Historically, humans have been very tribal creatures, caring only about their group, so it’s interesting to ask why leaders of Western countries have been so generous in their immigration policy over the last half-century. And by leaders I mean anyone who has influence over the country, whether political, economic, academic, or pop-cultural. I am going to list several theories and let my brilliant readers decide.
This question, if answered honestly, might make a good test of social intelligence and general knowledge, but I’m not wise enough to know if my answers are the correct ones, so in the comment section, let me know which combination of these theories, if any, played the biggest role in mass immigration to the West and which of these theories are just nutty.
Theory 1: Immigration distracts from economic inequality
This theory is advanced by commenter “Mug of Pee” and also pushed by Noam Chomsky. The idea is that if you have lots of immigrants, group conflict will be racial instead of economic, so the rich will not have to worry about people resenting their wealth because folks are too busy resenting other races. Social injustice will be seen through a racial lens instead of an economic one, so privileged races get vilified while privileged classes avoid scrutiny.
Theory 2: Immigrants are good for business
Commenter pumpkinhead writes: “The corporate elites who broadly speaking transcend nationality or ethnicity want a global world in order to expand their corporate empires and allow for easier movement of goods, better friction-less access to resources and cheap labor.”
Theory 3: Immigration is a way for empires to course correct
Commenter pumpkinhead writes: ” Countless civilizations have had to contend with assimilating various people of different descent… Just try to envision what it would be like in Ancient Rome, or Hellenistic Greece with their conquest of much of western Asia. When the British decided to dissolve the British empire they too decided to make amends for their past transgressions by making concessions to the people they governed around the world. Part of that was opening the doors to some of those minorities into Britain. IMO leftist ideologies are strongest right after the apex of interventionism war or imperialistic behaviour. It is a course correcting mechanism that many nations impose on themselves in order to self correct. If handled properly they might be better off for it but if not it can destroy them… ”
Theory 4: Immigration to the West allows diaspora minorities to thrive
This controversial theory, promoted by Kevin MacDonald, argues that over the 20th century, a small subset of Ashekenzi Jews used their high IQs, wealth, and influence to lobby for more immigration because in countries where everyone is blond, blue eyed and Christian, Jews are “other”, while in multi-racial countries, Jews blend into the white establishment and resentment shifts towards more conspicuous minorities, especially Muslims (which is convenient for Israel which is often in conflict with her Muslim neighbors).
Theory 5: Northwest Europeans are genetically nicer
This theory,, also advanced by Kevin MacDonald argues that Northwestern Europeans are especially kind to strangers because they partly evolved in the European ice age where you had to cooperate. A variant of this theory, advanced by HBD Chick, is that Northwestern Europeans are especially welcoming because they had less cousin marriage, which makes them less clannish.
Theory 6: People are more pro-immigration because we’re getting smarter
Studies show that higher IQ people are less racist, and since IQ went way up over the 20th century (the Flynn effect), I argued that this might be one of the reasons that mass immigration became more accepted
Theory 7: People are more more pro-immigration because of harmful mutations
Because of medical advances, harmful mutations that would have normally been weeded out by natural selection are now remaining in the population. Proponents of dysgenic theory argue that all these mutations have made people less genetically fit, so they no longer care about reproducing or protecting their ethnic interests.
Pumpkin Person 
now peepee might ask how i can assert that there are more boy geniuses (and boy retards) and be anti-hereditist.
because men and women differ by a whole chromosome…and in innumerable physical ways…
aesthetics don’t lie.
even though i was one of those boys in hs who thought, “if i were a girl i’d be a lesbian”…
lesbians are grosser than fags for two reasons:
1. men are expected to have a superfluous sex drive, a sex drive beyond the will to reproduce.
2. male homosexuals are often better looking than the average straight male and care about how they look, while lesbians are almost universally hideous.
so it’s like…i get that you’re into girls…but your fellow lesbians are repulsive?
women’s lib has created a host of problems.
the one problem it’s ameliorated is the problem of women trapped in bad marriages…with un-sexy men…or at the worst men who beat them…but that’s rare/mostly lesbian propaganda.
so the price of the ability of women to support their children without a man has been:
1. lower wages for everyone, doubling the labor supply has this effect…but not under socialism.
2. the genuine (but non-market) labor of home making has been marketized with day care, fast food, etc.
3. a generation of men without fathers…without a male role model like [redacted by pp, dec 21, 2018]
Asians have the worst personalities.
if wakanda were a real place it would be very anti-immigration.
white degeneracy isn’t that old but it definitely is a by-product of the Silenters and the Boomers.
At the end of the day, we’re all just overdeveloped monkeys. Nothing much to it. Just monkeys with big enough brains to simulate a lot of things.
Monkeys have extreme compassion and empathy skills. There whole basis for survival is based on being able to empathize and understand the emotions of others.
We act as if we have no emotions. Like we’re just fully rational individuals. That is far from the truth. We’re governed primarily by our emotions, and being intelligent doesn’t mean that you are farther away from that fact at all.
We’re just monkeys. We have a social hierarchy. We are monkeys still primarily because we are still such social and emotional animals. Without that fact, we might become more sentient, more rational. But until then, we’re just monkeys, to put it bluntly. Monkeys act based almost entirely on empathy and reward systems. That’s the two main things that a monkey reacts to. I would say monkeys have even stronger empathy than us because of how emotional they are.
I think reptiles or maybe even birds would have made the ultimate intelligent species rather than mammals. I mean, the reptile part is cliched because they’re characterized as being psychopathic and overall have a tendency to lean towards rationality as a stereotype. But birds would have been cool too. I mean, birds are the best at organization without emotional investment. Look at us and look at our ancestors, monkeys. we’re so disorganized even though we act completely out of emotional investment to things. birds don’t necessarily have that. they’re less primal than us, less aggressive, just very focused and rational creatures.
It’s ironic that the most intelligent species in this world, possibly in this Universe, would happen to be a by-product of monkeys especially and mammals to a lesser degree. Monkeys are completely and outrageously governed by emotions, the most emotion-based creature on the planet. Maybe that’s because of their sentience levels but I could argue that dolphins are also there in terms of sentience yet act so much more rationally. I guess it comes down to the fact that monkeys need to establish dominance quickly to rise to the top. Other animals don’t live in more egalitarian societies. there is also less of an emphasis on a reward-based system than in monkeys and humans.
At the end of the day, I cannot tell you how much of everything is just emotion. Pure emotion. It’s hard to capture it as an entity, maybe the most elusive thing in the Universe. Words we read bring up emotions. Smells, sounds, sights, they give us this thing that is not here nor there, does not exist except subjectively, yet governs all our actions. that’s why I think reality is so impure and imperfect. Because we can’t assess, quantify, or even come up with a rational explanation for our emotions. emotions are more powerful than thoughts, imo.
I’ve personally always wondered whether thoughts were material objects. Like could we materialize a thought or quantify it or whatever. Now I’m starting to think emotions are even more powerful than thoughts because with thoughts, we can directly express what we’re thinking but emotionally, who can truly express what they feel.
reasons for so-called high skilled immigration in addition to those i’ve named:
1. it means american schools k-12 can continue to suck. just import the trained people.
2. baljeets et al are obedient. they think they’ve hit the jackpot.
2. it means the US makes india and china etc. less competitive…it steals their brains.
the problem swank and his people have is that just speaking the truth is a “dog whistle”.
unruhe says lenin wrote very clearly against identity politics and that identity politics is reactionary.
it starts very slow (NOT “slowly”), but this is one of the best vids i’ve audited in months.
Name wrote:
“There is nothing spoiled or rotten about not wanting to be a mother. In one of your previous comments, you said you are a misogynist. That was not misogyny, but this statement of yours is.”
—————-
You didn’t believe me the first time? Western females are the most maladapted animals on the planet. The radical feminists, representing their entire gender, claim to be oppressed by men, all men, yet it is clear to sane people that the females of the West are more free than any other comparable demographic group of females in the world. And much less grateful for it. They are also more pampered and prosperous.
Evolution sometimes produces traits that conflict with regard to the welfare of a species, or a specific population within a species. Reproduction in placental mammals evolved to help ensure survival of the (generally vulnerable) embryonic form of a new individual, but it puts a heavy burden on the female of the species. It works well when the females of a species are not intelligent enough to feel that the burden is unfair. Some marsupial females like the kangaroo have an even bigger burden in reproduction. They just don’t know it. But woe be it for the kangaroo male if they ever co-evolve intelligence at the level of discovering how unfair their role in reproduction is.
So, many, probably most (if one could get the truth out of them), Western females have come to believe that their role in reproduction is unfair. Pregnancy is viewed as a burden by the radical feminists, one that handicaps females in their quest for power, in their competition with men. Many describe it as “slavery,” and with a straight face too. In any case, men don’t have that burden, a natural advantage for men.
Lately we are even seeing signals that the modern Western female also finds menstruation just plain unfair. We will probably learn soon that it is slavery also. But what to do about it? The crazies are now claiming the public should subsidize feminine hygiene products, that men menstruate too, and that tampons should be in men’s (all) restrooms. It is a real problem for feminists to eliminate that rather serious handicap also. I expect soon to hear that it is a natural function and that men should accept females freely bleeding on couches and the floor.
In short there are natural advantages that men have over females (females in academia like to call them “male privileges”). Not only are men stronger on average, but they don’t menstruate, or lactate, and they don’t get pregnant. The intelligent feminist female, with the support of intelligent, yet gullible, misguided, submissive, male ‘elitists’ (I know y’all like that word), is still trying hard to level the playing field when it comes to those factors. Advanced technology has not yet quite done that for them.
As everyone knows. the fertility rate is particularly low in the Western (developed) world now because females put their own selfish, personal wishes over the welfare of, and consideration of the future of, their populations. Of course they have ready rationales for their genocidal behavior. Main rationale: overpopulation is bad. In the West, that is. Differential population growth that makes the West relatively weaker than its increasingly more numerous mortal enemies does not matter. And there is the ever popular rationale: a human organism is not a human organism. Biological BS. And another: it’s only a “choice”, not officially murder. And: technology will save us. Quality trumps quantity. Oh, yeah. Right. (In truth, the development of ectogenesis, just might, but that is another story). Intelligence is so often marred by sophistry, is it not?
Western females are practicing their own special form of genocide. But it is not motivated by selfishness? They are not spoiled rotten? Then what is the motivation of the average Western female today? Why is misandry so obvious and pervasive? And why has abortion become their most sacred cow? You do understand that I am considering them as a group? Statistically, not individually.
Yes, women feel like they are the losers of evilolution. That is why they are retaliating now as they become more estrogenic, which leads to higher psychopathy in females. This is the end of pur species, as they continue to fight against reprodiction, or at least eugenic reproduction. It will take time, but we will see the lingering consequences of every point you just made, which I wholeheartedly agree with.
Amen.
Robert P
In response to your previous comment to me though you wrote pumpkin person.
It seems to me that we actually agree on a lot, I’m just a little more optimistic about the eventual outcome regarding this debacle. Not optimistic in the sense that males will regain their supposed “dominance” over females(I’m more of a Petersonian on this issue in that I think that the sexes were more collaborative historically rather than existing under a patriarchy) but rather that eventually all this nonsense will fall by the wayside and rationality will be re-instilled in society, meritocracy will eventually be the only game in town. A reality that everything we understand about biology and psychometrics points towards men being the more intelligent, productive, and capable sex.
You seem to think that women are just as smart as men but that just isn’t true. The facts don’t bear this out. Look at SAT’s, girls work harder than boys at school and are far more conscientious but still score lower overall. Note that it is a misconception that women have better verbal skills, they only outperform males on the writing section(perhaps due to their better work ethic), boys do far better at verbal and math(especially math). Look at IQ tests, males outperform women on average, anywhere from 2 to 7 points. At the 130+ IQ level there is simply no contest. One only needs to study the brain for a little while to realize how stark the difference between men and women is. Men have roughly 10% larger brains than women even after correcting for body size. Men have close to 20% more neurons than women in the prefrontal cortex which is the executive function center and essentially what governs a large part of our intelligence. It appears that women have better connectivity across hemispheres(which may lend some validity to the idea that they are better at multitasking, though I still think this is another myth that hasn’t properly been investigated) but men have better connectivity within hemispheres.
So it seems despite herculean efforts in the last 100 years to bridge the gap between men and women(particularly in the education system and academia, at the expense of males btw) men simply outperform women in most areas. This may sound sexist but it’s the objective unbiased truth to the best of my knowledge and best substantiated data I could get my hands on. The truth hurts but part of being a grown up means that we need to accept it for what it is. I really hate this recent trend most people opt for in order to avoid being controversial and think that impartiality is synonymous with equity. That is ludicrous, nature doesn’t give a flying fuck about our sense of what is right and fair and what aught to be.
This biological difference is virtually insurmountable, only in a draconian totalitarian world would we be able to create a society where men and women share equal power, representation and output in all domains of interest. Meritocracy would have to go out the window and our schooling system would have to be entirely oriented towards women with particular efforts to educationally and psychologically impoverish and suppress males. I understand your fears that this is already happening is schools, in fact I share that fear but I think this is only a phase we are going through. The internet will save us all as people get better and better educated about these things and DNA tests are shedding virtually irrefutable light on these differences. In other words eventually everyone will have to face up to reality. So this idea that women will take over or somehow feminize men to an unrecognizable level IMO is simply out of the question. It won’t happen, at least not to any dangerous long lasting level.
Now it’s easy to fool yourself into thinking that women are just as smart because there are some really smart women out there that can run circles around most men while there are some women that tend to dominate over men regardless of intelligence level. However this proves nothing, when we look at things overall this just isn’t the case. It may seem that I’m quite cynical about all this but I still have faith that most women are reasonable and many ways bring to the table something very important. I think that we need to try our best to keep romantic love alive and try to stave off the cynics, excessive cynicism is a virus. As for whether I am married or not, I’m not, have had several long term relationships however and understand women quite well. They are hormonal and can be quite problematic at times but as long as you pick the right woman(one that isn’t too crazy) try to reason with her, stay several moves ahead of the game and be prepared for some ups and downs I don’t see why it shouldn’t work.
Now you bring up some interesting points which I have to admit did cross my mind and are quite valid. Technology has been our saving grace but it may end up dividing us more in the future. If women can fuck off and have babies without men then this might pose a long term problem. However IMO the sexes are so intrinsically linked on a biological level that we simply couldn’t survive without each other. The issue I think is that the media is infatuated by LGBT, third wave feminism, the supposed plight of minorities at the hands of the evil white man and so called human rights(I call this underdog syndrome) that it may seem that the problem is far greater than it actually is. It’s just a phase, one that we shouldn’t take too lightly( after all we do have to head this problem off, it won’t go away on it’s own) but it would only take a few intelligent people(including women) with their heads screwed on right a few years to set things right again.
Having said that, you are right about abortion, it is a get out of jail card for irresponsible women. I think it is perhaps the most psychopathic manifestation of the female agenda, and i don’t say this lightly I think this is one of the most insidious things humanity has ever allowed for outside of war and genocide. The fact that there are women that so vociferously advocate for this is mind boggling to me, proves that psychopathy(perhaps also stupidity, hard to distinguish between the two sometimes) is far more prevalent than we think(some say up to 5% but I think it might be more than that in some iterations). The fact that society is bending over backwards for them is quite appalling to me. Having said that there is a small argument to be made in favor of pro choice camp in that people make mistakes and shouldn’t have to pay for those mistakes in certain circumstances. So IMO a happy compromise could be reached if we allowed abortion up until week 7(this is when the fetus starts to move, in my view categorical evidence for conscious life, before that organs are not fully formed and the fetus looks more like a blob). That is plenty of time for someone to decide what they want to do. From week 7 to week 10 abortion should be allowed only for cases where a woman is proven to be unable to care for the child either financially or cognitively(ie too young or somehow seriously impaired, cognitively or otherwise) perhaps consider rape cases too. After week 10 only cases where the mother’s life is in danger due to complications should be allowed or it is shown that the child has a congenital disease that could seriously impair their life(severe downs syndrome etc). Other than that abortion should be categorically illegal.
“Actually I think every female from the time they are toddlers knows how to control men. Cry, whine, accuse, and get mommy or daddy to do the controlling for one. ”
All human beings figure out how to “control” each other at some point in their lives. It is something that is a natural part of life. The important thing is that this is not done for nefarious purposes or it is not done maliciously. Now can women manipulate and pull wool over all men, not a chance in hell, most men see right through it all and the smart ones are several moves ahead of it. These women can only get to the agreeable men with an IQ below 100. By my calculations that is 25% of men, at best, multiply that by the 25%(at best) of women that are pathologically sociopathic or manipulative we’ll get maybe 6-7% of men lucking out in life. Now one could argue that all the 25% of women will find men to ruin their lives but my feeling is that most of these women are marginalized eventually except for those poor fellas that just were unlucky. Conversely we might get the same thing happening in the other direction(men towards women) though I don’t think that it would be as pronounced. So no I don’t believe this, there are plenty of men that simply don’t buy any of their crap(see MGTOW, or people calling out the irrationality of feminists on a daily basis). This is only a temporary glitch. It will soon be corrected. Just stay calm and see out the storm. Now if the question is whether men are getting the bad end of the deal, well the answer to that would be a categorical yes. Women collectively get far more in return per KJ of effort they put into anything in society. Does this mean they are smarter, of course not, they are the weaker sex and well, once again, underdogism. It used to be that society would compensate for this disparity by giving elevated status to men and letting them get away with a few benign things. However now that women are demanding more “equality” I’m afraid that they will get what they wished for and will end up not liking it.
Which brings me to something I have noticed about the world, history and the human condition in general. Society generally moves at a snail’s pace in terms of human rights and morality, the only area in which we are currently advancing at an astonishing rate is technology but other than that we might even be regressing in certain respects. So what does this mean, well it means that we generally improve through trial and error and on a grand societal level this translates to massive over corrections. We move from one side of the political spectrum to the other like a 600lb man moves inside a small passenger plane in order to balance it. In other words extremely slowly. We notice a threat to society and democracy(say fascism), academia and society gears up to head it off, all sorts of opportunists jump on the bandwagon attempting to smuggle through their pet projects and 10 years down the line we find that we have collectively crossed the line by a huge margin. However the damage is done and it takes another 10 years for society to correctly identify the new threat and re-align itself to head it off. Opportunists come out of the wood work and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Now this does not mean that there is no progress at all, I see it moving 3 steps forward 2 steps back, progress is made but it is highly inefficient.
I think there is far too much doom and gloom in the air lately, things might be far more optimistic than we think. The culprit of course is the media and all these interest groups. Trump is right about this, the level of misinformation propagated by the fake news media is astounding. It’s no surprise that people are losing their minds over this(see the accelerated rates of depression and mental illness around the world). The media is literally driving people insane.
In any case, pardon my long reply but there is so much to get in.
As I wrote before, the radical feminist movement has only gotten worse and more insane over the last 7 decades. One of the very few advantages of being almost 77 years old is having experience and perspective that younger people, no matter how intelligent, do not. I do not agree that the pendulum will soon swing back to cooperation between the sexes. I think instead the war of the sexes will escalate into extreme violence. In Muslim culture females are treated more like property. Perhaps Muslim men have got it right for once. IMO the Western female is now a dead end in evolutionary terms, the weakest link in Western civilization.
For the record, although I have forgotten most of it and am not up to date I have a doctorate and once taught A&P, including neurophysiology. So, the IQ comparisons of male and female which you allege to be true, are first of all familiar to me, Secondly, I submit that they are not accepted as gospel by all knowledgeable psychometricians. I accept that female neurophysiology is different from male. But I don’t find females on average mentally inferior. In any case, intelligence is not the only mental attribute. And there is the corpora as well as the mens to be considered.
Intelligence IMO is, to a first approximation, simply a measure of the ability to learn, to acquire knowledge. And knowledge can often trump intelligence. It does on Jeopardy every day of the week. Also relatively low-IQ adults, by virtue of knowledge, manage to manage genius kids quite easily. Knowledge is not a factor dependent only on intelligence. It is dependent also on memory (more than one type), quality and quantity of experience (including education), time (age), health, motivational factors, and many others. In any case, when it comes to the gender wars intelligence is only one mental factor of many involved in winning power. (Anecdotally, my wife has a significantly lower IQ but has always had a much better long term memory. I sometimes wonder if there is psychometric evidence of a trade off between individual abilities in and reliance upon memory versus reasoning ability. I’m not aware of it, but it would not surprise me if it were true. It also would not surprise me if females on average rely more on memory than reasoning ability.)
There are as noted physical factors in the power equation. And, as you have noted, there are powerful emotional drives such as guilt, shame, and fear. There is also radical egalitarianism, a malignant force/ideology that works against meritocracy in almost every way, i.e., there is the power of strongly-motivating jealousy or envy on the part of the have-nots, regardless of what it is they have less of (ended with a preposition, my bad). There is also the power of numbers. Female voters generally outnumber men in America. Of course, in a war of the sexes intelligence and knowledge are power. But so many other factors come into play also. One must not believe that high IQ alone always wins every battle.
An example to illustrate the point. Remember what we know for certain, i.e., that while females are clearly physically weaker yet they manage nicely to get stupid but physically stronger men to fight their battles for them. They also manage to get some high-IQ men to fight their battles for them.
And finally, females have one other great advantage. Most men, as I previously pointed out, will do almost anything for them to get permitted to peacefully copulate. Do not “misunderestimate” the female of the human species, either her power or her perfidy. The more technology levels the playing field for them, the power they will acquire.
On another front, we disagree strongly on the issue of abortion. IMO one out of four Western females should be considered murderers and as a group they should be considered the most criminal demographic in the history of Western civilization. Far worse than blacks.
Yes, I realize now that I confused pumpkin person with pumpkinhead. Sorry.
Robert P,
”You didnt believe me the first time?”.
I believed you. I just didnt believe it was misogyny. But your points about calling them names because of abortion, is.
Dont make the same mistake todays radical feminists are, by seeing everything in the same way.
Also did you know that a lot of men too wouldnt want to have kids?
Wait, how is abortion misandry. It is not. Discrimination against men is misandry. Not stuff like this.
IMO hatred of men, born of jealousy or envy, and expressed in many forms, including murdering Western civilization (the civilization created by white men) one baby at a time, is misandry.
Female foetuses are also aborted..
Also women don’t abort their male foetuses because they are male.
Also, you are thinking too far. In south. Asia TFR fell from 6.2 to less than 3 in the last few decades. Biggest fall in history in that region. China also has a one child policy since decades. Still there I think. TFR has been falling in the middle east too, and most of African countries too.
In response to LOADED:
Do you think there might be one (or even more) important difference(s) between a “mouse utopia” and Western civilization? The population of mice in their “utopia” had NO external enemies or threats to galvanize them, to motivate them to cooperate in self-defense against “the other”. Also, mice are not known for their high intelligence or self awareness.
Yes, but women instigate warfare and competition. I think to ascend as a species, we must cooperate, or make gains in constructing something greater than an individual mind, something like a collective conscious, where thoughts are assembled to make greater things, like novel concepts and produce new frameworks for our universe, potentially what aliens with extremely high intelligence and sentience do. We must have no variation in motive, in aesthetics, we must become One. Read Childhoods End by Arthur C Clark for a better understanding of what I mean.
To get back on topic, I think mice are very adaptive and serve as a proxy for mammalian behavior. I think if we look at monkeys, our closest relatuves, we find that those who cooperate more have better sociak systems than thosr who dont. I think the problem with female humans is that are both individualistic, not caring about the group in their reproductive manner, while also having a herd mentality. They suffer from not being valued as himans psychologically, thus never really self actualozing and never fitting the mold of the pyramid that Maslow came up with decades ago. The female psyche is complex, emotionally driven, so it cannot be deciphered with rational thought. To inderstand what emotions are is to find the answer to why femakes in any species act the way they do.
Essentially, as globalosm expands, we will reach a mouse utopia. Otherwise, there will be tribal conflict that stands to be a lot more severe than in any tine in human history.
Competition is a necessity in the mammalian cluster of species. It stands to promote rapid generation of offspring. Let us turn away from that, because it it is a zero sum game, with species genociding themselbes and going extinct. Let us turn to a collectove conscious, one that promotes quite literally the boundaries of human thought abd the Universe.
I know I rambled and didnt answer your questions appropriately, but ponder upon it and you shall find light.
”They suffer from not being valued as humans psychologically”. This is wrong. A womans life was always given more precedence over a mans life most of the time since pre-history. Not equal precedence but more.
Also in relationships where men are dominant and compare that to relationships where women are dominant and see who is valued as a human more.
No, Name, even though a woman’s physical life is more valued, their actual beliefs, ideas, etc. are not. You misinterpreted me. I know that females have had more valued lives than males historically, but society does not value their needs as humans.
Today it’s mostly women. Even since ancient times, except in brief periods of time, women valued men’s opinions , ideas, needs ess than vice versa.
Men often use to go to war and put their life on the line to protect women mostly.
Sure, youre just bolstering my argument. I know men defend women, but their importance in civilization and society is less valued. They have no cultural or societal recognition. As Robert P previously pointed out, theyre seen as only maternal figures to give men opportunities and provide for the basic needs for societal survival. They have no value aside from that, clearly not being seen as important individuals. They have no ability to self actualize other than propogate sons who will bring civilizational success.
Do I think thats right? No. But thats how society functions. That is why women fall prey to neuroticism. Their psyches are literally built to appease men, to serve. I think that will damage anyones psychological mindset, frame, and core.
To serve is their purpose in life, whether to a child, a husband, etc. I guess men do that to society, but that very reason gives men the opportunity to self actualize. Women have no role to play in society and thus are the losers of the psychological warfare that takes place every day between humans.
I guess now, things are changing. Women want to self actualize, but cant bc they are the submittors to men in every regard. Their role in society will remain their evolutionary one and they will fail to gain anything out of their pursuits.
That nonsense needs to stop. In fact, IMO a war ON females is coming soon to America. When civil war breaks out between seditious progressives and patriotic conservatives it is largely going to amount to a gender war.
You: Womens needs were not valued.
Me: Men used to put their lives on the line to protect women. Also men used to give more value to womens ideas, opinions in relationships than vice versa. Even needs.
You: Society was not structured in a way to help women self actualise.
Me: Society was not structured in a way that helped men self-actualise or even to fulfill their needs. It was structured as a military defense system ,more often than not to protect everything about women as compared to that of men. And men were ‘required’ to protect the system.
Men were paternal figures too, who also gave opportunities to women, infact more than they got.
Robert P,
[redacted by pp, dec 24, 2018] If there is any war it will be on men from nature. Men are more or less obsolete. Men have always been some kind of useful idiots and workhorses of homes and societies. There was always far less fun in life for men. And now with tech advancing a lot i feel nature may deem men as obsolete. Probably ten years.
And men’s psyche are built to please, appease, serve women more than vice versa.
Aha, touche, touche. I think you’ve convinced me, but at the same time, both men and women struggle with being a part of society and coexisting. There is no doubt about that. So Robert P is more or less right in saying that there is going to be a conflict where men and women cannot and will not cooperate together any longer. However, I don’t think there will be a gender war.
I did like your comment on how the population would be wiped out by 2025 or so due to a major disease. I think that’s a viable option to reduce the population, not intentionally as I do not believe elites hold that much power. I think a major viral or pathogenic outbreak will happen. I am not sure. Good ideas, Name, but for now, we’ll agree to disagree.
Response to Name:
[redacted by pp, dec 24, 2018] If there is any war it will be on men from nature. Men are more or less obsolete. Men have always been some kind of useful idiots and workhorses of homes and societies. There was always far less fun in life for men. And now with tech advancing a lot i feel nature may deem men as obsolete. Probably ten years.
_______________
Without men, females today would have little or no chance of maintaining Western civilization as we know it. Females do very little for society in the way of creating, designing, building, or repairing society’s physical infrastructure, or of producing food. They are seldom engineers, architects, carpenters, or farmers (except in “reality” TV shows). Most of them are lucky to be able to change the oil in their cars or change a flat tire. Females mostly do service jobs today, like teaching, working in the medical and veterinary professions, being secretaries, lawyers, and especially politicians.
To be sure future technological changes, especially advances in robotics, will change the playing field, but not generally in the favor of females. Females will need robots for almost every type of major building and maintenance function whereas men need females for only two major jobs, reproduction and sexual pleasure. Even the latter is not essential. In truth, females are only absolutely necessary today for reproduction. Ironic, is it not, that it is also the one function that Western females now do so poorly?
I have no doubt that sexbots will soon be better lovers than humans, both male and female. And once the artificial womb is perfected, coming soon, females will be unnecessary for reproduction. It is already clear that functioning ova can be made from stem cells derived from males. And an all male society would still have the Y chromosome. An all female society would eventually have to be able to synthesize the Y if they ever wanted to produce a man again, or to maintain testes (a male organ) in vitro. Technology today can make sperm from females, but I suspect we are a long way from being able to synthesize a Y chromosome de novo. In any case, ectogenesis doesn’t favor females over men. Quite the opposite.
Add to those considerations the surety that men can beat females in an out and out war of the sexes, and I think we can conclude that not only will females become unnecessary , but also females will more likely be the ones made extinct.
Damn, I wish one could edit one’s comments after submitting them to this forum for grammar, or syntax, additions, or typos. Disqus allows that to be done.
In response to Name:
—Quote
Female foetuses are also aborted..
Also women don’t abort their male foetuses because they are male.
______________
In any case concepti are typically (ignoring the latest advances in stem cell manipulation) the children of TWO people, one of whose wishes in the matter of abortion simply doesn’t matter. Men have no rights to their own progeny. And females typically abort for THEIR OWN convenience. In the process Western females help destroy the civilization men built, one person at a time. IMO abortion is inherently as misandrist as it gets.
And why is there no “Reply” next to every post that passes moderation? Disqus has its problems but whatever app is used in this forum IMO sucks.
Every time you reply to a comment, your comment is slightly to the right of the comment you’re replying to. If the discussion is long, eventually comments will move so far to the right of the screen that it will look ridiculous so after a certain point in the discussion, the reply button stops appearing & people just keep replying to the last comment in their discussion that had a reply button.
Thanks for the info. I like Disqus better.
In response to Name:
“Also, you are thinking too far. In south. Asia TFR fell from 6.2 to less than 3 in the last few decades. Biggest fall in history in that region. China also has a one child policy since decades. Still there I think. TFR has been falling in the middle east too, and most of African countries too.”
______________
The magic number is around 2.1 as you know. Below that total population begins to drop. If fertility rate drops from 6 to 3, as you very well know, the population is still growing, other factors being equal. White populations are almost everywhere decreasing in number. Thanks to Western females.
Regarding the explanation that people with higher IQs tend to be less racist:
Someone with a higher IQ will be less likely to base racism on beliefs of racial superiority and will be less likely to apply stereotypes to large groups of people. However, someone with a high IQ can still value the the qualities that make their group or race distinct and wish for those qualities to remain preserved, whether those qualities are cultural, values or physical features.
I have an IQ of 132 (measured when I was 15) – which is not astronomically smart, but far above average. School was easy and any subject at university that didn’t require one to simply memorize a ton of facts, but instead required a grasp and application of principles, was very easy and I breezed through it. I do not consider any racial group inferior, but I do oppose the diversification of white European habitat, for numerous reasons. I don’t feel like typing a whole essay here, but I believe, unequivocally, that whites will suffer in various ways once the number of minorities combined with leftist, self-loathing whites surpasses that of conservative whites.
And then the major issue for me. I had an epiphany a few years ago when I a saw a photo of Heidi Klum’s children conceived by Seal – the black African singer. I have never found non-whites particularly good-looking and I was absolutely shocked at how little resemblance there is between Heidi and her children. They look like the typical sub-Saharan mulatto: brown; with frizzy, coiled, nappy Afro hair; black eyes; thick lips; flat, broad noses; droopy eyelids and un-European facial profiles and skull shapes. I realized that this is what the future for Europeans will look like if we allow immigration to continue. White women seem to have little appreciation for the European features that make them so beautiful and distinct and thy are ostensibly very eager to allow blacks to hijack their wombs to make black children. I personally do not understand why a beautiful white woman with Nordic features would want a sub-Saharan child that looks nothing like her, but I have given up on trying to understand the female mind. What this boils down to is that white women can’t be relied on to preserve white European beauty for the future. If it were up to them, all European countries, from Norway to Greece, will have populations of which every single individual looks either fully black African or mulatto black African. Leave it to our women, and we can kiss the pale, slender-featured, golden haired, blue eyed Nordic bombshells goodbye. Imagine Norway, 200 years from now, where everyone is black with thick lips, flat noses and frizzy Afros. Not a pleasant thought, hey?
it is really up to men to make sure that our white physical character and beauty remains preserved in the continent where it evolved. We have to close our borders and if doing so requires stripping our sisters and daughters of the power to vote for open borders, then that is what we need to do. We can also start by making Europe a very uninviting place for non-white immigrants, so uninviting that the black man’s desire to copulate with a white woman will not be powerful enough to compel him to climb on that boat or plane to face what us European men have in store for him.
I do believe that at some point in the near future, we will not see this trend among high-IQ European white men to be pro-immigration. Even with a high-IQ, a person can still be oblivious or naive. Whites in Europe are sheltered. They are the majority and they have no strong sense of white identity… yet. At this stage, immigrants and diversity is cool, but it won’t stay that way for long. Once they realise they have to walk on eggshells and feel like trespassers in their own ancestral homelands, and once 50% of their population stars resembling Nelson Mandela and Jordan Peele, they will begin to appreciate white beauty and how it sets them apart. Never underestimate the desire of people to want to stand out. In a sea of black, the whites will value their whiteness and will wish to preserve it.
The problem is that once it has reached such a drastic point of demographic change, the preservationist white group might not have the numbers and the power to protect itself against the non-white and self-loathing white majority and they might even lose the constitutional right to preserve themselves. It could easily be made official policy to prohibit white European women from marrying white men and producing white children… In order to “spread white wealth to formerly oppressed non-whites” and to make sure the black men get their sexual itch for white females scratched.
If whites are so beautiful, they should have no trouble competing with non-whites for white mates, and the white race will be preserved. If they can’t compete then they were never beautiful to begin with. That’s how sexual selection works.
And it’s not just white women marrying black men. There are plenty of white men choosing black women. In about a third of black-white couples, it’s the woman who is black:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/12/key-facts-about-race-and-marriage-50-years-after-loving-v-virginia/
I do not see that contemporary political leaders are more generous in immigration than former leaders. Athens was famously welcoming to immigrants. Anyone could settle in Rome, and later, to receive Roman citizenship. First century BC and the population of Rome was mostly Hellenized Syrians (many Judeans). China had no restrictions in immigration and even today there are large Hui (Muslim) populations in the South. In the 19th century people moved freely all over Europe, masses of moved to Vienna, Berlin, Budapest.
[redacted by pp, nov 15, 2019]compares the present to the ancient rather than to the recent past in the US, australia, canada, western europe, etc.
and lies about the ancient past.
this is talmudry and pilpul.
[redacted by pp, nov 15, 2019]
greatest thread of all time…