> Many things can be made to fit the observations. The true test is, does it make useful/accurate predictions? If it's true, what future observations would reinforce the idea? Quibble: Does it make **differentiating** predictions? I could predict that the sun rises because russel's teapot whistles, and predicting that the sun will rise is indeed both a useful and accurate prediction. But russel's teapot is unnecessary to make that prediction; i.e. that prediction is not **differentiated** from predictions from other theories. >So weak ugly beta men who dont want to fight or work but can talk their way out of dying in a war reproduce over and over. Then you get to the 1500s and these parasites get hyper boosted by the banking industry and creation of corporations? What makes a good banker and business man? An insecure coward who can talk a bunch and will do anything for money and power to make up for their weskness terrible looks and obvious beta status? This is a pretty good theory. Just one problem - it has nothing to do with jews. This is some kind of fallacy of the form "A windows computer is better than no computer, therefore windows is better than linux." - i.e. while it is in fact better to analyze beta male jews than to not analyze any beta males at all, it would be better still to just analyze all beta males. [While the argument does handwave a token effort at suggesting there is some special betaness to jewishness something something jews have mothers, I find it unconvincing (and the fact that the premise was not explicitly argued but just handwaved over also indicates the author also does not find it convincing).] >the alpha strong males with courage and balls stood up and fought and were killed. This left the cowards and beta men at home with the women to produce more beta cowards. The jews never won a fucking war ever so repeat this process 109+ times and you get weaker and weaker men reproducing with stronger and stronger women. Re-focusing, then, on the essential aspect of the theory, we find that the author has made another fallacy in conflating losing a war with rewarding betas. A young 18-year-old who was drafted (before reproducing) and who bravely (and suicidally) charged a hailstorm of bullets at Gettysburg or Normandy helped his side win the war - but his genes were nonetheless erased from existence [even if they were partially (but not wholly) shared with those who survived]. Of course no position in war is without risk. But nonetheless there is a **differential** risk in leading suicidal charges versus other duties, which produces a constant **differential** pressure rewarding betas (even those that larp as alphas) over true alphas - either by depriving true alphas of the ability to reproduce at all or by depriving their children of fathers. I assert, then, that there is a "pathological altruism" at play leading people to die to benefit others rather than themselves, a pathology which is exploited by those who make war propaganda while either not fighting or taking less risky positions; and which is exploited further still by siccing those soldiers to hate "cowards" like myself while honoring those writing the propaganda. There are, of course, times where it is appropriate to die for someone - to directly protect your wife and children for example, or perhaps as part of a blood pact with a neighbor that will take care of yours if you die - but anything else is cuckoldry; making writers of war propaganda the equivalent of onlycams girls exploiting parasocial relationships to drain men they cuck of resources to feed their own children. The concluding irony is that "pathological altruism" is often presented as a weakness of whites to other races. But as I argued above race-internal (or nation-internal) pathological altruism is just as prevalent; including within whites and within other races.