Comic: the illusion of choice

You don’t have to hate the opposite sex to be an adult. Just be a grown-up without blaming half of your society, like everyone else manages to do.

The family you make is only bad if you made it bad with poor selection, you anti-natal nitwits.

21st Century Psychology: A Reference Handbook

High IQ people who reject parenthood are incredibly spiteful, actually. I admire it.

“You don’t deserve my genes”, sneer the Newtons and the Teslas.

Cognitive ability and fertility in Swedes

aka a select population of white people.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2019.0359

We examine the relationship between cognitive ability and childbearing patterns in contemporary Sweden using administrative register data. The topic has a long history in the social sciences and has been the topic of a large number of studies, many reporting a negative gradient between intelligence and fertility. We link fertility histories to military conscription tests with intelligence scores for all Swedish men born 1951–1967. We find a positive relationship between intelligence scores and fertility, and this pattern is consistent across the cohorts we study. The relationship is most pronounced for the transition to a first child, and men with the lowest categories of IQ scores have the fewest children. Using fixed effects models, we additionally control for all factors that are shared by siblings, and after such adjustments, we find a stronger positive relationship between IQ and fertility.

Furthermore, we find a positive gradient within groups at different levels of education. Compositional differences of this kind are therefore not responsible for the positive gradient we observe—instead, the relationship is even stronger after controlling for both educational careers and parental background factors. In our models where we compare brothers to one another, we find that, relative to men with IQ 100, the group with the lowest category of cognitive ability have 0.56 fewer children, and men with the highest category have 0.09 more children.

There are a lot of new readers who don’t seem to know how I roll.

  1. I am right.
  2. When in doubt, see rule one.

My assumptions have statistical backing. Read up or FO.

Oh, look, it’s the military! [coughs in K-type]

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/08/07/the-eugenic-economy/

My brain doesn’t instantly become thick because you dislike an opinion it produces.

If you’re not smart enough to know what’s science, what’s speculative and what’s satire, go elsewhere.

I’ve spent years proving myself on here, with a variety of good predictions (the refugee crisis, African demographics, Brexit, Trump etc). Your incredulity is not required.

Darwin on sex and dimorphism

Useful quotes in case the thought police come calling about a poem.

“Individuals of the same species often present, as is known
to every one, great differences of structure, independently
of variation, as in the two sexes of various animals”

https://archive.org/stream/originofspecies00darwuoft/originofspecies00darwuoft_djvu.txt

“Nevertheless these cases
are only exaggerations of the common fact that the female
produces offspring of two sexes which sometimes differ from
each other in a wonderful manner.”
“In some instances the males
alone, in other instances both males and females, have been
observed thus to differ in a slight degree. When the differ-
ences are rather more strongly marked, and when both
sexes and all ages are affected, the forms are ranked by all
entomologists as good species.”

SEXUAL SELECTION 101 If the numbers be wholly kept down by the causes just indi- cated, as will often have been the case, natural selection will be powerless in certain beneficial directions; but this is no valid objection to its efficiency at other times and in other ways; for we are far from having any reason to suppose that many species ever undergo modification and improvement at the same time in the same area. SEXUAL SELECTION. Inasmuch as peculiarities often appear under domestica- tion in one sex and become hereditarily attached to that sex, so no doubt it will be under nature. Thus it is rendered pos- sible for the two sexes to be modified through natural selec- tion in relation to different habits of life, as is sometimes the case ; or for one sex to be modified in relation to the other sex, as commonly occurs. This leads me to say a few words on what I have called Sexual Selection. This form of selec- tion depends, not on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, but on a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex. The result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring. Sexual selection is, therefore, less rigorous than natural se- lection. Generally, the most vigorous males, those which are best fitted for their places in nature, will leave most progeny. But in many cases, victory depends not so much on general vigour, as on having special weapons, confined to the male sex. A hornless stag or spurless cock would have a poor chance of leaving numerous offspring. Sexual selection, by always allowing the victor to breed, might surely give in- domitable courage, length to the spur, and strength to the wing to strike in the spurred leg, in nearly the same manner as does the brutal cockfighter by the careful selection of his best cocks.

Among other mentions throughout and in other books of his.

Female sexual selection is good for the species, according to Darwin, as you can plainly see.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/human-history-was-polyandry/

Americans butcher the English ‘gender’, a psychological CONCEPT (i.e. not reality) to mean ‘sex’, a biological term from Darwinian theory and sexual dimorphism. That’s a false equivalence.

Discussing biological realities of sex is a distraction from the biological realities of race.

Patriarchy hates bachelors

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/11/23/bachelor-tax/

Always has done, always will.
It was a wealth tax on those who inherited from their family but refused their family’s wishes to continue the line, spitting on generations of sacrifice.

“Single, footloose, and fancy-free, the bachelor life is often portrayed as an ideal existence.”
Only in the 60s. Look how they turned out.
Historically, they were objects of pity and vice.
“For 2,000 years, bachelor taxes have periodically appeared in societies across the world, targeting single, childless men who were thought to be a useful source of revenue.”
No, they owed their family children (the purpose for their own birth) and, not being able to press the matter of family lineage, it was a useful incentive for the useless pajama boys of their age alongside tying inheritance to making a ‘good match’ and delivering at least one heir. Would you object to that too? Or should we further encourage the aptly named trust fund babies?
A single man doesn’t need a husband and father’s income. They’re spoiled brats who, if they did marry, would ‘marry their mother.’ It’s a good thing the difficult genes are seldom passed on.
They don’t even have to risk death in giving birth unlike the woman, it’s like refusing the draft. (Which bachelors often did, childish).
“In 9 AD, the Roman Emperor Augustus levied the ‘Lex Papia Poppaea’, which imposed a tax on single men and married couples who did not have children.”
Husbands who ‘prevented’ their wife’s fertility, in the latter case.
What about the Spartans?
They were successful because bachelors were considered like children. No responsibility was expected because they were incapable, too soft for it. As such, they were disrespected but at least not slaves.
“The purpose of the tax was to encourage marriage and procreation and to prevent immoral behavior.” They owe society by virtue of being in it, neglecting their duties to the nation – they’re funding, among other things, the women who cannot provide children because they refuse to marry. That’s a direct loss of population to the state.
If they didn’t like it, they could have left.
It was unpatriotic to be single for selfish reasons.
That’s bloody why.
The old wisdom is also coming back on the subject but the West can afford to drop back to its normal pre-WW populations, as long as its resources and infrastructure are not strained by immigration and foreign ‘aid’. We aren’t responsible for the world.
Look at Italy, picture how much better off they’d be now if they imposed a bachelor tax in the 50s.
I heard an old wives’ tale (untrue) that anyone who doesn’t want children, whatsoever, in an earlier era of less medical intervention, would have been destined to die as one, and that was Nature’s way of addressing the fate neatly, just one generation down. Funny how these stories explain things in the fatalistic manner. The impulse to have a healthy, happy family is connected to survival instinct and does frequently diminish in the sickly or traumatized. You could say a lot of modern men are traumatized by the modern world of globalization that forces them to financially compete with the world – so they can never afford a housewife. At minimum, they’re stressed by global concerns. I’d like to see studies on paternal instinct but the bitter segment of bachelors (and they do exist) would cry about it.
“In 1695, when the English Crown was struggling to raise capital for yet another expensive war with France, a bachelor tax was imposed to generate income. This law, known as the Marriage Duty Act, placed a fixed tax on all single men over the age of 25.”
A luxury tax, since you’d have to be rich to afford it. Taxing playboys is a national right, they’re a bad influence. Look how they ruined London. There goes the neighborhood.
Basically it was a eugenic tax on the dead-ends.
It worked.
“Bachelor taxes could also be used to regulate population growth. In South Africa, in 1919, a tax was imposed on bachelors in order to encourage white families to have children, a policy rooted in pre-apartheid racial politics and born out of fears that the white population would soon be eclipsed by the black community.”
No comment.
“In other cases, however, the bachelor tax was more about imposing moral order on society in a time of heightened panic about the hedonistic behavior of young single men.”
They were right…? The degeneracy of today is fueled by vain male demand.
Shut down the porn industry and women might listen. You can’t complain women are showing more skin without complaining about the billboards of lingerie models viewed by toddlers, sex scenes in minors’ films and free porn viewed by five-year olds online because age restrictions and checks would be a mild inconvenience to adults. They know about the brain damage of various vices, they don’t care to ban it. Why would anyone take them seriously? You must also complain about the double standards, like men walking around topless at gyms. We don’t actually want to see that. Plus it’s homoerotic. Sets a bad example.
“Many men complained that such an initiative was an intolerable form of gender discrimination, questioning why men ought to be singled out for extra taxation and not women.”

Men were bitching about muh sexism for decades first.
Broflakes. Men were the ones to propose, duh. It was a one-sided choice.
Plus the men were splashing the cash in illegal avenues difficult to trace (mobs).
Unmarried men only caused trouble to civilized society.
They still do.
Everyone complains about the marriage rate but never gets on the case of men who could marry but refuse.
It reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio and how he rails against pollution while flying a private jet.
The men bitching about low marriage and birth rates in a personal way can’t be hypocrites, either marry or shut up.
Why don’t they just…? Well, why don’t you?

It’s a valid question, you begged it.

~mic drop~

If you’re rejecting your own gender role, that’s one potential wife you deprive of hers.
They sound like old women, traditionally the ones trying to force marriages.
With such paternalism, and that’s what it is, they must get married or get over it.
The worst are the bad husbands you see online, avoiding their family to lecture others on why they’re single.
Well… people like that. People who shouldn’t have married but wanted the status to browbeat others.
“More successful initiatives appeared at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. The arguments that prevailed during these debates often centered on the behavior of single men, and the perceived need to coax men into marriage.”
All they had to do was shut the gin shops and brothels.
Make the manwhores leave the country, where they can’t be a bad influence on the native and naive.
The old-fashioned attitude was lynching for seduction.
“Opponents of the bill, however, suggested that if the bachelor tax were to stand, then a similar tax needed to be imposed on all women of marriageable age who had refused marriage proposals.”
This is hilarious. That would be fine?

Single men really don’t understand women, do they?
No woman would refuse a proposal from a man she was seriously courting.
However, to make it fair, men should be taxed according to the number of women they proposed to (including false promises and ex-wives) without a successful match.
Just punish the r-types until they move abroad, it’s very simple.
“In addition to this, in 1934, the state of California proposed a $25 bachelor tax, primarily as a strategy to boost the state’s falling birth rate. However, the proposals were not taken forward and the bill was never actually implemented.”
And look how well they’re doing!


This is like the elusive search for an atheist society that didn’t die out.
Such taxes will come back in the age of impossible unfunded pension liabilities.
Not might, must.
Why should they be entitled to live off other people’s children?
Why do you think the Boomers felt safe to abort their children? Social Security!
Then there’s the contribution to moral decay.
It’s funny how the very men who complain loudly about “degeneracy” also drink, smoke, fornicate, gamble and attend “massage parlors”.

We are not fooled.

What about a broad Hypocrite Tax?
Nobody could object.
That’d bring back the honor culture you so desire.
If you wouldn’t want an establishment opening next to a school, why is it allowed in your society at all?
At least make all of it underground and difficult to access. Don’t glamorize it.

It would make more sense to give all bachelors free vasectomies and make them sign a document that they’ll never ask the public to fund their sexual healthcare.
They won’t take you up on it though, r-types enjoy the idea of reproductive abuse.
They are the creeps who remove condoms against consent and don’t think of themselves as rapists.
Actually why aren’t there more child support cases about that? Most women are not on the Pill. Deliberate STD infection is a crime too. One very chiseled actor was in a Canadian court about that. Sometimes misogyny is obvious.

Traditionally, it was known rapists wanted to steal fertility* without the male investment of marriage. Why isn’t it assumed that producing such a child was an act of rape? Especially if the mother expressly didn’t want it? I’m sure we’ll come back to that legal position again soon, by necessity.

*or else they’d favour non-reproductive sex

I guess we could tattoo their forehead with a B for bachelor.
So they can’t lie to women about their intentions.

Ew, r-types

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/26/quiet-revolution-ireland-votes-repeal-tough-abortion-laws/

Look how happy they are in all the photos.

Liberal birth rates: a feature, not a bug.

I’ve seen more muted reactions to winning the lottery.

They aren’t quietly respectful and pleased to have medical options, they are openly celebrating the intentional creation of life only to snuff it out like an Ikea candle.

TBF

I am totally in favour of abortion as long as it’s left-wingers doing it. Thankfully, it is.
[Considering partisanship is heavily genetic.]

Otherwise, they give the kid to the State and we end up raising it or they poison it and if it isn’t miscarried, it’s born defective.

What happened to keeping the Government out of their bedroom?

Why are Christian taxes expected to fund this?

I guess it’s karmic. Their parents should’ve aborted them it’s just one generation delayed. Fewer shitty parents in the world but holy fuck will they howl when they discover they’re infertile in a few years with a clock ticking louder than the crocodile in Peter Pan.

We’ll be expected to pay for IVF too.

Little known fact: the fail rate is directly connected to poor genetic quality.

Better looking IVF couples (and same race) have more success. Look!

Technically, this is a supremely eugenic result. More realistic selection pressure.
And people too thick to use condoms should really be weeded out of the gene pool.

Where are you, baby Jesus? Did they sell you for body parts too?

Plus, their cancer rate is higher, the pluripotent cells are heavy carcinogenic risks. Stem cells aren’t always a good thing.

They don’t list it here but the Pill is (women shouldn’t be on it).
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/basic_info/risk_factors.htm
Buried here:
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/medical-treatments/abortion-and-breast-cancer-risk.html
It starts “But scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.”
For legal reasons, lower down, past where most people read:
“Some case-control studies, however, have found an increase in risk.”
So they lie.

Case control is more scientific. You can’t claim no link when there are links. Mixed evidence is still evidence. Notice they can’t claim it reduces the risk? The lawyers won’t let them.

When there are no children to pay their pension, we can laugh.

On the bright side, they have no respect for life, so if Greece gets its act together and starts shooting down boats they can’t cry about Teh Children.

R-types using the word cuck are my fetish

The eternal ‘r’…
If they can’t fuck it, they don’t understand its function. They’re desperate animals.
I once heard of a man: “he would fuck a tortoise if he could hold it still long enough.”
A gay guy said this. You know it’s bad when a homosexual thinks you’re fucking around too much.
These ‘unhappy family‘ posts are trying really hard to sell the bachelor lifestyle of loneliness, which just so happens to reduce the birth rate and to leave many single, desperate women.
Don’t breed goyim.
Family will make you miserable.
Do not look at the pro-natal Israeli policies.

Actual hatefacts to offend everyone

OR
Nevermind, your fear is completely justified.

Feel free to make your own.

So let’s talk about the Red Pill, shall we?

This little red pill where any group is magically exempt from criticism… almost like a privilege. Offense is “how dare you imply my demographic is morally fallible!”

Shall we?