https://twitter.com/DejaQuik/status/1325479016749395968/photo/1
https://twitter.com/CaseyVeggies/status/1310144309446848512
Tell Tale Signs That They're Liberals (The Black Boy Likes To Travel By Himself To Lands Where He Doesn't Belong Or Have Any Racial Connection) And The HAM0 Girl Likes To Travel To Foreign Lands, Have Relations With The Locals Of Those Foreign Lands, And Practice Miscegenation With A NIGGER!"
"inviting all of my diverse neighbors to bring their ethnic food...international playlist...open mind..." These Are All Signs Of A Liberal Mind!
NIGGERS LIKE HE TRAVEL SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE SEX WITH A MULTITUDE OF FEMALES OF DIFFERENT RACES AND ETHNICITIES AROUND THE WORLD. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON NIGGERS LIKE HE TRAVEL IN SPITE OF WHAT THEY POST ON THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA (i.e. TRAVELING TO SEE THE WORLD AND ITS WONDERS).
https://x.com/datepsych/status/1793721848393564404
https://x.com/datepsych/status/1793488380728373732
https://x.com/datepsych/status/1793485744331440582
https://x.com/datepsych/status/1793421705886789675
https://x.com/DaysOfGame_com/status/1793467315482439742
An alt GOAL FOR PASSPORT BROs: They want a country where it's "easier." That desire indicates a lack of fitness in those men.
Among chimpanzees it's the opposite, females leave home at puberty, and kin-based adult cooperation occurs only among males for example, where groups of related males attack solitary males from neighboring groups. (Very Similar To Humans! Very Similar Residency Pattern!)
This leads to one of the most intriguing implications of the dolphin work. There is as yet no good evidence that dolphin societies are closed societies; that is, dolphins do not appear to divide up territorially into troops, or tribes or bands. Most primates do. A chimpanzee may live in a loose and fluid group and only occasionally see some of its compatriots, but it stays within that group's territory ,and it treats outsiders of the group as enemies. If it is a male, it will probably never leave the troop within which it was born, whereas females quite often leave their natal troops and join a different one. Baboons are the opposite. Males, once mature, leave the troop of their birth and force their way into another troop, usually at the top of the pecking order. This migration between groups prevents inbreeding.
Why is it. males that leave in baboons and females in chimps? The reason may be the aggressive xenophobia displayed by male chimpanzees, which itself may be a consequence of the tendency of male chimpanzees to form coalitions. A lone male chimp, wandering into the territory of a neighbouring troop, faces almost certain death. Wherever they have been studied in East Africa, chimps have been found to practise something akin, if not to human warfare, then to raiding. A group of male chimpanzees sets out silently and purposively towards the territory of their neighbours. If they encounter a strong contingent of rival males, they retreat. If they encounter a female, they may try to bring her back to their territory. If they encounter a single male, they may attack it and kill it. One troop at Gombe studied by Jane Goodall in this manner exterminated the males in a small neighbouring troop and claimed all the females. Another troop in the Mahale mountains achieved the same result.
There is nothing strange in the animal kingdom about territoriality or even savage aggression between rival males. What is unusual (though not unique - wolves are another example) about the chimpanzees is the fact that the territory is defended by a group rather than an individual. Indeed, group territorial defence is nothing more than an extension of the coalition building that we witnessed between individuals such as Nikkie and Yeroen. Recall that Luit, when he became alpha male, supported losers against their persecutors. Alpha males also intervene to prevent fights happening at 'all. They have an important pacifying role. The reason, possibly, is to prevent the group breaking up, which in turn is important because larger groups are better able to resist the raids of their neighbours. When a group of males goes on a raid, the alpha behaves as if he must get the backing of his coalition partners before launching an attack. There was an occasion filmed at Gombe where the alpha Goblin apparently could not get the assent of some senior colleagues to pursue an action against some enemies, and the troop disengaged.
In chimps, therefore, the most important coalition of all is the one between all adult males of the same troop against all adult males of the enemy troop. This 'macro-coalition' only comes into play when danger threatens from 'abroad' or when it intends to threaten danger abroad itself. Male chimpanzees avoid the boundaries of their territories except when in fairly large groups; female chimpanzees stay away from such zones of danger altogether.
If it is true that bottlenose dolphins do not live in close, territorial societies, then their coalitions of coalitions make perfect sense. A group of males cannot plausibly defend an area of sea against another group, or for that matter a group of females, so xenophobic hostility makes little sense. Even in dear water, a dolphin can escape detection from another just a mile or so away, especially if it remains silent - visibility is usually far better on land. So the purpose of dolphin coalitions is not to defend a group of females and a territory but to achieve occasional, temporary successes in herding individual females and to steal such females from other coalitions.
The tribal age
Lethal inter-group violence is probably a characteristic we share with chimpanzees, as Richard Wrangham has argued...
...The shape of human society combines features from both the chimpanzee and the dolphin. Like chimps, we are xenophobic. All human preliterate societies, and all modern ones as well, tend to have an 'enemy', a concept of them and us. This effect is especially strong where human tribal societies consist of bands of related men and their wives and dependents - a common form of tribalism known as the fraternal-interest group. In other words, the more men stay in their native bands while women migrate, the more antagonism there is between groups. Matrilineal and matrilocal societies are a little less prone to feuding and warfare, in just the same way that matrilineal, matrilocal baboon societies do not show much inter-group aggression.
Where, on the other hand, a group of closely related men live together as a social unit, in the same manner as chimpanzees, feuding and raiding between groups is chronic. Among the Yanomamo Indians of Venezuela, for instance, there is almost routine warfare and raiding between villages. In Scottish clans, a McDonald hated a Campbell, and vice versa, long before the massacre of Glencoe gave him an excuse. His descendants, in the suburbs of Glasgow, express the same tribal loyalty to Rangers or Celtic football clubs. After the Second World War it was not logically inevitable that Russians and Americans would come to see each other as enemies and rivals, but it was humanly inevitable. Montagues and Capulets, French and English, Whig and Tory, Airbus and Boeing, Pepsi and Coke, Serb and Muslim, Christian and Saracen - we are irredeemably tribal creatures. The neighbouring or rival group, however defined, is automatically an enemy. Argentinians and Chileans hate each other because there is nobody else nearby to hate.
Indeed so pervasive is the men's habit of them-and-us that human
males pursue their quest for status by taking part in battles between
groups, whereas chimpanzee males achieve status by battles within
the group. Chimpanzee group conflict is not warfare because patrols
of rival chimpanzees do not attack each other; they try to find and
attack single males instead. They are raids, not battles. Human males
have pursued glory in battles with the enemy - from Achilles to
Napoleon.
https://fmard.tbs.ng/server/api/core/bitstreams/7aa8bf81-44fd-43af-b17b-4b1cfec59fd8/content
p. 162-166
https://heartiste.org/2016/01/11/study-women-are-more-xenophilic-than-men/
https://x.com/dondika3/status/1645402895221760003
WHY ARE MALES LESS INCLINED TO TRAVEL THAN FEMALES? (I DON'T LEAVE MY MOTHER'S HOUSE!)
BECAUSE THE GENES AND CULTURE IN FOREIGN TERRITORIES DIFFER FROM THE GENES AND CULTURE THAT TRAVELING MALES COME FROM AND THIS LEADS TO LESS MATING OPPORTUNITIES AND LESS MATING SUCCESS FOR TRAVELING MALES (BEING KILLED OR PHYSICALLY HARMED IN ANOTHER MANNER BY MALES NATIVE TO THAT TERRITORY AND BEING REJECTED BY FEMALES SOCIALIZED BY THAT CULTURE).
http://vengeanceizmine.blogspot.com/2014/05/lovely.html
https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/SB2001.pdf
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200305/married-men-travel-more
*THE PEOPLE OF PALOS VERDES ARE PROBABLY THANKING GOD ON A DAILY BASIS FOR THE ADVENT OF INTERNET SHOPPING. THANKS TO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE THEIR COMMUNITY AND INTERACT WITH THE BLACK, BROWN, RED, AND YELLOW LOWER CLASSES TO DO THEIR SHOPPING! ANYHOW, WHERE DO YOU THINK PALOS VERDES RESIDENTS SHOPPED PRIOR TO THE ADVENT OF THE INTERNET? I'LL LET YOU PONDER THAT FOR A MINUTE!
*EXTRA! EXTRA!
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691146462/ref
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyEqIk3DCh0
It's Not Random. People With Liberal Disposing Psychological Traits Choose To Live In Cities Just As People With Conservative Disposing Psychological Traits Choose To Live In Rural Areas. Why? because They Prefer Those Environments And The Fact That There Are More Ideologically Similar People To They In Those Environments.
https://x.com/DegenRolf/status/1717064207244378286
https://twitter.com/eyeslasho/status/1770179852647170156
https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/1448310537029259273
What is openness? Rentfrow's findings mean that people in "blue states," on average, are more creative, imaginative, curious, have many interests, and are more tolerant of differences than their average counterparts in "red states." Conscientiousness, in which red states score higher, entails reliability, organization, dependability, self-discipline, orientation to achievement, and adherence to tradition and rules. ... Since political orientation plays a crucial role in mating, which is so fundamental to our biology and existence, it shouldn't be surprising that concentrations of political personalities vary across geography...This probably occurs because it's easier to find a mate if one lives in a politically homogenous territory. For a blue person to live in a blue territory would be more evolutionarily adaptive than living in a swing territory - not to mention a red one. In America, we're in the midst of a great geographical segregation according to political personality. In 1976, just over a quarter of Americans resided in counties where presidential candidates won the election by a margin of 20 percent or more. By the year 2000, nearly half of Americans lived in these more politically homogenous counties. ... Now, recall that the strongest correlations of any physical or personality traits measured between spouses concerns their ideological attitudes. It makes sense that people mate assortatively by political orientation; after all, the three personality clusters affect who people are attracted to and who they dislike, how people think children should be raised, and how people manage their relationships with others in general. As we learned in chapter 10, Americans have been segregating into more and more politically homogenous counties because more mating options for blue people lie in blue territories, and red people have more people to mate with in red ones. (Our Political Nature)
