But let’s look into this since Marxist – Postmodern pseudoscience has done such a wonderful job spreading falsehoods to the postwar generations.

All animals demonstrate both (a) kin selection bias (genetic persistence), (c) fitness bias (quality). Otherwise they would be evolutionary dead ends – and eventually die out.

Humans, who are reproductively indifferent from other animals, demonstrate both kin, and fitness bias. (And we can measure it).

Humans demonstrate every possible bias IMAGINABLE. With males less discriminatory than females, for obvious reasons of reproductive cost.

The differences between the races provide genetic(reproductie) class (social and reproductive, and economic/cooperative (social, reproductive, and economic) discretion of fitness. And yes, your race, subrace, tribal, and most of all genetic and social class, determine your reproductive value. (Attractiveness).

The differences between the races are largely pedomorphic (endocrinal and developmental.)

There is indeed a maximum degree of pedomorphism that humans find attractive, which appears to correlate with peak early fertility.

The races demonstrate different degrees of pedomorphism while retaining adult maximums.

Evolution has only so many inexpensive channels (series of mutually dependent genetic causal relations) to work with and the cheapest and fastest is that which controls rates and depths of maturity.

Asians have greater pedomorphism, but lower adult maximums. Whites have next greater pedomorphism but higher adult maximums. Northern europeans are about equally attractive across genders, slavs biased toward female, east asians toward female, and the rest of the world physically male, particularly Africans whose men are physically amazing, and the rest of the world is biased male (steppe and desert) or in the case of southeast asians, balanced with shallower but faster maturity. Although there is great variation within groups, the distribution tends to hold at the race, subrace, tribe and clan levels. (We can measure these things, however it’s pretty obvious to anyone who travels the world.)

So while every group has some more preferable traits among some of its members, and less preferable traits among other members, what is preferable remains constant across all peoples. And by and large, with universal demonstration, our reproductive social desirability produces a hierarchy of genetic, reproductive, social, intellectual, and economic distribution of races, tries, clans and classes.

However, this really amounts to *how successful has each race, subrace, tribe, and clan been at the elimination of its undesirables?* Because, painfully or not, that is what separates the most successful peoples (east asians and europeans) from the less successful peoples – which is evident not only in the distribution of morphological features, but in the distribution of behavioral and especially intellectual features.

We can develop more feminine or more masculine traits regardless of gender. And the different groups demonstrate greater or less pedomorphism, and gender bias in morphology and behavior. The subtler parts of cognitive differences and behavioral differences are subtle enough to identify but we lack the data and means of measurement to be more certain of them. Although most are identifiable in infants and toddlers regardless of where they are raised. Genes matter

DATA DOESN’T LIE. PEOPLE LOVE TO LIE. EQUALITY IS JUST ANOTHER ABRAHAMIC PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of the underclasses, JUST AS ABRAHAMIC RELIGION WAS A LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of pastoralists.

The fact that we humans are marginally indifferent for the purposes of cross kin and class cooperation, does not mean we are equal in class or cross-class value to ourselves, one another, our polities, all polities, or the future of mankind.

The bottom is about five or six times as damaging as the top can compensate for. Which is why some countries cannot exit poverty.

Evolution is not kind. The universe cares nothing for us. We are a convenient accident in the galactic suburbs made possible by improbable coincidences and the tendency for life to form as yet another means of preventing entropy.

Each of us is more or less sensitive to differences, some of us temporal and some of us intertemporal. This sensitivity reflects reproductive differences in necessities and there mirrors largely the distribution of male and female brain structures, cognitive, and personality biases. Some people are simply more ‘discriminating’ than others are. Some’s discrimination is limited and some is broad. There are evolutionarily obvious reasons for the distribution of our sensitivity to differences. The least able less, the more able more. Because reproductively that’s necessary.

Some more discriminating about now and interpersonal frictions and opportunities, and some of us about intergenerational frictions and opportunities. And that is largely what demarcates political preferences, moral biases, personality traits, and brain structures.