and unscientific principle. It is conveniently promoted by pseudo-dominant academics to fraudulently assert their intellectual equality with true innovators because innovation entails all of the things that “unbiased truth” renounces, i.e. the Fun Warrior’s sensuality.

Gamogenic Cycle
  1. Martial mating opportunities create a larger Warrior Class;
  2. A larger Warrior Class creates more opportunities for pseudo-dominance;
  3. Pseudo-dominance increases sneaky mating opportunities;
  4. Opportunists reduce martial mating opportunities;
  5. Fewer martial mating opportunities creates a smaller Warrior Class;
  6. A smaller Warrior Class creates fewer opportunities for pseudo-dominance;
  7. Decreased pseudo-dominance decreases sneaky mating opportunities;
  8. Decreased opportunism increases martial mating opportunities;
  9. Repeat from point 1.

Here, we have every piece of information we need to explain the societal ills of the 21st century: we are currently in phase 5 of the gamogenic cycle. Obesity, depression, escapism, despair, etc. all point to a declining Warrior Class and this is corroborated by the U.S. military’s inability to meet its recruitment targets and Europe’s inability to independently secure its sovereignty.

We are in a historical period of rampant pseudo-dominance and this explains sexual deviance. Moreover, infidelity is perfectly explained by females’ dissatisfaction with kleptic males. There is nothing within the gamogenic cycle which requires the invocation of any external factors and, in the absence of external factors, there can be no evolutionary mismatch. The societal ills are merely symptoms of the current equilibrium in sympatric mating strategies. The gamogenic and memetic cycles predict the inevitable sexual victory of the Master Class.

Note: advancements in science and technology are not examples of external factors. They are social antlers which are inherently internal to the memetic cycle. In fact, the idea that social antlers (e.g. internet, social media) would increase the carrying capacity and thus lead to more adultery opportunities are, in any way, an example of an evolutionary mismatch rather than one stage of a population cycle is demonstrably false: the Neolithic marked the 1st wave of urbanization, thanks to the advent of agriculture (a social antler), and its accompanying female promiscuity lead to the selection for martial traits, just as the eugenic cult of Apolloism (i.e. a Master Class) emerged from urbanized conditions[45] in Ancient Greece. That a social antler would displace the underclass is a feature of human evolutionary history and not a bug. In fact, it is astounding that some evolutionary experts could have ever come to such a foundationally erroneous conclusion.

Traditionalism is pick-me-ism. It is a way to excuse sexual loserdom: “if only this were a different time, things would be different for me”. The reality is that anyone who yearns for a bygone era unwittingly demonstrates himself to be on the genocidal chopping block of female sexual choice. The Master Class, by contrast, consists of innovators. Those who invent are, by definition, first-to-market monopolists of their valuable ideas. Therefore, they are the intellectual vanguard; the Master Class neither supports or rejects the current thing – it is the current thing:

I AM The Current Thing
I AM The Current Thing

References
  1. Schacht R, Bell AV. The evolution of monogamy in response to partner scarcity. Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 7;6:32472. doi: 10.1038/srep32472. PMID: 27600189; PMCID: PMC5013280.
  2. Susanne Paland, Bernhard Schmid, POPULATION SIZE AND THE NATURE OF GENETIC LOAD IN GENTIANELLA GERMANICA, Evolution, Volume 57, Issue 10, 1 October 2003, Pages 2242–2251, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00236.x
  3. Wells JCK, Stock JT. Life History Transitions at the Origins of Agriculture: A Model for Understanding How Niche Construction Impacts Human Growth, Demography and Health. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020 May 21;11:325. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00325. PMID: 32508752; PMCID: PMC7253633.
  4. Rasteiro R, Chikhi L. Female and male perspectives on the neolithic transition in Europe: clues from ancient and modern genetic data. PLoS One. 2013 Apr 17;8(4):e60944. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060944. PMID: 23613761; PMCID: PMC3629215.
  5. Bose APH, Henshaw JM, Zimmermann H, Fritzsche K, Sefc KM. Inclusive fitness benefits mitigate costs of cuckoldry to socially paired males. BMC Biol. 2019 Jan 31;17(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s12915-018-0620-6. PMID: 30700283; PMCID: PMC6354359.
  6. Regime, A. Memeright Theory. 2024a. URI: https://apollonianregime.com/memeright-theory
  7. Regime, A. Human Social Parasitism. 2023a. URI: https://apollonianregime.com/human-social-parasitism
  8. Regime, A. Genes & Mating Systems Simulator. 2022a. URI: https://apollonianregime.com/genes-mating-systems-simulator
  9. Stiner MC, Munro ND, Surovell TA, Tchernov E, Bar-Yosef O. Paleolithic population growth pulses evidenced by small animal exploitation. Science. 1999 Jan 8;283(5399):190-4. doi: 10.1126/science.283.5399.190. PMID: 9880245.
  10. Rosenberg K. Living longer: Information revolution, population expansion, and modern human origins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jul 27;101(30):10847-8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0404198101. Epub 2004 Jul 19. PMID: 15263080; PMCID: PMC503707.
  11. NJ, Colegrave & Kotiaho, JS & Tomkins, Joseph. (2002). Mate choice or polyandry: Reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evolutionary Ecology Research. 4. 911-917.
  12. Girard SL, Bourassa CV, Lemieux Perreault LP, Legault MA, Barhdadi A, Ambalavanan A, Brendgen M, Vitaro F, Noreau A, Dionne G, Tremblay RE, Dion PA, Boivin M, Dubé MP, Rouleau GA. Paternal Age Explains a Major Portion of De Novo Germline Mutation Rate Variability in Healthy Individuals. PLoS One. 2016 Oct 10;11(10):e0164212. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164212. PMID: 27723766; PMCID: PMC5056704.
  13. Kong A, Frigge ML, Masson G, Besenbacher S, Sulem P, Magnusson G, Gudjonsson SA, Sigurdsson A, Jonasdottir A, Jonasdottir A, Wong WS, Sigurdsson G, Walters GB, Steinberg S, Helgason H, Thorleifsson G, Gudbjartsson DF, Helgason A, Magnusson OT, Thorsteinsdottir U, Stefansson K. Rate of de novo mutations and the importance of father’s age to disease risk. Nature. 2012 Aug 23;488(7412):471-5. doi: 10.1038/nature11396. PMID: 22914163; PMCID: PMC3548427.
  14. Kordsmeyer TL, Hunt J, Puts DA, Ostner J, Penke L. The relative importance of intra- and intersexual selection on human male sexually dimorphic traits, Evolution and Human Behavior. ISSN 1090-5138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.03.008.
  15. Regime, A. Social Antler Theory. 2022b. URI: https://apollonianregime.com/social-antler-theory
  16. Rowthorn R. Religion, fertility and genes: a dual inheritance model. Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Aug 22;278(1717):2519-27. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2504. Epub 2011 Jan 12. PMID: 21227968; PMCID: PMC3125629.
  17. D’Onofrio BM, Eaves LJ, Murrelle L, Maes HH, Spilka B. Understanding biological and social influences on religious affiliation, attitudes, and behaviors: a behavior genetic perspective. J Pers. 1999 Dec;67(6):953-84. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.00079. PMID: 10637988.
  18. Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M, Lykken D, Tellegen A. Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: genetic and environmental influences and personality correlates. Twin Res. 1999 Jun;2(2):88-98. doi: 10.1375/136905299320565951. PMID: 10480743.
  19. Bouchard, T. J. (2004). Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits: A Survey. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 148-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00295.x
  20. Rueden RC, Jaeggi AV. Men’s status and reproductive success in 33 nonindustrial societies: Effects of subsistence, marriage system, and reproductive strategy. University of Utah. Jul 19, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606800113
  21. Nietzsche, F. On the Genealogy of Morality. Cambridge University Press. 2006.
  22. Regime, A. The Science of Nobility. 2023b. URI: https://apollonianregime.com/the-science-of-nobility
  23. Regime, A. The Neuroscience of REM. 2023c. URI: https://apollonianregime.com/the-neuroscience-of-rem
  24. Sharifzadeh, B. The Impact of Anxiety on Subjective and Physiological Sexual Arousal. Concordia University. 2009.
  25. David M. Buss, Cari Goetz, Joshua D. Duntley, Kelly Asao, Daniel Conroy-Beam, The mate switching hypothesis, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 104, 2017, Pages 143-149, ISSN 0191-8869, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.022.
  26. Amotz Zahavi, Mate selection—A selection for a handicap, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 53, Issue 1, 1975, Pages 205-214, ISSN 0022-5193, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3.
  27. Johonnot, Karli (2016). Fluidity in Women’s Sexuality. Master’s thesis, Duke University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/12633.
  28. Kuhle BX, Radtke S. Born both ways: the alloparenting hypothesis for sexual fluidity in women. Evol Psychol. 2013 Apr 7;11(2):304-23. doi: 10.1177/147470491301100202. PMID: 23563096; PMCID: PMC10426844.
  29. Thomas, Andrew & Harrison, Sophie & Mogilski, Justin & Stewart-Williams, Steve & Workman, Lance. (2023). Polygamous Interest in a Mononormative Nation: The Roles of Sex and Sociosexuality in Polygamous Interest in a Heterosexual Sample from the UK. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 53. 1-17. 10.1007/s10508-023-02749-6.
  30. Walsh, Keiron. “Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development”. Development of Moral Understanding. Retrieved 11 Oct 2014.
  31. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
  32. Statistics Canada, Survey on Individual Safety in the Postsecondary Student Population. 2019. URI: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2020001/article/00005/tbl/tbl01-eng.htm#shr-pg0
  33. Nonnus, Dionysiaca 6. 178 ff (trans. Rouse) (Greek epic C5th A.D.
  34. Brahmin, M. Saturn, a Form of the Jewish God. Seven, a Reference to Saturn. 2020. URI: https://theapolloniantransmission.com/2020/02/20/saturn-a-form-of-the-jewish-god-seven-a-reference-to-saturn
  35. Guo Q., Peng Sun, P., Li L., Why neurotic individuals are less prosocial? A multiple mediation analysis regarding related mechanisms, Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 128, 2018, Pages 55-61, ISSN 0191-8869, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.026.
  36. Jahnke S, Blagden N, Hill L. Pedophile, Child Lover, or Minor-Attracted Person? Attitudes Toward Labels Among People Who are Sexually Attracted to Children. Arch Sex Behav. 2022 Nov;51(8):4125-4139. doi: 10.1007/s10508-022-02331-6. Epub 2022 Sep 29. PMID: 36175817; PMCID: PMC9663395.
  37. Fuld, S. Modern slavery in Israel: The women victims of human trafficking. The Jerusalem Post. 2023. URI: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-736475
  38. Reno PL, McLean CY, Hines JE, Capellini TD, Bejerano G, Kingsley DM. A penile spine/vibrissa enhancer sequence is missing in modern and extinct humans but is retained in multiple primates with penile spines and sensory vibrissae. PLoS One. 2013 Dec 19;8(12):e84258. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084258. PMID: 24367647; PMCID: PMC3868586.
  39. Brindle Matilda and Opie Christopher. 2016. Postcopulatory sexual selection influences baculum evolution in primates and carnivoresProc. R. Soc. B.2832016173620161736. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1736
  40. Carlucci L, Albaghli B, Saggino A, Balsamo M. Does a Fundamentalist Mindset Predict a State or Trait Anxiety? The Covariate Role of Dogmatism. J Relig Health. 2021 Apr;60(2):1029-1045. doi: 10.1007/s10943-020-01016-5. PMID: 32279154.
  41. Regime, A. Cold State Theory. 2024b. URI: https://apollonianregime.com/cold-state-theory
  42. Regime, A. (2023c) A Genealogy of Fallacies: Lewontin’s Eristic. Research Institute of Genopolemology. URI: https://genopolemology.com/a-genealogy-of-fallacies-lewontin-eristic
  43. Woodley, M. A., te Nijenhuis, J., & Murphy, R. (2013). Were the Victorians cleverer than us? The decline in general intelligence estimated from a meta-analysis of the slowing of simple reaction time. Intelligence, 41(6), 843–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.04.006
  44. Khan AJ, Bradley E, O’Donovan A, Woolley J. Psilocybin for Trauma-Related Disorders. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2022;56:319-332. doi: 10.1007/7854_2022_366. PMID: 35711024.
  45. Brahmin, M. The Apollo Cult. 2018. URI: https://theapolloniantransmission.com/the-apollo-cult
Apollonian Regime Telegram Channel

Click to view.

Conceptual Open-Source License (COSL)

The original ideas and arguments presented herein are published under the COSL license.