(Submitter’s Note: A lot more quackery is omitted for the sake of brevity.)

A Scientific Review of RoK’s Community Beliefs.
…
Moshe Kelstein
Moshe is a man on a mission. A mission to defeat degeneracy once and for all!

…
I discovered Return of Kings on Facebook when an acquaintance shared the community beliefs (http://www.returnofkings.com/about) on her profile. She was mocking them, as if these beliefs had no value. I commented that these beliefs were empirically supported or derived from empirically supported principles.

An army of offended females and betas was unleashed upon me. I wasn’t hoping for much from the girls, but I could only feel sad to see that many guys were naively supporting them.

Going to the research

I realized that most people have no first-hand contact with scientific knowledge. Literature on our community beliefs is not only existent, but extensive. I decided to use my academic knowledge to give support to the ROK community.

Many of the authors you will read about here are some of the most famous academics in behavioral sciences (Google scholar citations: Baron-Cohen[https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=4GAQ-RUAAAAJ&hl=en]: 96 020, Buss[https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=wrmnCfsAAAAJ&hl=en]: 39 524, Baumeister[https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=ShSEUuoAAAAJ&hl=en]: 87 528). I do not claim that these summaries and articles will help you in arguments. We live in some sort of ochlocracy where we risk intimidation by hordes of angry women or betas if we hold beliefs congruent with scientific evidence. I remember a feminist saying something along the lines of: ”Nothing like good old scientific facts to justify your sexism.”

This research is usually not spread too much, especially in undergraduate programs, but really informative. Let us now examine what science has to say about each point in our community beliefs list.

…

2. Men will opt out of monogamy and reproduction if there are no incentives to engage in them

The psychological literature refers to this concept as Sexual Economics[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15582858], when referring to the investment that a male is ready to make in order to ”buy” a woman’s sexuality. Women sell sex, and men buy it. This investment varies between cultures and periods.

There was a time when years of courtship and long term financial investment were necessary to obtain sex from a woman. Not anymore. The invention of contraception multiplied the offer of sex tenfold. Women together manage the worth of sexual acts, and it might explain why women despise prostitution and pornography, and slut-shame each other. An average girl who asks a price that is too high for the sexual economy will not find a buyer.

If a woman’s sexuality has been offered a lot, the value of the offer will decrease. This means that a woman’s sexuality is non-renewable. Women will try to protect their sexual reputation and to make others believe that their sexuality is exclusive.

3. Past traditions and rituals that evolved alongside humanity served a clear benefit to the family unit

Until the latest decades, culture was a tool for the genes to be passed on. The maturation of humans is extremely long compared to many other species, which shows the importance of upbringing and learning the norms of a social group. Most traditional sex roles can be seen as a way to assess the best mates among men and women.

Men would benefit the gene pool by passing genes with agentic traits to lead the group to higher goals, whereas women displayed feminine qualities to display nurturing qualities to attractive males. The opposite was inconceivable because men outperform females in literally any sort of competition, and women are better at nurturing children and showing empathy[http://cogsci.bme.hu/~ivady/bscs/read/bc.pdf]. Naturally, the most successful male picked the most attractive female and both offered the finances and care a child needed. It was beneficial to the family unit, which was in turn beneficial to the continuity of the society.

Now, people are mysteriously invested in the mission of destroying gender roles, cheer on parents who crossdress their children and encourage companies to advertise toy trucks with girls. Everyone wants to eliminate gender roles but no one really knows why. Meanwhile, masculine men are still more desirable[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1087598/] and successful and feminine women more attractive [http://www.robertburriss.com/pdfs/burriss_11_paid.pdf] (although this relationship is a little more complicated). Women’s self-rated attractiveness[http://alittlelab.stir.ac.uk/pubs/Vukovic_08_selfrate_att_voices_PID.pdf] is strongly linked to attraction to masculine faces[http://alittlelab.stir.ac.uk/pubs/DeBruine_10_faceconfounds_JEPHPP.pdf], and prefer vocal masculinity. Denying these preferences will only prevent you from getting laid. Even though we are waging war against gender roles, women still apply them when choosing mates. (Interestingly, there is a negative relationship between physical self-evaluation and the number of sexual partners[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230959390015A] in women.)

4. Testosterone is the biological cause for masculinity. Environmental changes that reduce the hormone’s concentration in men causes them to be weaker and more feminine.

Testosterone masculinizes both behavior and physical appearance, as stated above, and lack thereof feminizes them. However these environmental forces obviously refer to something of which I have no awareness of. Didn’t they fix the problems with plastic feeding bottles already? Or do you call ”environmental change” the emasculation of teenage boys in cathedral choirs until about a hundred years?

…
6. Elimination of traditional sex roles and the promotion of unlimited mating choice in women unleashes their promiscuity and other negative behaviors that block family formation.

The chances of fertilization are higher in one-night stands, and men’s sperm count is higher when they are away from their long-term partner for a while. The human penis might have been shaped to remove competitor’s sperm [http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/ep021223.pdf] out of the vagina. Women experience more orgasms with masculine [http://www.putslab.psu.edu/pdfs/Puts%20et%20al%202012%20Evol%20Hum%20Behav.pdf] and attractive men, who have qualities sought for short term mating. Many benefits exist to short-term matings for women, such as resources, mate switching or manipulation.

All of these examples suggest that women did not evolve a preference for monogamous, long-term relationships. Click here [https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sexual-personalities/201501/women-want-short-term-mates-too] for evidence that women are designed for short-term mating.

…
7. Socialism, feminism, cultural Marxism, and social justice warriorism aim to destroy the family unit, decrease the fertility rate, and impoverish the state through large welfare entitlements.

Complying with feminist demands is as close as a society can get to cultural and ethnic suicide. Historically, intrasexual (male) competition always benefited the group. The feminist sentiment rose to power when outcomes were not shared with the the whole group, and rich people would get rich at the expense of others without paying taxes.

Women, depending on a single provider, began experiencing the variable outcomes that men have gone through for thousands of generations. That is why they support financial entitlement measures. The benefits they could get out of their sexuality became as variable as men’s outcomes. Now, they can have the best genes by engaging in short-term mating, and their basic needs paid for by millions of anonymous working men.

Later they will fight for their right not to be judged on their sexual past, and when they will realize the hardships of a working life or just get bored and have children, they will get support from the state. Men are backing them up in every step of the way.

Cultural marxism is the greatest ideological battle of the Western world at the moment. We are paying people to fight against manspreading, or funding university research that operationalizes sexism with agreement to items like ”Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility.”[http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Glick/publication/232586301_Ambivalent_sexism/links/02e7e52e69acf151c8000000.pdf]

Few academic researchers would support prescriptive conclusions based on their research, even though we can use their results to justify our beliefs. Even David Buss, who studies sex differences and evolutionary psychology, calls himself a feminist and does not see sex differences and feminism as incompatible.[http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/196924.pdf]

I don’t think anyone who believes in any form of biological determinism is compatible with the blank-slate perspective of SJWism. We don’t have popular support, but we have plenty of scientific evidence backing us up.