Link: On pathology of low birthrates, explained

From the HBD side, both Anonymous Conservative and Jayman have previously agreed that the low birth rate of liberals is a feature and not a bug. The former from the perspective of low child-rearing in r-selection and the latter from genetics and, I guess, Malthus?

It’s connected, r-type extinction events are Malthusian in nature.

Obviously, the PC practice of pathological altruism (there is an academic book of that title on the subject) is applying ingroup evolved mechanisms to depress the ingroup birthrate and increase the outgroup based on the largesse of state theft. It’s a combination of resource reparations and treacherous (if not suicidal and insane) genocide, by the post-WW2 original definitions, already linked here.

http://shylockholmes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/on-pathology-of-low-birthrates.html
~tuts in Social Darwinism~

A selection of neat lil quotes.

“But even people who think about this when it comes to profit and organisations often don’t think about the equivalent for ideas and cultural practices.
To wit: if you want a culture or idea to survive, the people who practice it must have high birth rates…
Because ideas, like most things in this world, are heritable. Both genetics and culture mean that parents in general pass their values on to their children. Take away the children, and you take away the people likely to hold the idea tomorrow.
Of course, people are apt to forget this, because it’s a slow-moving effect. The faster way ideas spread is through communication across a given population.

requires homogeneity and a culture of respect for received wisdom, interrupted in the 20th century, when all the major fault-lines started showing

Which is all well and good. The more you spread the idea, the more people who hold it right now, and, ceteris paribus, the more people will hold it next generation…..”

Richard Dawkins did not advance the idea of a meme.

It was Darwin.

The ‘gene’ is an idea of transmitted information, it is not limited to the biological, it is symbolic theory nor limited to precise ranges of biological material. That is a 20th century use based on chemical experiments to ‘crack’ human DNA using computers.
‘Origin of the Species’ should be on school reading lists. It isn’t because it’s accurate and unPC. Many science teachers aren’t qualified to explain it either, knowing nothing about say, farming or animal breeding, which are used in examples. You need life experience to explain life.

Meanwhile, the intelligent are either at home or in the wider workforce.

Later, on progressivism, political correctness, social justice warrior feminism etc…
Feminism in particular needs a constant fresh crop of young women far more than Patriarchy.

Anti-natal ideologies are parasitic on the host’s reproductive potential, it cripples more surely than Polio. Just look at abortion and anything labelled Cultural Marxism, it’s dysgenic, it’s a society-killer. Just like there are no centuries-old atheist or multicultural societies, these things do not have any survivability or, in PC terms, sustainability (really longevity, they don’t stand up to the scrutiny of history). The ‘right side of history’ rhetoric assumes humans have innately changed within a few generations and the old rules no longer apply.

Why? They are ‘fat and happy’ for the first time in human history. If you look up the history of mankind, we are not designed for this surplus unless our behaviours are prosocial and good for fitness of our ‘family’, genetic kin. (To love your neighbour had always previously meant distant genetic kin). However, charity has murdered the West as well as it has Africa, the fighting spirit and much of the independence and creativity has gone, the intellectual thirst died with candy. A little hunger if we fell behind on bills without welfare or some reliable religious fasting kept us sharp, there are plenty of studies that demonstrate health benefits, epigenetics is coming in, microbiome improvements AND the cognitive spectrum from starvation to gluttony, each with particular traits. Could it have been a sin because it leads to a decadent mind? Perhaps. Too much of a good thing is a very, very bad thing. All these anti-obesity efforts that blame the wrong thing (it isn’t fat, it’s carbs) and increase the price of basic foodstuffs (see CPI and how starvation includes malnutrition, with the lower nutrient profile of mass-produced food) and THAT is a superior explanation for K-shift and the so-called ‘rise of conservatism’ like a tidal wave.

Bread and circuses.

The deepest self-loathing is genetic suicide, the notion you don’t deserve to live – into the next generation.

All surviving religions have a pro-natal credo. This is not a coincidence.

I like these old-type posts but feel I’m explaining why water is wet.

SI

If you’re searching for dysgenic factors or variables to trigger suicidal liberals.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/practically-why-is-the-left-dead/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/21st-century-economics-are-making-millennials-infertile/

2016 for the Right

right

We’re called The Right for a reason.

2016: The year we finally responded to the culture war, and won.

I predicted last year that this one, would be the Big One.

Word is the finance thing is happening on a loop of ten, from 2008, meaning that next year, the incoming year, we’ll have the tremors before the avalanche. I hope it isn’t true, I’ve also seen predictions up to 2030, who knows?

I would say it’s the year normal people stopped trusting the MSM, thought for themselves and the year the Left lost its cool along with its social relevance (sticking up for ever-more niche minorities will lose you the common man). Now it’s pretty much a bunch of old guys grumpy round a table because they don’t get why the old words aren’t working anymore at shutting up anyone with data. It was a mirage, social power was all they had. Now, it’s barren rhetoric and empty emotional appeals.

Video: What Millennials find immoral


What they report in spite of social desirability bias.

Most of the 30% or so are sluts themselves, or would be if hot enough (like the virgin who pretends to get laid to try and become popular).
Ask turkeys if they’re in favour of Christmas.
Ask alcoholics about Prohibition.
Ask potheads about brain damage or schizophrenia risk from smoking.

Much has been written on the future of Millennials.
I know one voice has little relevance but I do get around socially so here goes.

Q: How can you (Gen Y) be socially conservative, but seldom economic?

A: School brainwashing turned us off the prospect as the ideology of Bad People, teachers drilled this into us at such a young age, we’re still deprogramming with the internet. While young, we care for social approval. We don’t wanna be blacklisted from future employment for sharing the wrong opinion on social media. However, once the other shoe drops, cradle to grave socialism is publicly seen as mathematically impossible and we know 1. there is NO free lunch, ever and 2. the unfunded liabilities we vote in, we will never receive personally, watch that economic thing snap back to match the social data.

One benefit of the way we were raised? (child-centred, the term)

Millennials will always vote in our own self-interest.

As every generation before us, and rightly so. The Guilt Train from our elders isn’t working anymore (see Best Post). We refuse to clean up their economic mess.

At present, many of Gen Y still think The Government has our best interest at heart. Seriously.

The Boomer hate for us, expressed in places like The Guardian, is the beginning of the resistance train (wait, why does college tuition need to go up? Why is my Obamacare so expensive? Why should I vote in open borders to be replaced when I worked hard at school and need a first job?) and the result will be a young, conservative voting bloc.

Why should we respect our elders, when they taught us we are their equals?
Why should we trust their opinion, when they screwed up plenty of things, refuse to take responsibility and want to guilt trip us like children? Didn’t these people raise us to say we’re smarter, special and we’ll have power one day.

Hell yeah, we’re taking it.

We’ll write the history books.

The collapse should come proper once we’re in power.
Our summary of Boomer policies, post-War socialism, will not be rosy.
Those Boomers responsible cannot stand this fact. They’re looking into life extension to prolong their privilege and barring us from the same progress across the board.

We’re noticing.

We’re slowly waking up to that fact.

Our parent’s generation did all the typical rebellion: the drinking, the drugs, the tattoos and the sleeping around.
We’re rather disgusted by the fact few of them have grown out of it.
They ruined marriages for this.
Why would we follow in their footsteps?

We came into a bad economy, all we want is security.
In our own country, we are told we are evil for our race/sex/sexuality, despite choosing none of these, and if we can’t afford to get married/have kids/move out, it’s our own laziness. We send out hundreds of job applications, but immigrants take the positions.

Why cling to the Left?

We hope for a Government bailout.

Once this is denied, the S will be Hitting TF.

Politics ignore housewives at their peril

http://takimag.com/article/more_from_the_housewives_please_gavin_mcinnes/print#axzz41Und5V00
There is an issue with bringing in this standard. The new Muslim family down the road with 5 kids would have the most realistic opinion (it presumes monogamy). And if having children is required to possess a low time preference (correlation yes but what about young people, too poor to afford a family, being responsible?), we must rope men into it too, since they’re usually the most politically tuned in and run for most office.

If a man is a bachelor, his political opinion on the future must be irrelevant. There is some truth to this because, as he says, with no children, the person has no stake and on the contrary, betrays a lack of faith in the system as a whole. This is why there used to be such a thing as a bachelor tax, by no less than the mighty, manly Spartans, because they drain the system without paying back in with future workers/soldiers (and tried to make good wives become adulteresses). Women classically control the purse strings because women buy the food, clothes and other rarely considered aspects, like kitchen appliances, that the family needs. The man fills the purse, he doesn’t control it, and advertisers know this.
If the experience of women is so important, go with the most experienced: wives and mothers.

“That’s why we need to include housewives in the equation. I want them in aprons, too. Feminists will say wearing kitchen clothes and being on a first-name basis is demeaning, and that is because they’ve been brainwashed by Notorious RBG to think the kitchen is a jail cell. It’s not. An apron is a badge of honor. You don’t use it to get men fired or censored as childless women in the workforce (SJWs, some are male) seem so determined to do. You use it to create sustenance for the people you love. It’s a cape that’s on backwards. To be a “kept woman” means a man is keeping you—as opposed to throwing you away when you start looking old so he can go fuck someone else. Modern feminism is perfect for men because it’s all about getting the milk for free as they go from cow to cow.”

A+ and men don’t throw women away, boys do, since they don’t appreciate what they’ve got.

Feminism has handed men all the sex-based chips and they love it. Women are holding nothing, having lost the innate SMP advantage thanks to sluts (see the ‘economics of sex’). Men are responsible for the demise of women, as every generation, every century prior has protected us, yet this lot contribute to the problem of ruining them. And then they complain Where have all the good women gone? They were good prospects… until you Pump and Dumped them, dummies. You can’t make hos and complain about the paucity of housewives. Now players are caving and marrying up/breeding with sluts and frankly, they deserve each other.

There isn’t a study of the sexual partner count of men against divorce risk, they’re scared to gather the data, since most of the repeat divorces pushing the overall figure up are by men (Trump being a prime example) but they assure us as they manwhore around it can’t possibly affect their brain’s ability to pair bond, despite neurological evidence presented in books like Hooked, where the pair bonding ability (or lack thereof) operates the same in men and women (or, for the sluts, doesn’t). Would you want to marry someone who can’t love you? Who cannot physically draw the loyal connection required and stay when it’s tough? Oh, they can lust, but that’s all they can do, that novelty will wear off. And they’ll lust after others too. Does that sound like a good marriage prospect? They’re that playa with a side ho who lies and calls her GF so she can’t cheat too, but apparently cheating is fine? That’s the trashy mindset. R-types are rejected from the social consideration of marriage due to their deserved reputation. Bragging about it only draws in like, leave them to it.

n.b. Not that all housework is automatically Woman’s Work. That is a feminist myth. Men used to do appropriate work we now call DIY. Yeah, still housework. Working on the car? At the house. Fixing the appliances? At the house. Opening the jar? In the kitchen. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, spouses used to divide labour equally, the main difference being the forced required for those tasks. Yes, women tended to cook, but men still made tea as well as carrying things. It wasn’t a case of women being suited to Woman’s Work, but men being suited to the stuff requiring physical strength, Man’s Work.
In the UK at least, as I covered in the universal suffrage post, women swing elections and swing them conservative. If we’re being as obtuse as to pit one half of the family unit against the other (a house divided…), the woman is more right wing. The average working class husband tended to vote Labour/Left because they promised higher wages, every time, higher wages. Sadly, this gambit worked. When you think Social Conservative, a man doesn’t spring to mind, does it?
American women don’t seem to trust Hillary (especially her support of Bill). They voted in the Affirmative Action candidate last time and look what happened. Trump should have Palin as VP, it’d be great.

Who do these guys think they are?

Short post. I was doing my usual scan and I came across this;

http://www.rooshv.com/we-must-spread-counter-propaganda-to-women

omg shut up stupid dumb idiots argh ahhhh hiddleston facepalm deep blue sea

Title says it all. You don’t have to read it, it’s an example of the mindset.

In Britain, we have the common retort, a rhetorical question Who are you? when somebody without qualification and status begins to get ideas above their station. It’s supposed to act like a short, sharp verbal slap, a reminder that no, you can’t do everything, quit trying. The politer version you’ve probably heard is mind your own business. Now, I’m hardly one of those people staunchly against self-improvement, but we must recognize that the sexes are not, in fact, equal, and therefore, a man can no more lecture women on what we “should” do, than we can lecture men.

In essence, they need to back off. The backlash is happening and we don’t need them nor want them. Clean your own house of the fake MGTOWs and bitchy misogynists who want excuses and sex slaves before whining to us about your list of ‘demands’. We owe you nothing and vice versa. If we’re so bloody terrible and practically Satanic (if you read the article he makes out like we’re all lolloping Liliths ready to steal your sperm and make demonic hellspawn), you won’t mind leaving us the Hell alone, will you? Act in accordance with your beliefs. Like a man.

First issue: you require moral authority to give anybody moral advice, anywhere on anything. PUAs have negative moral authority, they are an immoral authority, from a traditional perspective. Wtf.

Second issue: you’ve never been a woman. OT: I was listening to a Clarey podcast and they started speculating about female orgasm problems. Aside from being incredibly rude and one sided (as if the majority of men who have the same don’t cause it by their porn use), I would never claim that sort of objectivity on a subject which has not and can never affect me, like Erectile Dysfunction. It just seems like they’re taking all the stereotypical, historical male issues and trying to maintain psychological distance from it (that’s called Cognitive Dissonance, kiddies) by kicking women and saying it’s our problem and blaming us and demanding we fix the (often unisex) problems while they kick back and do nothing. That’s called projection. You see, men aren’t rational beings, humans altogether are not rational beings, but men are incredibly gifted at rationalization. As we say, they could sell sand to Arabs. Doesn’t mean you need sand. Rhetorical skill is a negative in a world that values results.

Third issue: A traditional life takes decades to build. You can’t just hop off the carousel and change your mind and think you’re a suitable candidate. This is why Roosh’s ‘Poznan Institute‘ pisses me off, aside from the legal issues of aligning yourself with a European city state, when they’re against doing that without their permission (I would bet money he doesn’t have legal approval and this jibes with the general ignorance of PUAs when it comes to local law, see my post on PUA filming and London law).

Fourth issue: insulting much? Do I need to go into this point? Pretentious? Shallow? Hm? Aren’t we adults here?

superman drinking give up nope

But when women give men girl advice, they look down on us. Works both ways, bitches. Either each has a legitimate opinion on a discrete list of topics, or neither of us has.

Fifth issue: Beware of Little Hitlers. Anyone who seeks to control the lives of others is doing it because they cannot control their own. In the case of the Roosh cult, he wouldn’t DARE lecture them on male issues as if they’re personally responsible. He will never blame men. I challenge him to do a single article where he spends the entire thing blaming men for this Patriarchy dissolving, because women sure didn’t have the political power to destroy it. He spouts the same Polyanna It’s Not Your Fault BS that Oprah, Jezebel and Cosmo do. He simply switches up the pronouns.

For example, from that article where he lets loose his anti-white inner Muslim (it always comes out eventually, he wants to cover up beautiful white women with sartorial sackcloth), here’s the first line.

The structure of mating is determined by women, not men.

Then women are the powerful, dominant sex. Logically the one who sets the tone has the power. Second paragraph;

Unless men control women, they are at whim to what women want.

Oh, they want it both ways. Like the fucking feminists. Women are so weak and stupid we can control their lives. Uhuh. But they want to believe they’re secretly better. That’s got a name, it’s a bloody conspiracy theory. Matriarchy keeping you down. You was Kangs! You built the pyramids! Muh dick > your bodily autonomy, but respect the law because it’s best for everyone!

It is quite literally retarded. It isn’t even wrong. How many do you wanna bet believe they can win arguments purely on the basis of being male? Like a Man Card and oop, they win. Like the feminists who say This is why we need feminism? How many of these spergs probably call themselves rationalists, because they read a bit of LW and got a B in maths once? Cos that’s where all the atheistkult people went. What sort of dipshit appeal to authority is that anyway, like the losers who put MGTOW in their screen name – to harass women online? Sure, you don’t need women, you sure seem to need our attention though and we’re sick of it. You promised to leave us alone now actually fucking do it. Go. Walk out the door. Just turn around now, cos you’re not welcome anymore. Identity politics needs to hang in a gibbet so we can watch it rot. You go off and build your castle (from your keyboard apparently) and see how many women still avoid you despite all the trappings of outward success, not because you’re a man or the system is against you, but because they see you, as a toxic personality, and we avoid the feminists with the same too. Women are the emotionally intelligent sex. Mindfucking is our game, that’s our mode of interpersonal aggression and dispute resolution. This is pathetic meddling like the SJWs crashing the AVFM conference. You’re just like those normalfags. Traditional people don’t need you because we’re self-reliant and genuinely independent. Quit with the megalomania Savior Complex.

The manosphere is deteriorating in quality, the logic has fluttered out the window.

Feminists hate anyone who fucks men, including other men

We have the same reaction to you as the lefty atheists who claimed to be Islam experts overnight after the Paris Attacks, trying to lecture us on what it “really” is and how it “should” be (Hume spins). Your opinion is invalid. Your opinion does not count. You can have it, but nobody will listen to it.

Notice they’re suddenly trying to hop the r/K fence? No. It doesn’t work. Ks have standards. We guard our borders. It’s like they’re switching to saying Pro-Family but have abusive ideas of how a family should be led since their fathers did such a cracking job with them… (you’re not a King, you’re not always right, you listen to your commander in chief and if you make that whip noise seriously you’ll only attract dull co-dependents), it’s a power-trip fantasy. They’re White Knights. They want to save us (traditional) women and we’re the type that, by definition, don’t need help.  Go save a ho, Captain! We don’t want what you’re selling, you can’t buy in with us that easily. They don’t even want to be fathers, they find the idea of fatherhood deeply repugnant (r-types gonna r) and think it’s all the woman’s business. If real Kings can play in Palace nurseries, so can you. You take responsibility for the life you make. I figured out their deal, a while back. I didn’t want to write it up but they actually have a fetish. It’s called an impregnation fetish. That’s why they go on about female rape fantasies (which don’t exist, see post), as projection from their own, yet again. If the woman actually got pregnant they’d run like the little bitch cowards they are, the apple from their own deadbeat absentee father’s tree, while talking up a big heap of bullshit on Patriarchy and how important fathers are. Talk is cheap. Stick around for two decades making a meaningful contribution to society without deferring your agency to the opposite sex or pretending like your little brain controls big brain and maybe people will begin to respect what you say.

You wanna do God knows what on your own time, with your own money, in a way that doesn’t affect me whatsoever?

looking for a fuck to give loki thor 2

Go ahead. I don’t care. You be as degenerate and filthy as your nature compels you. That’s open-minded and that’s tolerance. It’s your soul, your karma, your own life you’re ruining. In fact, I’ll enjoy the show and laugh when it’s called in. People get the life they deserve. You wanna make the wrong choices, don’t go crying to us, Grasshopper, we’ll leave you outside to freeze come winter.

HOWEVER.

You start trying to control free people’s lives like they’re your fucking slaves and you have any rights over us? Die. It’s a human impulse and right to be free and I honestly hope there is a Hell for preachy people like that.

i hope you fucking choke love heartbreak

Going about it in the sneakiest, r-typiest way too (propaganda) just shows up what they truly are. Deceptive rats, which are an r-selected species. Mind your own business, fix your own life. Butt out of other people’s and sort yourself out.

Links: The Sexual Revolution robbed women & Men have never had it so good

http://www.capx.co/why-we-dont-need-a-male-suffrage-movement/

http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/laura-perrins-sex-has-been-devalued-women-are-to-blame/

Gems like;

“Whilst poor, unskilled men have certainly lost out in the income stakes, many have received a bonus that matches that of any banker: it is a bonus paid in sex rather than money, and it’s not only women who are footing the bill, it is also hard working men paying their taxes – taxes which are being used to clear up the mess left by men who are not, like themselves, taking responsibility.”

Any ‘man’ calling for the Patriarchy needs to man up and wife up his last slut and settle down to a life of bland domesticity immediately and if he complains, he is just as entitled as the feminists. You can’t Have It All. You have to choose.

No such thing as a social liberal, economic conservative (man). There are parasites off the State (welfare for their bastard spawn, free STD clinics) who want to keep all their own money from paying into it. They have no conscience.
Or, as TRS refers to the likes of them;

PUSSYNERDPUAs (*Pick-Up Artists*), men who keenly-recognize the decay of modern human relationships, yet choose to contribute to the problem.

i hope you fucking choke love heartbreak

We never used to have a SMP in the first place. That’s the first problem in a long list. Whatever your opinions of evobio and the ‘natural’ functions of men and women, humans were never meant to be a functionally sterile species.

Enjoying the decline doesn’t screw over other people, yet these sociopaths would have you think otherwise.

You can be certain anyone bragging about how they’re gonna be poolside, isn’t.

Link: Assortative mating and class

http://www.unz.com/jman/the-son-becomes-the-father/

Hardly any social mobility. No hypogamy. No hypergamy (the small-scale sociology theory seems to be wrong over many generations when you look at the genetics). I wasn’t expecting that. It shows psychology has its limits too, when they’re looking in the wrong place (teachers) and asking the wrong questions (how valuable is an education?).

What we see is clearly an argument for sexually selective Leagues. (Bear in mind, it would count MMV as well as SMV). It seems to be mostly genes.

The idea that this transmission of status over time has been as Clark found it squares well with another facet I discuss frequently on this blog: the fact that parenting doesn’t have much of a lasting effect on children’s outcomes.

Although parenting can let the team down if it’s atrocious (i.e. modern) and without instinct. But it seems later generations might have hope of regaining lost ground. Presumably there’s regression to mean in parenting quality, and since most people are totally forgotten by the 4th generation it’s no wonder we see no effect.

The interesting thing is that even the people who take me seriously on this point still believe that there’s something their efforts can do, beyond keeping their children fed, clothed, clean, and cognizant of the basic ways of the world. Steven Sailer frequently suggests that the outcome of poorer children, especially those of color (mostly Hispanics) would improve if they had fewer of them, and hence could afford to invest more in each, despite the fact that this doesn’t hold up in adoption studies.

It’s an oxytocin-based instinct, but it only seems that the majority of the affectionate instinct actually needs to be applied to the spouse (in both directions) to maintain the stability for the children. Another reason divorced parents are awful. Also, I wonder whether this would change the minds of any cuckolds saying they ‘don’t mind’ if a child isn’t theirs, as long as they raise them? This applies to women raising the children of former wives too.

This study found that “cultural transmission” (i.e., from parents) couldn’t explain the pattern seen in children (indeed, the parent-child correlation was negative once you removed heredity). The non-parental environment explained the variance, suggesting that other influences, such as peers, likely explain the results.

Why else do you think mothers care so much about who their child has for friends?
It can predict crime, drug use and all sorts (peer pressure).

This issue squares the matter with Gregory Clark’s results. That is, when you consider other facets, education per se doesn’t seem to mean much in the end. Apparently, you can’t teach moxie. This is revealed by the fact that every trait “going in” that shapes a person (and should be relevant to educational attainment) reliably shows absolutely no shared environment impact.

The Middle Class fallacy. Grit and resilience come into it too (the upper class have it, the middle class despise it).
You could put little Tarquin in the best school to ever exist, it won’t make him a genius.

…including one’s work preferences and interests, the presence or absence of mental disorders, and including the features of a person we think of as “character.” Parents leave no lasting effect on any of it, aside from what they bequeath to their children genetically….

The upper class try to teach their children life skills like grit too.
The middle class assumes it will just happen. Guess who wins.
We’ve all heard comparisons of our character or habits to deceased family members, right?
I would like to see hobbies compared genetically because birth order and sibling rivalry supposedly make children opt into different ones despite genetic similarity.

Who you choose to have children with is the most important decision of your entire life. No pressure. 

Indeed, when we consider the effect of measurement error (adding it to the heritability estimate and to the somewhat nonsensical negative gene-environment correlation values), the heritability of political attitudes and social values skyrockets, being upwards of 85% (74%) for views towards pornography in women (men). The heritability of overall political orientation, when accounting for measurement error, teeters on 100%!

Liberals and conservatives will be battling for a long time to come.

Bodes well for r/K.
I think this is why K-types seem so betrayed when divorced. Total speculation. I’m sure a lot of spouses cheated on would like to stone the 3rd party responsible. Religion is a good excuse to kill the competition.

(Hence the “shared environment” ≠ “all environment.”)

That needs to be made clear for the all  would-be sociologists.

But that’s all OK, yes? The whole point of education is to “shape” the raw individual beyond his/her genetic predilection, right? Wrong.

Education cannot change potential, it can only improve performance up to the ceiling OF potential, how many times do I have to say this?

The problem is that everything that comes out, the adultout comes, shows a shared environment impact that is also zero.

If your parents were screw-ups and couldn’t hold a marriage together, you’ll probably be a screw-up too. It’s the circle of life.

OK, so you might be willing to accept that you can’t shape your child’s personality or values. You can’t control his major life outcomes. You can’t even control how much money he will go on to earn. But surely you can do something useful, like leave your children a lifetime of happiness, right? After all, I believe, and advise, that a parent’s key duty, after ensuring that their children grow up healthy and safe, is to ensure that each has a happy childhood. Surely that must count for something, too,? It does, in the form of fond memories of childhood.

This is so brutal. So redpill.
The lesson is choose your spouse wisely and once you’ve got them, stick with them. You can’t choose your own genetic profile, but you can damn well choose theirs! (This is why women are so selective).

One’s lifetime of happiness boils down to genes and to the fickleness of luck.

yes lestat dancing happy cheery morbid black comedy

I’m one of the lucky people who can be contented in a shed.
It’s like when I was told Follow your Dreams and the money will follow! I was always like ‘but if you are happy, why do you still need the money to justify your decision?’, that art teacher did not like me, not one bit. School really is a prison but that’s news to nobody, frankly. You’re there to do a thing (pass grades) and finally they grant your release. Might as well game the system and learn other, more useful things with their resources while you’re there.

He will be who he will be. It’s only my job to help him get there, and pass on the legacies of all those who came before him. I did all I could do: I married well. Beyond that it’s in the hands of “fate”.

That’s the healthy parental attitude, not the Trophy Child, as I call them, where they need something to brag about like it’s a prize-winning pet or the Dead Dreams Model where the child is pressured to do what the parent wishes they had (a whole career, not little stuff).

The vagaries of the circumstances no doubt imbued good fortune on some and dashed the success of many others.

Whether your society (born into) was just and meritocratic, I’d wager.

But through it all, the thing that is at the root of continuity – DNA – remained the active ingredient to propagate lineages in their respective places through out the ages.
It is as it was said in the Richard Donner Superman films: “The son becomes the father, and father becomes the son.

Superman quotes now? Epic.

Why I think the MRA/Angry MGTOW bitches will ultimately fail

Spectacularly. 

dis gonna be good anticipation pull up a chair listen watch

I’ve been asked this and it’s a fair question, this’ll be the one time I address the topic so I can leave it alone. To fail. On its own. Some joke about the entropy of sexual frustration.

What unites the two groups?

Condition 1:

“society is unfair!”

hmm uhuh o rlly really ah sure thing

Life is unfair but go on.
Condition 2.  As I put it earlier:

wah wah wah Matriarchy is keeping me down”

don draper crying baby wah wah wah

Passive and unmanly but I’ll roll with that as premise.
The writing will be clunky, probably.

Why does modern society hate men?
Men fight the Government.

Think on that for a bit and come back.

Men don’t ask for things like women. Men overthrow, men topple, men destroy and war. They don’t need you for war anymore. What do they need you for, that they can’t get elsewhere?
If you are not willing to do those things, give your life to a cause, you are not a man and what you are defending is a luxury of the First World rather than a right. If you can live without it, it isn’t a right.
This is the point where they get anecdotal and apply injustice/victim mentality to areas of life that do not and will never apply to them e.g. the old canard, marriage is evil but I’m never getting married or women are dumb bitches I don’t need them why don’t they like me or my personal favourite I don’t need children where is my pension. 

Quick test: do they read the Victim Bible called The Guardian? If so, Pass Go and fuck yourself.

Let’s take the feminist metaphor that they want to use, to make the Government fuck men over further, but these guys keep agreeing with for suicidally stupid reasons: the Gender War. Let’s buy into their frame further.
Life isn’t a movie, it doesn’t matter which side is ‘right’, it is made by who has the biggest bastard on their team.
In this case, the Government. Who literally hold all the cards, and write all the laws, and hold all the guns (UK edition).

My sentiment on the tide against PC.

So what are you gonna do?
What can you do?
Sweet FA.

Government will crush the bitchy MGTOW and MRA agenda.
The equality paradigm (that isn’t fair! that’s discrimination bc I’m a man!) requires victims. The physically stronger sex cannot take a dive and fake an injury, this isn’t football. It doesn’t work. It will never work, whining delta, gamma and omega males cannot speak for their stronger counterparts, as feminists cannot speak for normal women. It’s called History. History is the proof men are not the weaker sex. Yet they keep going. At this point it’s embarrassing.

This isn’t all good for women and many women do not support the actions of Government, as many men don’t either (one of the issues with democracy, check out neoreaction some time folks).

The women who do (feminists) make a grievous error.
Women think Government will protect them. When things happen, SHTF, which do they need?
The sociopathic pen-pushers or men, in the street?
Yet they stab their guardians in the back and with crimson hands say “what happened?”. You became a concubine for the system. You are the whore for Babylon. That’s what happened. No wonder the men are doubtful. Distrustful. Some are just as bad though, and deserve no moral high horse, they deserve an ass. They don’t object to female parasitism, as long as they get a good, long suck off the State teat too. So it isn’t about sex. Sex doesn’t divide us. It’s about politics, it’s r/K. The fake MGTOW are the r-selected and want the world to improve around them, the real are K and want to improve themselves.
They want all the goodies too, to be ‘equal’ with feminists, with none of the responsibility too. Like feminists. They want a wife, all the cooking, sex, affection, kids but with none of the obligation, so they get a free hooker and call her a girlfriend. The girlfriend isn’t really giving it up for free, but he keeps up the pretense that it might get serious. To keep her, he must deceive her. He is the male equivalent of the feminist monster, who marries you to divorce you.

For the free hooker label;

What’s the point of a hooker? You enjoy their company. You leave when that stops.
What’s the point of a bf/gf, again?…

It used to be husband/wife auditions, there was a set timing to it, for courting. Now it’s a way for a man to claim a woman, like he owns her legally (wife), use up the best years of her life (youth) and ward other men off…. without commitment. Without any responsibility on his side.
And they complain about the societal decay, the fallout from this. Sure, there are many women on welfare, but how many of the fathers wanted to marry the mother of their children and financially support them? Are we all adults here? Do men deserve some moral exemption from a problem caused by two?
And you hear all these stories like “my gf cheated on me boo hoo” and it’s like, there’s no such thing. There are two relationship statuses: single or married. This is why men ‘cheat’ on their gf. They know this. What is the duty of a bf/gf? What? The idea is almost laughable.
There is no commitment that is not codified in law. She owed you nothing because you gave her nothing.

Counterexample: Same way a gf isn’t entitled to a proposal after X years. Or your money.

And which sex allowed it to become this way? Which sex allowed Patriarchy to decay and crumble?
Men. Men have only other men to blame.

Most of it, is that they wanted free sex. The primary motivation for men. Except nothing in life is free. So they had to give women excess power in exchange. If men wanted to reinstall a Patriarchy, all they would need to do is swear off sex with women. Then what? What can they do? What can they dangle as incentive, like training a dog? We all know they’ve got nothing, as a whore’s only value is sex. The MRA/angry MGTOW group are fighting against other men, sociopathic men running the system (and still blaming women somehow, which does make them misogynists). Do you think the sociopaths of the system really care what’s fair? What do you have to offer? You don’t have a pussy to whore out. You don’t have money. The tax system already took it. You’re already screwed.

Surprise! The Sisterhood lied to you to try and steal your prospects for themselves.

But go ahead, keep bitching about it. Like a girl. It makes you look really competent and adult.

Our elders are criticizing us because we see past their BS.

The rest of us are watching you and it’s quite funny. We lost sympathy when you started being stupid.
When it collapses, you’ll blame everybody but yourselves. That’s why it will fail.

Video: How to destroy the world

Stefan is knocking it outta the park recently. Highest quality redpill stuff.
Who turned him onto us? Anyone know?

wow omg likey

TLDW: Social engineers are child abusers.

In one word, it comes down to Legacy. The legacy is the future.

You either have one, or you don’t. You eat the cake, or you keep the cake.
But it doesn’t last forever. Never kick the pup because the pup grows up.
We are reaching that tipping point. I saw a comment, I think it was on Vox Day’s blog, pointing out that by recreating the conditions of Weimar Germany in every system, it’s predictable what would happen next. But neolibs don’t listen to history, they’re on the Right Side… *snicker*

I treat you as a sentient intelligent lifeform. Objections?

He’s right that the quality of men dropped before the quality of women. I feel the manosphere forgets there is another half to the equation. Post-WW, the few surviving men lived it up. Then the Sexual Revolution just happened on by shortly thereafter because women felt left out and wanted some of the attention. Men lost their motivation because sex is practically all they want from women and…. yup, that’s pretty much it. This causes the economy to tank eventually and we’ve been building up bubbles ever since (look at the time you went off the Gold Standard to cover for it, LOOK) because men buy most of the shit needed for a family from a position of surplus and women, while easier to sell to, must buy on credit.

The manosphere mocks women for saying “Where have all the good men gone“? Answer: They’re Peter Pans at home playing video games and watching porn, the Lost Boys, which hardly reflects well on men as they think it does, while all the time most of their discussions feature “Where have all the good women gone“? without a trace of self-awareness. Answer: Pump and dumps, pretty much. Not Asia. Not S. America. You chucked them, or some other guy did, and now they’re psychologically ruined by it.

n.b.

Maternal instinct isn’t a myth. It’s much like paternal drive in men. Some have it, some have it strongly and some do not have it at all. Women are dumb enough to freely admit where they lie there, oblivious to how it affects their long-term value: are you pro-choice? They can only answer for themselves and only the women who state the rape/cancer exception are permissible.

p.p.s.

Gold Standard in America: 1971. I’m sure that’s a maaaa-ssive coincidence.
UK: 1934. WW1 made us broke. However, we had similar problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_British_national_debt#1970s

The crisis was seen as a national humiliation.