This is the first in a series of posts about the demographics of the coming Age of Malthusian Industrialism.
In the decades and centuries to come, technological progress will slow to a crawl, as dysgenic reproduction patterns deplete the world’s remaining smart fractions (assuming that there are no abrupt discontinuities in humanity’s capacity for collective problem solving, such as genetic IQ augmentation or machine superintelligence). In the meantime, due to fertility preferences being heritable and ultra-competitive in a post-Malthusian world, populations will explode, as the world enters an epochal baby boom not long after 2100. This renewed demographic expansion will last until the world hits the carrying capacity of the late industrial economy, which will usher in the Age of Malthusian Industrialism.
Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3 – Part 4
Where Do Babies Come From?
First, we need to tackle a fundamental question: Why do people have children? In particular, why do some societies and countries have more babies than others?
We know the causes of the really big differences between First World societies and Third World societies. That is, the countries with 1-2 children per woman vs. 5-7 children per woman.
In preindustrial societies, children represent working hands on the farm. Children add to family wealth. Moreover, very high infant mortality means that there is a distinct risk that all or almost all of your progeny will die before reaching adulthood. Large families are a guarantee against this in a world with no pensions and scant social welfare. Traditionalist values, such as following God’s injunction to be fruitful and multiply, or honoring the spirits of your ancestors, are strong and pervasive cultural drivers of high fertility. More banally, sheep gut condoms aren’t too enjoyable.
In modern societies, children become a cost, not a benefit. You can’t send them into the fields or mines any longer. If you are the K-selected type, you need to hire them tutors, fund their extracurricular activities, etc. Flights become twice as expensive with a couple of kids in tow. Conversely, female education and family planning make it possible to control fertility, while expanded career opportunities and entertainment options delay reproduction. Fertility plummets, even in extremely religious and overtly misogynous places such as Saudi Arabia.
But within the First World, why are there still significant differences in fertility?
Why does the average French woman have almost 50% more babies than the average German? Why is the US still pretty virile, while South Korea – now the world’s lowest fertility major country – now produces fewer babies than Best Korea, despite a more than twofold preponderance in overall population?
There are many theories as to why that’s the case.
It so happens that most of them are not credible.
“Conservatism” is often cited – but Poland, which has Europe’s most draconian laws against abortion, also had Europe’s lowest fertility rate for a large chunk of the early 2010s. Extremely atheist Czechia, which has Europe’s highest number of porn stars per capita, does significantly better. In fairness, Ireland and far west Ukraine are very high, by European standards. But so is highly liberal (and irreligious) France, the UK, Iceland (0.0% of whose youth believe God created the world), the UK, and Scandinavia generally. Restrictions on female employment, if anything, seem to be correlated with reduced fertility – see low fertility Italy or Japan, which make life hard for married women, versus Scandinavia, where free childcare, generous parental leave, and high female labor participation coexist with high fertility rates. Birth rates out of wedlock – again, no discernible effect. In Iceland, the extreme case (70%), it was semi-accepted even before modernity. But its population has almost quadrupled in the past century, despite no significant immigration. Only France and Sweden had (marginally) higher TFRs as of 2016, except that in Iceland it’s actually the natives doing all the work.
Considering that even Nazi Germany failed to match peak Weimar fertility levels – an epoch synonymous with debauchery – it’s pretty evident that little short of hardcore White Sharia will make substantive difference to national fertility rates in the developed world. Targeted “maternal capital” programs such as the ones introduced in Russia, Japan, and more recently Hungary probably raise TFRs by 0.1-0.2 children (and possibly only in the short-term, as those people who were on the edge about whether or not to have a second or third child make a decision in the affirmative). Perhaps a similar boost can be accomplished by persistently advertising large families in a positive light.
However, it doesn’t seem like any of this will create anything but marginal effects (though this doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be implemented; even a 0.2 children per woman boost in fertility adds up, over a few decades). There doesn’t seem to be any policy that one can just “adopt” to triple the TFR and automatically become a superpower a century down the line.
Having ruled out the common responses, here’s an actual answer.
In the modern, post-traditionalist world, people broadly have about as many children as they say they want to have.
Source: Jens Alber et al. (2007) – Handbook of Quality of Life in the Enlarged European Union
As we can see from the table above, in the generation of women 40-64 years old in early 2000s Europe – that is, amongst women that have completed any childbearing they might do – the correlation between ideal and actualized fertility is r=0.63. Excluding Turkey, the correlation rises to r=0.76.
One common pattern we see is that in the younger generations, actualized fertility tends to lag desired fertility by approximately 0.5 children; since there has been no European baby boom since then, we can assume this gap has remained to the present day. One assumes this gap is due to both economic factors (the age of the postwar economic miracles is long over; many people don’t think they can afford more children, especially in the European peripheries), as well as cultural factors (e.g. more affordable entertainment options make bacherlorhood relatively more attractive, while more and more women seem to be under the impression that they can delay childbearing into their late 30s and 40s).
Still, in any one country, ideal and actualized fertility can’t remain too divergent forever. The fact that Russia’s post-Soviet fertility rate (1.1-1.3 children per woman) had long been out of whack with opinion polls about desired fertility (2.3-2.5 children per woman) was one reason why I predicted that Russian fertility would soon see substantial increases back in 2008. And I was correct, with Russian TFR peaking at 1.8 children per woman a couple of years ago (though it has since declined to 1.6).
Our Biorealistic Future
People have about as many children as they want (minus half of one) is a factual and correct answer to the question posed in the title of this post, but it’s still not all that satisfactory in that it doesn’t answer why ideal family sizes differ between First World countries.
My supposition, which will be expounded upon in the next post about the Age of Malthusian Industrialism, is that the core of these differences is now (though not a century ago, and barely so 50 years ago) genetically determined.
(This is not a new theory, even in the HBD blogosphere. For instance, JayMan suggested a Pioneer Hypothesis, in which colonization of new territories (e.g. the American West; Siberia) selected for traits that promoted faster breeding.)
Moreover, I have hypothesized in Our Biorealistic Future that as the world drops socialism and adopts best institutional practices, and as the importance of smart fractions increases even further, we should see further increases in the already formidable correlations between national IQ and GDP per capita.
Much the same effect will be in play with respect to demographics.
As global culture continues to homogenize – Tinder (easy hookups), Uber (easy transportation), low cost airlines (cheap holidays), Steam/Netflix (cheap solitary entertainment) are all pretty universal now – we can expect fertility patterns will correlate more and more closely with their underlying genetic determinants.
Is France really that irreligious? iirc there were large demonstrations against homo marriage by traditionalist Catholics just a few years ago.
It’s weird, but I’ve only ever encountered the association of the Weimar republic with sexual decadence in English-language media (e.g. Rod Dreher always whines about “Weimar America” when there’s something new about homos or trannies). It’s not prominent in German perceptions of Weimar (where the focus is more on issues like the hyper-inflation, mass unemployment, street fighting between commies and Nazis). I can only assume this must be due to literary depictions of an unrepresentative Berlin subculture by Anglo homos like Christopher Isherwood.
Doesn’t sound convincing imo, and like with many other “HBD explains everything” theories I wonder how that could even be proven.
https://i0.wp.com/europeanvaluesstudy.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/importanceofgod.jpg
Sure, the French religious are buntive, but the French are buntive in general. Have been for centuries.
That’s basically correct, I think.
It can’t, yet. But I’ll lay out circumstantial evidence in the second post.
Also, not everything. Just (in the developed world) most of the differences. And an increasing share of it over time.
All in all a very well written and interesting piece. However, the conclusion doesn’t really sum up the body of the message and really doesn’t tell me much at all? Did I miss something here? I suppose this will be the crux of Part 2?…
Have you considered that the spread of lazyness in the modern world could have something to do with lower fertility?
Western feminism was largely driven by at-home mothers who felt that their life was physically too demanding. Even with post-WWII appliances, a housewife would experience a lot of drudgery. Enter feminism: women leave homes for comfortable offices (women were not rushing to work when most work was in factories). Then the same dynamic spread around the world. Given a choice most human animals (all animals actually) will prefer to do less. Doing less is just another term for being lazy.
One constant in evolution has been that each succeeding generation tends to be lazier than the previous one. That is commented on in most historical texts (I could provide references but am too lazy right now).
Lazyness is a simple adaptation to an easier life and to increased complexity. Having kids is hard, lazy people will – if they can – have fewer of them. The fact that kids are no longer usable around households and fields makes the calculation that much more dramatic.
I would add that the up and down nature of the economy in the West has also added to the calculus of child rearing. I’m old enough to remember regular 2-4 year recessions that caused a lot of monetary problems for folks. Come to think of it, 2008/2009 seems to be a distant memory already?…
Also, not everything. Just (in the developed world) most of the differences. And an increasing share of it over time.
Doesn’t this cover things like obesity? Once the environment “equalizes and saturates” the genetic component will rule.
It’s a very good post though (with an interesting and insightful discussion within it).
It could be re-written into a longer article, published in a high quality newspaper or magazine.
Honestly, I don’t think that even things such as genetic IQ augmentation will prevent a global fertility boom in the future. After all, even if the world’s average IQ is rapidly increasing, the breeders should still make up a larger and larger percentage of the total population as time goes on.
BTW, Israel is an excellent example of your theory here actually being put into practice. Over the last 20 years, Israel’s Jewish TFR increased by more than half a child–specifically from 2.62 to 3.16 children per woman per lifetime! Of course, I certainly don’t think that Israel could indefinitely sustain this unless a massive number of Israelis will continuously emigrate from Israel. Indeed, Israel simply doesn’t have that much living space–and even the Negev Desert, the Galilee, and the West Bank will eventually become overpopulated if current trends among Israeli Jews will continue long enough.
Also, I do wonder at what the carrying capacity for countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, Russia, and Ukraine is.
I remember 2008-9 and it was probably the last normal ‘recession‘. West is not in a position to have another recession – in 2009 they dropped interest rates to zero and dumped a few trillion in new money on the economy. That will be impossible to do again – at a minimum the global cooperation won’t be there, too much outright hostility, sanctions, etc…
The low interest rates are like a gun pointing at the economy: you raise them too much and the economy will collapse again. But not raising them means endless inefficiency, credit bubbles, financiers loading up fees and cheap debt.
This is quite a dilemma, next time we might get some massive debt write-offs, or inflation. It will be really ugly. (Babies are cute, they shouldn’t suffer because of bad economic management.)
So you do not have to talk about Jews and problems they created.
Thanks.
As I said in 11 Years of Blogging, The Age of Malthusian Industrialism concept will (hopefully) turn into my first published book, (hopefully) this year.
Identify outliers on GDP vs. IQ Lynn’s curve and nuke them.
No, it won’t.
In fact, Randall Parker (convincingly IMO) argues that these techs will accelerate that transition: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/009885.html
My argument is that this will happen even in the absence of such “biosingularities”, eventually making current projections of a stabilized world population at 10-15 billion moot.
PS. There’s a lot on Israel and Jews in the next post.
Nuking Saudi Arabia is probably something that will appeal to most of us here, though nuking China is a dicier proposition.
But no need for atomic democide to make these theories fit.
China and ex-USSR will probably continue to converge, while the electric vehicle revolution may well make the resource windfalls currently enjoyed by the Gulf monarchies moot and bring their GDP per capita in line with their actual human capital.
There’s no other outliers, pretty much. Botswana, I suppose. South Africa. White genocide would solve that.
Things aren’t that simple, the early Nazis weren’t even especially anti-homo…think of Ernst Röhm (who actually was a member of a homo organization named Bund für Menschenrechte, league for human rights, lol). Even later on, lesbians were never persecuted. Nazi sexual morality was focused rather on racial issues, not so much on illegitimacy or other things social conservatives care about.
In English, Russian, or both of these languages?
Correction on the ex-USSR part. The higher-IQ countries in the former USSR (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Armenia) are likely to eventually converge to at least Greece’s level of prosperity. The lower-IQ countries in the former USSR have much less hope for them in the absence of IQ-enhancing technology.
What do you think that the global population will stabilize at?
BTW, I look forward to reading what you’ll write on Jews and Israel.
Also, while this is unlikely to have much impact on the global population, what do you think the odds are that we’ll eventually be able to revive people who are cryogenically preserved? BTW, by “revive,” I mean literally reviving them–not putting the contents of their brain into a computer (which would defeat the spirit of cryonics).
Debauchery in the Weimar republic was really only widespread in Berlin though, with the deep countryside noticing nothing of that. Consequentially, Berlin’s fertility rate was 1.0 children per woman between 1923 and 1933, while it was over 3.0 in the far East of Germany and conservative catholic regions. The Nazi family policies almost doubled fertility in Berlin to 1.8, but obviously had little effect in those high fertility regions.
In English. On the off chance it is very successful, I suppose I will translate it (or pay someone to).
Part 4.
If we have a singularity this century (that doesn’t kill us/totally subvert our values) – pretty low, from what I understand there’s still massive damage prior to the cryonics process.
If not – essentially zero.
In the Age of Malthusian Industrialism scenario, I doubt anyone will be interested in preserving those weirdo husks at Alcor or Kriorus during the idiocracy stage.
Thanks for your response.
Also, you don’t think that future technology will be able to repair the damage that cryogenically preserved bodies have?
Also, by Part 4, do you mean Part 4 of this series (with this post being Part 1)?
I just want to make sure about this part since I can’t find Part 4 anywhere here.
Mr. Karlin, you claim that people have abo as many children as they want, minus a half a child. I would say that .5 is a huge difference. Indeed, it can make the difference between population sustainability and looming extinction.
Women are being misinformed about age-related infertility, and that is something that anyone who cares about women’s autonomy ought to be able to agree is a serious problem.
Moreover, I would be curious to know whom is being asked about their ideal family size. Young people with no children? They don’t know how many children they want. You don’t know whether you want any more kids until you’ve had at least one. I’ve seen women say over and over again they’re done, but then decide they’re ready for another after a few years. Sometimes, they get sterilized and wind up regretting it. Her Imperial Majesty Queen Rosie would put a stop to that right quick!
And BTW, when you consider the highly effective, convenient, long-term birth control options that are available to couples nowadays, I can’t imagine how permanent destruction of a woman’s reproductive system could possibly have any benefits that could justify this draconian and irreversible intervention. First, do no harm.
To be fair, sterilized women can have children through IVF.
Somewhat OT: I guess Kmac is now coming out for coerced marriage now.
What a surprise, turns out its genetically determined. I’m stunned.
I think I sort of answered that.
Skeptical about reviving those people, hence skeptical about being able to repair damage. I mean, damage to tissues etc. should be trivial to post-singularity civs, but the main problem is that if your brain turns to mush you’ll lose the information encoded there – i.e., what makes you, you – you’ll revive somebody, and I suppose you can regrow the neural tissue, but it won’t be meaningfully you.
Yes, part 4 of this series. This is the first part.
It’s subtly different than “HBD explains everything.” On one level, I believe he’s saying that the genetic basis of fertility will be selected for, which is quite logical unless there is a fast cultural revival.
Think of the genetics as being a group of physical and mental traits that favor fertility in the current environment. Well, even if they were never selected for before, they will appear more and more together in single individuals in the future. Meanwhile, single polygenic traits that favor fertility in this environment may become more pronounced, just as height has been selected for in the Dutch, over the hundreds of years.
It should happen relatively quickly because it is fertility.
Is there any way that cryonics can prevent your brain from turning into mush? Or is this something that we are simply going to have to wait and see?
Also, thanks for clarifying about the parts.
Aphids are born pregnant. Could happen to Nigerians too.
I’m joking a bit, but actually though it is quite disturbing and rare, 5 year olds can become pregnant and give birth. And I believe it could be heritable.
Just imagine–at 10 or 11, you could already become a grandmother–and at 20, 21, or 22, a great-great-grandmother!
So, theoretically, at what point would squirrels be in a zoo? I believe Asimov had it at 8 billion, which seems rather pessimistic.
Also Käthe Schirmacher, a feminist and lesbian, who was involved in the DNVP and criticised ‘negrified’ France and ‘animalistic’ Moscow as well as Weltjudentum.
Who is misinforming women about age-related infertility? If you ask your doctor or do a quick Google search, you can easily discover that women’s fertility does indeed decline with age. It is not some suppressed secret or arcane fact. Frankly, you’d have to be pretty dumb to be unaware of this as an adult.
Popular media typically depicts and glamorizes single, childless, youthful adult women and their lifestyles. But this is not the same thing as misinforming women about fertility. If women have no inclination to seek easily accessible and important facts about their basic biology and are completely swayed by fictionalized depictions, it raises questions about how autonomous they can truly be.
Let me guess how the other parts will go –
Part 2 – IT’S genetically determined
Part 3 – its GENETICALLY determined
Part 4 – its genetically DETERMINED
After a lengthy introduction using big words, of course. Truly HBD can keep an intelligent man stimulated for a long time with its rich and complex subject matter.
Sorry Anatoly I couldn’t help myself 🙂 You can put this under the MORE tag now, lol.
It’s mostly self-delusion
Sometimes Karlin sounds like a leftie — he’s certainly captive to their thinking and vocabulary.
“misogynous places” (lowering the barbarism of wahhabi saudi arabia to some marxian nonsense, maybe they and the often denounced “misogynistic” frat boys, those dastardly white men, have something in common, eh?)
“draconian laws against abortion” (why not just strong? draconian implies the laws are evil. this is a strange sentence to be uttered by a nationalist)
I can agree, in principle, that feminism alone is not to blame for low TFR. As you observed, some religious countries have lower fertility than their more liberal counterparts, but nevertheless one cannot ignore the feminist role in reducing the birth rate. In Sweden, for example, had the aborted pregnancies been carried to the end, the country would beat the 2.1 replacement mark. You can extrapolate by looking at the number of births, TRF, and abortions, which I did recently. Likewise, I’m confident that, after making the dehumanization of life a national priority and normalizing on-demand abortion as no big deal, indeed, as an ’empowering’ act, Ireland’s TFR will start to lag behind Northern Ireland in the next few years. They have to day been remarkably similar.
Data for Sweden, 2016:
38,177 abortions
117,425 births
1.85 TFR
The numbers speak for themselves: had these lives not been aborted, Sweden’s TFR would be shy of 2.5 (!). Sweden’s TFR is also affected by the higher fertility of its large alien population. Also, it’s safe to assume that, all else being equal, more abortions are carried by Swedes and other European ethnicities, not by religious colonists and their unintegrated descendants. More abortions AND a lower fertility than the aliens don’t give much confidence in what is an otherwise decent, albeit insufficient, TFR.
I won’t even mention Russia, where abortion deprived the country of millions in the past 2 decades.
I also agree that children are a financial burden today, contrary to the past when they were extra hands, useful in a more agrarian environment. The life cycle of most people today consists of being born, going to kindergarten, highschool and graduating, and then — here is the issue — instead of marrying and forming a family, when they are of a age in which their forebears were married and many with children, they forgo all of this in order to go to university, get a diploma, establish a career path and then, only then, build a family… when their more fecund years are already over.
For modern society to have an above average fertility rate, placing social and economic onus on non-parents, like closing certain jobs and whatnot for them, should be a priority (not easy in today’s cultural climate, but some countries can pull if off… there’s no alternative, not humane anyway), instead of burdening, say, married women, which just creates incentives to avoid marriage. This will work better than monetary incentives which just can’t match the expenses, monetary and physical, of bringing kids into the world.
The onus should be such that the advantages of not having children in the 18-30 age bracket is neutered by the benefits of having them. The highschool-university-career pipeline is the main culprit and must be destroyed. Feminism is of secondary importance as far as fertility rate is concerned. This is very evident in Iran: young adults forgo family formation, TFR plummets. I would go so far as barring, in the name of equality (ahem), both men and women from university until they have at least one biological child.
[People have about as many children as they want (minus half of one)]
Another way of putting this is that people want as many children as they have (plus half of one). The evidence is that such an alternative formula grasps more of the causality involved.
[My supposition, which will be expounded upon in the next post about the Age of Malthusian Industrialism, is that the core of these differences is now (though not a century ago, and barely so 50 years ago) genetically determined.]
That is a deeply absurd supposition.
Who is misinforming White people about racial differences in IQ? If you do a quick google search or ask Nicholas Wade, you can easily discover that sub-Saharan Africans have a mean IQ of 70.
Only if you’re already looking for reasons to claim that women can’t be autonomous. In any event, it appears the majority of women do indeed start having children well before their thirties despite media anecdotes about 79 year old first-time moms.
Do men ever make poor decisions, and if so, does that “raise questions about how autonomous they can be”?
https://www.ajc.com/news/world/year-old-woman-gives-birth-her-first-child/7UdDsv5bNvbVIWMYesNAnL/
Finally, a great post again! Looking forward to the rest of this series.
Is native French fertility higher than German fertility? If you remove the sickle cell fraction from the absolute number of births, it doesn’t seem to be the case.
If it is the case, to which degree is it due to earlier demographic transition and subsequent selection?
One thing to keep in mind is that the environment concerning fertility definitely hasn’t stabilised yet. Impact of smart phones? Impact of social media? Impact of tinder? Impact of student debt? We don’t know yet.
Impact of VR porn? Impact of sexbots? Impact of widespread technological unemployment or unconditional basic income? All kinds of things could drop or raise the fertility rates very significantly in the coming decades.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/04/upshot/up-birth-age-gap.html
This is an extreme position. A 22-year old college graduate has plenty of time to have kids. Besides, where is a woman with an IQ north of 130 supposed to find a husband with whom to have children if not at university?
Anatoliy,
Women have as many children as they say they want. Hence HBD. Wat? As if you never heard of all the discussions of patriarchy in the Reactosphere – that our problem is women having too much freedom to do what they want to? Ban women from college and their preferences change (housewifing without many kids is boring), make women property and their preferences stop mattering and so on, and so on…
Abortions do not translate into “lost” fertility. This invalidates the rest of your text.
Incorrect.
Russian women under 25 want 2.03 children in 2017 (same as women 40-44 y/o). Average number of children in that group – no more than 0.5 max.
You have many absurd beliefs.
Well, I did say White Sharia might work. Implementation in 2019 might be a bit tricky lol.
Great piece! I have the impression that “desired fertility” also tends to correlate with ease/affordability of having children. At least, that could explain why people say they want more children within Hajnal, where people have more economic security and more generous family programs. (Germany being the exception, but I understand that, somewhat like Japan, Germany does not make it easy for working men to have children.)
Anecdotal, but the only Western people with real faith I’ve met (online or offline) were French or Belgian.
Questions about a “personal God” don’t measure religious fath, they measure the strength of indoctrination of their education system.
The number of people with faith is always necessarily low.
Of course they do. The effect is twofold:
a) Abortions damage a woman’s reproductive system.
b) Abortions delay childbirth age, at which point a woman is much more likely to be infertile.
If (a) was significant, then Russia would be a demographic desert these days after half a century of abortion being the main method of contraception. In reality, the RSFSR maintained TFR at around 2 children per woman from 1955, when abortion was legalized and became the primary method of contraception, up to its collapse. And throughout this period more than 90% of Russian women had at least one child.
Lack of abortions creates single mothers burdened with children they don’t really want who are in no position to have more children.
a) I didn’t say if it was significant or not. We just don’t know if it is significant or not. (Not to mention the fact that we don’t know how much is ‘significant’ or how to quantify the significance.)
Maybe it would have been around 3 without abortions. Who knows?
b) You’d need to cite something for this, because anecdotal evidence says otherwise.
The stereotypical single mother is a ‘helicopter mom’ who is emotionally dependent on her kids, absent a real man to cling to. If they have less kids it’s because they can’t find a man to put up with their emotional and family baggage, not because they don’t want them.
What could the most intelligent 1% of women use to make good life choices? Hmmm, it’s a conundrum.
Arranged marriages at 16. 3 kids by 21. Degree studied while doing so and education done by 22. Both parents back to work as essential apprentices. Childcare done by one of potentially 8 great-grandparents or 16 great-great-grandparents. Kids looked after by family. Old women get big extended families, not cats. Young men have to grow up. Kids respect parents because parents are in prime of life not late life. Generations are stitched together.
Obviously, I have no practical solutions on how to get there, but it would be a great antidote to a lot of modern evils while accommodating a lot of modern demands.
The most extreme “controlled experiment” was Romania, which went from a liberal to an ultra-conservative policy on abortion in 1966. Results: Temporary fertility spike, which rapidly collapses and sets in at a new normal of 0.3-0.4 children above that of its neighbors such as Bulgaria, with whom it had previously ran even with. Many of these surplus children were unwanted and accrued to the dregs of society, with the result that Romanian orphanages became a meme of post-Communist destitution in the West.
Of course Romania was also a totalitarian dictatorship with closed borders, so no popping over the border for an abortion. Unclear how to replicate that today (and if you do, not getting overthrown and having all your policies immediately undone).
As we have established numerous times, anecdotal evidence from you is worthless, because you live in your own reality.
http://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FT_14.08.13_NonMartialBirths_1-3.png
Make your point or STFU, Jew.
Your response is hilariously apposite.
You don’t have a point, so you just pretend to have one and imply I’m too stupid to get it. I’m immune to your sophistry, Jew. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be here commenting, would I?
Fertility in developed societies is almost entirely decided by the degree to which they have a positive telos that practically everyone buys into.
Look at the TFR rankings for OECD countries and this correlates beautifully.
It even correlates over time.
I suppose it is actually pretty obvious that a sense of continuity and purpose beyond instant personal gratification would mean people have more children.
My point, and I guess I need to spell it out, was that what is stopping the smartest 1% of women from breeding is not their inability to locate almost equally smart men, but their own choices. And perhaps the choices of those men, too.
Or to put it at the level of a 10 year old: extremely intelligent women know where to find extremely intelligent men outside university. Otherwise, it’d be hard to call them “extremely intelligent”.
I made this point in response to your comment that if intelligent women did not go to university they would not meet intelligent men. I have no idea why I bothered. It was a self-evidentially idiotic point. Nevermind, that fertility rates were obviously far higher before women were admitted to universities.
Not that I’m against women at university. I really don’t care if they individually choose to go or not.
https://restructure.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/evpbingo.jpg
Lol how out of this world he has to be, to be shocked that an app for finding casual sex favours pretty boys. It’s not like his wonderful personality matters if the girl only sees him for a night. Meaningful relationships are different, as anyone can see if he goes to a family fun place (like a park or a fair) where tons of non-pretty guys come with their wives and children.
I can honestly say I never met a single suitable young man until I went to university. Even if I had, romance is a numbers game to a large extent. The more exposure, the more likely sparks will fly. That is obvious.
post hoc ergo propter hoc
As you say:
“Sparks will fly.”
Too much focus on initial attraction.
“Romance is a numbers game.”
Not for women. For women it is the lowest number possible game. That is unless they have to continually be disappointed before they learn and get their priorities sorted.
“Never met a single suitable young man” until university.
What counts as suitable for you?
God forbid young people enjoy a bit of romance before having children.
So you say.
Your question is meaningless to me, since it presupposes a male attitude towards coupling. When I need a new product, I generally have a list of requirements. Romance and marriage are not like that for women. It’s more of an “I’ll know it when I see it” kind of thing.
Find some honest older women with long, happy marriages and ask them what they think of your feelz based decision making process.
Nice should beat tingles every time.
Obviously I meant as many as their peers have when they complete their reproduction.
You do know, I hope, that using the same stale attempted gotcha in response to everything lowers you to the level of an internet khokhol?
Perhaps Glossy had a point.
To say that several millions of Russians who were aborted would vanish into thir air on the ninth month is nonsensical, sorry.
I cited Sweden because it illustrates that even the most “enlightened” country (by Marxian standards), the shining city on the hill, where contraception is widely available, abortions hurt the overall TFR decisively.
Even if what you say about abortion was true, it wouldn’t invalidate my other argument about the role of the highschool-university-career path pipeline in crashing TFR. When you discard the cultural and economic factors, the change in modern life cycle, i.e. the main sequential steps a human follows in his life, seems to be the overriding cause behind low TFR. Again, I cited the Iranian example because in 2016 it had a TFR of 1.66 — very poor by Islamic/theocratic standards.
According to Wikipedia:
The pipeline must be destroyed, it’s the most humane way to recover TFR, and it’s also egalitarian in that it affects men and women equally, and doesn’t bar women from the job market (no White Sharia). Placing onus on non-parents, like not allowing university admission until they have at least one biological child, and also closing some job categories to them, will do wonders in changing societal attitude that holds the pipeline — which has its own less overt coercive aspects on enabling someone’s success in society — as the path forward.
I came to embrace these beliefs after analyzing and finding them to be consistent across countries, whereas the cultural and economic variables proved to be inconsistent, something you seem to recognise.
Do you think that the genetic determinists like Karlin believe that their beliefs in genetic determinism also have a genetic component? Does he believes that he can’t help himself and there is no intellectual force within him to resist his fantasies because they are genetically conditioned? But then how do you explain his need to write about his fantasies? His genes are not being spread on paper? If his genes wanted more people to believe in this fantasy they would make him procreate. This is the only way to spread genes responsible for the gene determinism.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA
A True King is both Masculine & Considerate.
What Men desire in their leaders, women desire in their husband.
This is why Both King & Husband are like God.
Then again you come from this:
https://i.imgur.com/aE1Qfpm.jpg
Instinct is often more reliable than imparted information.
However, virginity is valued.
It was partly exaggeration of domestic medical literature to discourage abortion rates.*
Then I believe this was used by American propaganda and became some kind of meme of Western media about why fertility rates are low in the 1990s (because women’s wombs are damaged).
Effect of people using abortion for family planning (contraception), on fertility rates – obviously significant, in the same way all contraception/family planning is.
–
https://www.hse.ru/data/2014/07/15/1312456972/5_%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%90%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D1%8B%20%D0%B2%20%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8.pdf
I am one of those honest older women with a long, happy marriage, so STFU already. I don’t need your advice.
That’s a bad analogy. Every group, including blacks, believes there are racial differences in IQ, and given the controversy over the issue, probably privately believes the differences are greater than they admit publicly:
http://www.unz.com/isteve/asians-are-most-realistic-about-white-black-iq-gap/
Furthermore, physical and functional decline with age is such a basic, fundamental fact of biology, and it certainly isn’t controversial like the issue of race and IQ is.
The majority of women start having children before their 30s because that is when they are most fertile.
What about this comment required hiding?
Based on your various comments, it appears that you’re in favor of fornication, serial dating, and female careerism and “hypergamy”. That’s fine, but then you’re in no position also to lament the decline of stable monogamous marriages and families and declining fertility rates. A society cannot have all these things. Something has to give.
Surely by far the most prominent/influential depiction of Weimar Germany in U.S. media is Cabaret, whether the film or musical. I suppose this is based on an Isherwood story, but my guess is that at least 100x more people have watched some version of Cabaret than have read any Isherwood.
She’s far better than most women, and beside law is the realm of men.
It’s not her fault that women are run amok, just like it’s not cattle’s fault when they run away untied.
Man is master
Go to hell.
Then perhaps you need a remedial reading program.
Nice work, been a quite a while since you wrote something like this.
Hell is an elaborate Pagan fire ritual.
You see, insulting him everyday works.
However, his in vogue nickname is no longer fat karlin.
He made a post telling men how to bang slavic chicks (most of whom have no booty)
He is now Super Saiyan Cuck Karlin.
Fat Karlin or Cuck Karlin for short, are still acceptable.
You still have to do household chores when you come home from work. Striving to have one’s own income had more to do with situations like this:
Or this:
https://americanliterature.com/author/anton-chekhov/short-story/a-defenseless-creature
And these are more fortunate examples who at least had some property and didn’t go outright hungry. For really horrifying stories, see this:
https://forthefainthearted.com/2012/12/26/workhouse-grief/
Enough for daughters and granddaughters of these generations to rush for jobs as soon as they could, I suppose. (Pauline Gueble became a professional milliner, emigrated to Russia and supported herself until she went into Siberian exile with her fiancé, a Decembrist rebel.)
I’m inclined to believe that you’re older.
I’m neutral as to your sex.
I’m sure you’re not “130 IQ”.
The latter certainty of mine precludes you being honest.
Regardless, on the preudonymous internet your ideas have to stand on their own merits and not on who you are, or claim to be, so, equally, my doubts don’t matter.
What are your ideas again?
Romance is a numbers game?
Extremely intelligent women need a kindergarten for adults to find equally intelligent men?
Tingles is the best way to find a long-term match?
As I write this, I have the image you have claimed to represent – honourable matriarch, and feel reluctant to be as stark and truthful in my mocking of your positions as I have been above. Nonetheless, I continue to do so because your use of “Jew” as supposed witty (or final?) rejoinder is so reminiscent of “but you’re a white male” that you’ve bypassed my hugely exaggerated sympathy for your claimed archetype.
What opinion do you have of the ordinary white public that allows you to think that you can win them over by acting like that?
Interesting questions you raise, but the whole point of saying everything is genetically determined is that you don’t have to think. It is the philosophy of the closing of the Western mind. So no, I don’t think Anatoly thinks of these things.
It will become the new Aristotelian Scholasticism – 500 years from now, when the Western mind will begin to open again (it goes in cycles), genetic determinism will be one of the first things to fall.
In the meantime, it is a simple philosophy for stupid people – appropriate for a period of decline, and while I sound harsh, it actually may be a healthy development.
The West is tired of problem solving and thinking – a stupid philosophy that explains everything without thinking may be just what we need now.
The talk about IQ is also a sign that we are getting stupider – you talk about what you don’t have. If you have it, you simply demonstrate it. If you don’t have it, you “measure” it.
Anatoly just wrote a mass of verbiage saying basically – its genetic determinism. And lots of people here say its “excellent” and they can’t wait for his next piece – which will say the same thing.
The idiocracy is upon us. Useless fighting it. After every explosion of creativity, a period of sleep.
Anatoly is merely a creation of establishment thinking – Berkeley, America, etc. His historical task is to help usher in the period of sleep.
You’re a jewish beta who wants white women.
Actually, I’m a zeta dwarf who is satisfied with my own club hand.
Reverse psychology of the type young children feel patronised by.
So you admit that you resort to mockery instead of reasoned argument. I have no patience for the intellectual dishonesty so typical of your tribe.
I draw Swastika on chalkboard to get tears from khazar milkers. Are you proud of me Rosie??
So you’re against fornication, serial dating, and female careerism and “hypergamy”? Opposing those things would involve restricting women’s freedom and rights as we understand them today.
Fornication: I’m against it.
Serial dating: I’m opposed to frivolous dating. The purpose of courtship is to find a spouse.
Female careerism: I support the right f women to earn an honest living free of coerced prostitution in all its forms. If you want to call that “careerism,” fine.
Hypergamy: Female “hypergamy” is a hoax and a slander for reasons I’ve been over numerous times.
It had something to do with the rise of feminism, but so did a very strong desire to leave domestic drudgery and instead work in offices. Those two reasons are not mutually exclusive. The income-inheritance issue affected only a minority of women.
Today, the legal environment has shifted to what one could see as another extreme – family assets are largely given to women. That would imply that women have less incentive to go to work and have their own income – but it is not working that way. In other words, the labor market is heavily skewed towards women, and also asset distribution prefers women. Nice world, no wonder trans-genderism is so popular.
My point is that current lower fertility also reflects general rise in laziness in modern societies, incl. among women.
To reduce the incentive to work, you need lifelong alimony. In other words, you need to actually force men to make good on their promise of lifetime support. You also need to protect women from domestic violence. When young women see older women trapped in an abusive marriage by economic necessity, they think, “I don’t want to be that lady.”
Obviously, the vast majority of men don’t beat their wives, but that doesn’t really matter.
My sense is that the real culprit is not feminism but rather secularism. If a man believes that this earthly life is the only one he will ever have, how do you convince him to remain faithful to one wife until he dies? I don’t think it can be done, individual exceptions notwithstanding.
So basically you’re not against these things.
You can’t have a culture of female careerism and serial dating and prevent fornication.
“Hypergamy” simply means that women prefer men who are greater in status. I don’t see why it is a hoax or slanderous.
At any rate, like I said, a society can’t have these things along with stable monogamous marriages and families and high fertility rates. They’re incompatible.
So you say.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/with-fertility-rising-israel-is-spared-a-demographic-time-bomb-1.6131135
“Hypergamy” is arbitrarily defined as something only women do, then blamed for the decline of marriage. Obviously, anything men might or might not do is ruled out, a priori, as contributing to the problem. MGTOW, who go around telling men they shouldn’t get married, will tell you with a straight face that “Hypergamy” is the reason young people aren’t forming families.
Get a handle.
Monogamy & christcuck is gay
Welcome to no civilization then.
Well, rather have no civilization with my own than with foreigners.
https://twitter.com/CarlWRitter/status/1087608552712294403?s=20
This is why I love women. <3
But hypergamy is a reason the MGTOW lot aren’t forming families. There are non-deformed, stable, decent blokes who, for example, get zero swipes on dating apps.
They could do a lot of self and attitude improvement and do better, but, I suspect, their promotion would mostly just lead to others’ relegation.
Having said that, I also notice the phenomenon of the ultra beta – very nice, decent looking, smart successful-ish bloke who spends all his time having his heart broken by out of his league “girlfriends” who don’t even know they’re dating him, meanwhile a perfectly pretty female friend of his hangs on his every word, hoping one day to be noticed.
Obviously, she (the archetype) should learn to speak/seduce and he should grow up and get real. His is the vanity of the mediocre – hoping he is the best, turmoiling that he is the worst, unable to settle on boring realism. Of course, the two could create their own special world together etc. Myopia affects both sexes.
There is no evidence for the claim that women compete for the same small fraction of attractive men. If anything, the evidence tends the other way.
https://beta.techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/male-messaging-curve.png
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626153511.htm
There’s evidence all over this thread, for example, the Gini co-efficient making the male-female Tinder space less equal than 95% of countries.
All your graph shows in your favour is that men send more messages to the more attractive women. That’s obvious.
On the other hand, it also shows that men realistically appraise women’s attractiveness and still send plenty of messages to the whole spectrum.
You can’t blame men for trying their luck, but they’re also hedging their bets, which is sensible and would keep the market functioning. Female hypergamy means many women can’t bring themselves to hedge their bets however unless there’s money involved, so the market is broken.
No proof.
https://beta.techcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/female-messaging-curve.png
I agree with you that the market is broken, because men have access to porn and therefore little incentive to settle.
There’s a problem with that graph. Of course, women send zero messages to men they rate as most attractive – they rate zero men as most attractive, so it is impossible to send any…
Indeed, by the looks of it, the top 1% of men receive 5% of messages, meanwhile the bottom 25% receive 10%.
The graph also doesn’t account for how many (or few) messages are sent in total.
Finally, I assume that this includes replies as “messages”. The effect would, surely, be an order of magnitude amplified for intiatory messages.
Sure there is.
The burden of proof is on you. I’ll wait for any evidence you have that female Hypergamy is a real thing that is destroying civilization as we know it.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090626153511.htm
Tell me again about how women are all chasing the “top 20%.”
Calm down. I never said anything so extreme, not even close. I made balanced posts that were limited in nature.
As for “the burden of proof”, the prior tweet about the Gini co-efficient of the Tinder market is the proof that modern women’s hypergamy is leaving a lot of them single and miserable. I see this all of the time. They talk to me and I gently (and sometimes not so gently) suggest they begin prioritising more traditionally beta qualities and stop being so bizarrely entitled.
Growing to love someone and find someone attractive is something most women are more than capable of, if they’ll let themselves. But instant gratification is the order of the day and women find most men instantly unattractive while men find most women instantly attractive for that.
One of the things that made me question HBD – I used to be a believer – is that in my personal life and that of my friends, the HBD model of male female relations bore no relation to what I saw with my own eyes every day.
It became impossible to ignore the mounting contradictions anymore – real world male female relations was my gateway out of the HBD land of theory.
I am wondering now if the theory of hypergamy is actually men projecting their psychology onto women.
Yep.
I think secularism is a given in today’s society, and given most available religious alternatives, it will probably stay that way. You are right that a right man is hard to find (I am what you refer to as an individual exception, so it is possible). But so is a right woman. To have rules that heavily favour one or the other is very destructive for a society.
In general, so called open societies cannot create a workable system that would harmonise different interests. Without boundaries and restrictions on who is in and who is out, open systems eventually collapse into a chaotic, unsustainable everyone for himself(herself) society. In other words a modern version of what most Third World societies have been since time immemorial. Everything converges downwards, and everybody is worse off.
Western feminism has had some unfortunate results: over-empowering women has removed the harmonization process that is needed to mediate man-woman-children relationships. This is mostly done with women being more attractive as workers in the modern economy – adding heavy emphasis on privileging them has destroyed the ability of many men to be a part of that economy. That also hurts women and it makes forming families very difficult. So people don’t form families.
The added negative is that women often have very low in-group loyalty politically and are in the forefront of ‘we are the same, there are no borders’ globalist idiocy. There are men who do it too, but they tend to do it because they personally benefit from it. I have met many women who objectively lose in a globalist-no borders world, and yet they emotionally support it.
AB, chew up another mushroom, put on some nice music, get out that jar of moonbeams and enjoy the light show.
I very much agree with you that “harmonizing different interests” should be the priority.
I am not convinced that there is any “heavy emphasis on privileging” women. I rather suspect that men’s economic difficulties are simply the result of their traditional occupations being especially vulnerable to “globalization.” As Tucker recently said, some communities have little more than schools and a hospital, traditional employers of women.
Sorry but the data do not support this assertion.
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2018/08/19/new-survey-what-exactly-does-a-white-nationalist-look-like/
Women vote for leftist parties because they support the welfare state, not because they love immigrants.
Israel is a very “diverse” society, with ultra-religious patriarchal subcultures and extremely socially liberal urbanites in Tel Aviv:
“Tel Aviv, an (almost) childless city”
https://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-4457,00.html
If all Israelis were like Tel Aviv liberals and liberal Jews in the US, Isreal’s fertility would be lower.
It’s like pointing to Amish fertility rates in the US to argue that American liberal lifestyles are compatible with high fertility rates.
There’s nothing controversial about the notion of “hypergamy”, and there’s nothing arbitrary about it. Men generally do not care about their potential partners’ status like women do, and tend to prioritize things like physical appearance and youth.
That’s not from Tinder. That’s from 2009. Tinder was released in 2012. Tinder is the most popular dating app.
Actually, school teachers, like secretaries, bakers, and many other occupations, used to be predominantly men. It’s not until the 19th/20th centuries that women start entering them in significant numbers, and until relatively recently, they were expected to leave them at an early age after getting married.
Right. That would be back in th the good ole days when women who fell on hard times had no choice but to sell their bodies to survive. Go f*** yourself.
And get a handle.
Right. IOW men are just as picky and unwilling to settle as women, only in different ways and for different reasons.
So what?
Read the article. Even secular Israelis are at replacement level.
I know you want to keep White men and women at each other’s throats, but you will fail.
The clan, brothers etc take care of widows or religious institutes.
Our ideal involves restoring the sibi.
If you’re saying that individualist christcuck society creates all its own problems, then you’re right.
More proof that the Gods are great.
I don’t know who you mean by “our.”
White people don’t do clans. We do nation-states.
Clannish societies are low-trust and low achievement. They are only enjoying success now because they are parasitic on White civilization.
Most widows and poor women were not prostitutes.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Those jobs were traditionally male occupations and no longer are.
It’s women’s demands that drive the mating market.
Women’s physical appearance or rate of aging hasn’t changed. What has changed is the relative status of men over the past few generations. Patriarchy is a social structure that elevates the status of men as a group above that of women. We no longer have patriarchy, and the relative status of men has declined.
Do I have to spell everything out for you? Do you think lesbians and feminist cat ladies in Tel Aviv are also at “replacement level”? The point is that Israel is far more culturally diverse as far as patriarchal and natalist culture goes than mainstream America is.
1950s America style societal norms involved “White men and women at each other’s throats”?
You’ve never heard of the Scottish Highlanders? The nation-state is only a few hundred years old, and it’s been parasitic on the traits inculcated by the clan societies that served as its foundation such as bravery, loyalty, and altruism. In fact, it’s been burning through its seed corn of the older clan societies and depleting “asabiyah”.
I don’t see the present ‘high-trust high-cuck’ white Christian surviving.
The European Phenotype who replaces him will be High Will Power, and Clannish.
White people are gay, Time to be European again.
She hasn’t been beaten or fucked in awhile, why do you take her seriously?
Just troll.
Ignored.
Porn. It makes us all look worse by comparison.
Not most, just enough to service the needs ofmentill they can afford a fifteen year old wife when they’re fat and balding dirty old men. Gross.
Look. I can’t have it that the facts don’t cooperate with your narrative and your misogynist agenda. The facts are what they are, however counterintuitive you may find them.
Irrelevant. You know, I think I’m beginning to understand why Globohomo Schlomo tolerates the primitive masculinity of non-White men, but seeks to emasculate the White man. Non-White masculine aggression is directed at women. They punch across at women and seek to humiliate and dominate. Non-White men punch up at oligarchs, seeking to protect the nation, its resources, women and children from predatory elites. They cannot have this.
1950s America style societal norms involved “White men and women at each other’s throats”?
You can’t have the 1950s without jobs, but of course you don’t want to talk about the oligarchs who deindustrialized America because your agenda is, as I explained above, to take the heat off the hostile elites by stirring up unwarranted hatred and resentment of women.
*White men punch up at oligarchs…
Because dancing girls didn’t exist and we don’t have sugardaddy or escort sites today.
Hmm, so feminism isn’t pushed across the world by whites especially missionaries on behalf of globohomo.
Look, you’re old and scared that your daughters can’t compete in a new world.
Scared, that your sons are put at a disadvantage because you taught them to be manginas and they can’t fight off packs of negroes.
Shrug,
‘Nice guys can’t fuck’.
If the ‘Globohomo’ elite, likes aggressive men who dominate women; Maybe, they aren’t so homo after all
I don’t know about that, but it is certainly very clear that they fear and hate non-White male thuggery a great deal less than they hate the relatively enlightened, patriotic, and civilized White man.
The reason for this should be obvious to anyone who is familiar with the machinations of the tribe.
That’s because the Arabs are their half-brothers, and Sara was fkd out by Niggers in Egypt
They’re trying to destroy Asia with similar techniques.
Asian IT Nerds come & help them here, White Liberal Missionaries try to create more ‘free’ and ‘open’ societies there.
Why’s it an issue, Aryans are going to triumph anyway lol.
This is but a blink in the eye of history,
U scared?
What I absolutely do know is that when I went from a 16 year old with a blue-pilled outlook on sexual relations to an 18 year old red-pilled one, I started getting my drinks bought, love letters left for me and girls going a million extra miles for me. And all that from a pretty mediocre starting position.
You might persuade me that my lying eyes are wrong but you’ll never persuade me out of that experience. It was basically a switch that completely changed the way half of the population treated me, and much improved it.
Given that 3/4 of Americans are overweight or obese, all an individual has to do to “compete” on looks is have a body shape which roughly approximates the historical human norm. It really isn’t rocket science. Don’t eat your feelings. Do exercise sometimes.
From what I’ve heard, “game” consists mostly of making women feel like they’re not good enough for you, and once married, constantly threatening to break your wedding vows by walking away.
It works on men, too. Personally, I wouldn’t want a man who only responds to headgames. I’m very glad I found a straight shooter. I can’t think of anything more miserable than spending my life playing headgames with some douchebag of a husband.
No it doesn’t. And porn consumption is not a cause of declining marriage but a symptom of declining relative status of men. No porn consumers are going to turn down real sex because of porn, and porn consumption is possible while having girlfriends and wives. Plenty of men with girlfriends and wives consume porn. Men who consume porn exclusively do so out of necessity, not choice.
Huh? I don’t know what you’re saying here, but the fact remains that most poor women and widows were not prostitutes.
What facts are you talking about? Israel’s high fertility rates are not driven by feminist careerists.
Thousands of years of white history and culture are irrelevant. In fact, according to you, most of the history of the nation-state should be irrelevant as well, since the 1950s were unacceptably patriarchal. According to you, white history and culture don’t start until the 60s when feminism really got underway.
I’ve talked about jobs. You’re the one that doesn’t want to talk about jobs, because once you start really investigating the relationship between jobs and sexual relations, you inevitably open up a can of worms and inexorably reach conclusions that are not favorable towards accommodating female careerism and feminism. The 1950s didn’t just have “jobs”. It had jobs and accompanying social status for men that women were generally excluded from. The social structure was designed to make the average man higher in relative social status than women, and thus make men acceptable husbands and fathers.
Ugly chicks rationalize their ugliness with feminism.
Men scared to kill rationalize it with game.
Jew,
Tell your sister to suck my Aryan dick,
Circumcised ones are beneath addressing me.
Don’t make the mistake again,
We all have to go with our experience.
All I know is that when I stopped acting aloof and tough, and started relaxing, stopped playing games and started being straightforward, being social and outgoing and nice, and treating girls with genuine affection, I started having fantastic encounters with them.
You know, I am not immune to the modern disease – I also started out thinking you gotta be super masculine with girls. What happened is I would go to bars that way, get little to no attention, then say, screw it, I’d rather have fun, start relaxing, smiling, and no longer bothering to pretend anything, and to my surprise, the girls started smiling back.
It was an accidental revelation for me.
Plus, I began to notice all my friends who were serious, masculine, pretentious, and had “ego” with girls, would get mediocre women even if good looking, while the socially relaxed smiling nice guys without any pretentious who just wanted to have fun would shoot way out of their league.
Also, I don’t get off on girls buying me a million drinks and going the extra mile for me. I don’t want a servant, I want a partner.
Anyways, good luck.
I guess you’re really, really fat. Like, in nice parts of London, everyone turns to stare at you fat. I’m sorry about that. It is normally co-morbid with things like depression. One might even say it is a physical manifestation of depression, just as it is also a cause – chicken v egg. Of course, this means the world can be cruel. We don’t tend to make fun of true mental illnesses but we often do of their physical manifestations. So, I’m sorry.
That’s a fair approximation of some of the stuff, perhaps. The psycho stuff for nerds who actually don’t like women.
I basically just mean that a bloke should learn to flirt better, assert fair and sensible boundaries and confidentally call a girl out on her nonsense when she feels that way inclined.
Oh, and I first became familiar with the “game” stuff after this. Weird, long rules don’t appeal to me. Too much effort. But I get the distilled essence is just “be a man, not a little boy”.
It sounds like you were previously awkward and creepy while playing at masculinity but now you are a bit more authentic.
I recently had a run in with a bloke like you were. He was a real numpty and quite confused.
I relayed to him that his infantle aggressive behaviour to some girls was putting them off. He decided that was license to try to pick a fight, something I don’t do.
Since it wasn’t an option he swiftly left and was not seen again; which was a shame because the girls were especially kind and would gladly have forgotten his previous behaviour once he had stopped being such a buffoon.
Also, by the general definition, you actually pay your servants, they certainly don’t pay you. I wonder how you got your understanding so topsy turvy?
That’s exactly what I was! And that’s exactly what every “redpilled” Gamer is.
Yes, exactly. That’s what saved me! Being authentic. Now go to the Game sites you visit on a daily basis Tyrion and advise everyone to “just be themselves”.
See what happens 🙂
Sorry, the fantasy of girls “paying me” doesn’t turn me on.
Now, stop being so insecure Tyrion and chill out 🙂
You’re a good guy deep down, better than most here.
Beckow wrote:
I lived through “second-wave” feminism — the whole thing — and watched it with interest.
As far as I could see, the main motive was boredom. By the late ’60s, most American women had automatic dryers, dishwashers, permanent-press clothes for the family, etc. Hanging clothes up on a clothesline, ironing most of the clothes, washing and drying dishes by hand, all of that and more was a fair amount of work. But, most of that work was gone by the late ’60s (and central air conditioning in the summer made life at home more pleasant).
Watching soap operas or game shows while ironing clothes, or occasionally having a break for a garden club or Kaffeeklatsch, worked before everyone had the labor-saving devices. But, by the late ’60s, it was becoming just pointless boredom. And, as the Baby Boom tapered off, fewer women had young kids still at home all day.
Second-wave feminism: a product of dishwashers and automatic dryers, as far as I could see.
Of course, eventually, foolish economic policies that sapped the value of savings and the dollar (thank you, Federal Reserve System!) and that created a huge number of meaningless jobs that sapped the real value of take-home pay meant that families felt they had to have Mom out working.
Alas, most women found the workplace was not quite as fun as they had though (there’s a reason it’s called “work”!). And, when they got home, they still ended up doing most of the housework and child-rearing.
Hasn’t worked well for anyone. One of many ways we really messed up our country.
But, work at home was “physically too demanding.”??? No, quite the contrary — work ar home was too easy and boring thanks to labor-saving devices.
@AK
What rules out the fact that non-europeans actually make up the birthrates in Sweden and France?