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.
What about the Kalergi Plan?
That fits in with theory 4
[redacted by pp, dec 19, 2018]. DENMARK AND THE OTHER DENMARK AND ITALY ARE VERY ANTI-IMMIGRATION.
CAN YOU WATCH THIS WITHOUT LAUGHING?
switzerland, hungary, poland, etc. are also very anti-immigration.
ALL OF THE PRO-IMMIGRATION COUNTRIES ARE FORMER COLONIAL POWERS OR COLONIES THEMSELVES.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/06/african-india-demons-160620101135164.html
The only theories that make sense are Kevin McDonalds. You couldn’t even bring yourself to just call it the [redacted by pp, dec 18, 2018]. The idea that high IQ people naturally favour immigration because its ‘logical’ is LAUGHABLE. Thats the worst one there.
Didn’t say it was logical. Just high IQ people are less racist on average (for whatever reason), at least in the modern general U.S. population (might be different at the extremes or at different times and places)
Theyre less racist because theyve been to college to get brainwashed even more than a non college graduate. Wonder what their reaction would be if their mother or father started going out with a black person. Then the handwringing about rwandan refugees and ‘poh poh africa’ would drop.
If my sister ever went out with a jew or a black I would be absolutely livid. I’d probably pretend I never had a sister its so shameful.
You’re so disgustingly tribal. What side of the hajinal line are your ancestors from?
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/
Only a completely dishonest try hard borderline homosexual PC moron would say they have no feelings whatsoever on who comes into their family.
PP
“Just high IQ people are less racist on average (for whatever reason), at least in the modern general U.S. population (might be different at the extremes or at different times and places)”
I believe that high IQ people appear to be less racist because they can afford to be less racist…for the following reasons:
1. They tend to cluster at a different level of the power hierarchy(essentially at the top). This significantly changes the socio-economic dynamics for them. They are not part of the in-group nor are they part of the out-group, they stand removed from racial or ethnic categories just enough so that they can take advantage of the best of both worlds. This opens up innumerable possibilities for them that otherwise don’t readily present themselves to the rest of the population.
2. They are better cognitively equipped to navigate a world of increasing complexity and can readily break through the racial barriers on a socio-cultural level. Also on a genetic level their higher IQ gives them better insight in terms of selection, meaning that a high IQ European can better select an individual of another race so as to be optimally beneficial for their progeny or business ventures. An example would be a European selecting a high IQ genetically robust African woman(not just with IQ but also health and personality traits). Now there is a risk for a regression to the population mean between the two groups but if that person considers family history and individual traits they are less likely to make a bad decision than say an average IQ individual who isn’t privy to all the variables at play. So in a sense a high IQ individual might appear to be playing a risky game but it more often than not is an educated and calculated risk particularly if we factor in other economic benefits that may be influencing their decisions. Or at least that is the theory behind it, some naive celebrities are for the most part blindly pushing for leftist dogma, few if any truly understand the dynamics at play or are even aware of them.
Also my sense regarding the link between Jews running hollywood and it’s push for globalism has less to do with their leftist bent than does the fact that their revenue is now increasingly coming from global streams. 30 years ago I believe only 30% of box office revenues were from the international market hence why you did not often get the hyper-leftist nonsense from actors. Today the figures are almost reversed(close to 70% from the international BO), which is why you are seeing all the hollywood types pandering to all these minorities pushing for greater “equality”, hopping around the world promoting leftist globalist dogma. IMO this is, if not on a conscious level at least on a sub-conscious level just another way to promote themselves and hollywood to a global market. It is mostly about money. This also applies to musicians and anyone in the entertainment industry for that matter. The true leftist believers are few and far between, most are looking out for their own bank accounts.
People also tend to cite hybrid vigor as a benefit from greater racial integration and though under certain circumstances this may present some benefits IMO what a lot of people fail to understand is that hybrid vigor tends to be broadly beneficial after many many generations under extreme conditions where evolution takes it’s toll on all those admixtures that lucked out on the genetic lottery. A simple example would be admixing certain plants in order to produce a more robust hybrid. This may work in the long run but a lot of trial and error is involved. With plants that is all fine and dandy, we readily discard the failed attempts, while it all occurs at an accelerated rate under controlled conditions. With humans though its a different story(suffering is an inevitable result). This of course is any extreme example to point out the flaws of hybrid vigor while human beings are a lot more similar to one another than different but the same principles apply.
So basically what I am getting at is that the lower someone is on the IQ distribution the more reliant they are on group identity and collectivism(not to be confused with communist collectivism though nationalist communism can work) in order to safeguard their future and progeny. They have their culture, way of life, territory and genetics to protect(for better or worse). They are more likely to make errors when admixing with another population on a mass scale particularly if there is a significant IQ/cultural differential. High IQ people can choose and pick far more readily and accurately for one because their wealth opens up possibilities to pick the cream of the crop from the out-group(poor low IQ people can’t do this they are more exposed to chance) while their intelligence leaves them making fewer mistakes. In other words on a mass population level regression to the mean is inevitable, on a more selective level though it is a different story and may in certain circumstances prove to be beneficial. IMO human beings have been doing this sort of thing since the beginning of time, it is a way to introduce desirable traits from the out-group to the in group, apart for the obvious benefit it may provide their direct descendants. However the logistics of it won’t allow it to occur on a mass population level no matter how much these leftists want it to happen.
3. Due to the greater cognitive tools available to them they can more easily diffuse problematic situations and reconcile with the unknown. After all, we fear what we don’t know and don’t understand. There are two ways to deal with that level of excessive and irrational fear, fight(often results in racist rants and aggression) or flight. In addition the high IQ people’s wealth power and better social networking leaves them vulnerable to very little. The rest of the population resorts to different dynamics to safeguard their future. Regular people gain their strength in numbers.
4. Finally high IQ individuals tend to understand the variables at play and the dangers of hyper nationalistic sentiments and rightly promote a more compassionate less racist approach. Some might say this is likely the biggest reason they tend to be less racist but the cynic in me isn’t so quick to reach that conclusion. Having said that it obviously should be the biggest reason to be against racism but the reality is that racism comes in many shades and degrees, some of them not so irrational and perhaps in some instances necessary. For instance during an invasion having hateful feelings towards the invaders might be necessary in order to gather up the courage to fight. Clearly anyone pointing a gun at you is not your friend while those that idly stand by and allow or advocate for their people to unjustly invade another country are complicit in such acts. Meaning that having somewhat broad but nuanced and tempered hateful sentiments towards those people(broadly defined as racism) might not be the worst thing in the world. To call that racism or xenophobia in a derogatory way would be quite retarded but yet in 2018 there are many that follow such lines of reasoning.
A crude example I can use to describe the discrepancy of racism among high IQ vs low IQ individuals is one involving gambling. Consider the uncertainty of gambling, any rational person once they have worked out all the variables and adverse effects gambling has on people’s lives(addiction, toll on relationships, dispossession etc) the obvious conclusion would be simply to ban it. We would be collectively better off if we ban it because a lot of people’s lives will be ruined and because everyone loses in the long run…or do they? Well high IQ individuals can work out ways to turn the game in their favor(professional poker players, black jack players, or hustlers). They would rather have a world with gambling rather than one without. It opens up all sorts of opportunities for them and they are smart enough to handle the volatility and come out on top in the end. Those that typically get dispossessed are the average folk. In my view this is exactly what is happening with the leftist intelligencia, upper class and elitists. They want a world where gambling(ie the volatility of open borders and globalism) is available while they have cleverly figured out how to convince a lot of their targets(naive leftists) to go along with it. Gambling is not as profitable if you don’t have enough ploppies to make it a viable business for the house or the pros. The more ploppies(naive open border leftists and the middle and lower classes that suffer the consequences of their policies) you have, the better able one is as a pro(elites, upper classes, intelligencia) to rig the game heavily in their favor or be exposed to a greater array of opportunities to enrich themselves.
In closing I would say all the theories you mentioned have validity except for 5 and 7. I think those are highly suspect and if there is some correlation to reality it is minimal. Ranking them for the current state of affairs in order of impact would be as follows, 2, 1(linked to 2), 6, 3, 4(linked to 3), 5, and 7. This is tailored for the US, each country probably follows different dynamics. I would say 4 might not be as important in another country.
“You’re so disgustingly tribal. What side of the hajinal line are your ancestors from?”
Cringe. I don’t see what that has to do with anything. It’s just saying X happens here, Y happens there. The differences between X and Y are due to differences in Z.
Hbdchick admits that the hypothesis makes no predictions.
Of course it makes predictions.
What novel predictions were made? How can it be shown that behavior X is adaptive? What observation would disconfirm a byproduct explanation?
Classic example of the post hoc fallacy.
What novel predictions were made?
Her theory is capable of making novel predictions, whether she’s made them or not. For example, her theory predicts that South Asian kids adopted from birth by whites will be more clannish if their families comes from a Pakistani Muslim background (where cousin marriage is common) compared to Northern Indian Hindu family (where cousin marriage is eschewed)
How can it be shown that behavior X is adaptive?
Common sense. If people in your ethnic group are more related to you via cousin marriage, then helping them survive helps your own DNA by proxy.
What observation would disconfirm a byproduct explanation?
Disconfirm which byproduct explanation?
Classic example of the post hoc fallacy.
Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on whether the theory’s predictions are confirmed or debunked by further research.
I wonder if RR realizes Popper suggested novel prediction as a solution to the under-determination problem(that plagues all of science not just EP)? Probably not.
You didn’t even say Kevin McDonalds full theory btw. He says its for a lot more than just making them 1 of many minorities. He talks a lot about how jews make culture sex saturated and work to undermine the current establishment economically e.g. communism. Henry Ford had the exact same theory. That much of jews work is to replace the gentile elite in any way possible.
The last 2 theories are autism on steroids.
it’s not just that immigration suppresses wages. it also:
1. makes it easier to divide the 99% along ethnic lines. for jews this is doubly true. but up to and including the “age of immigration” jews had no power in the US to speak of yet the gentile power elite favored immigration while the 99% was always against it. for example, the know nothings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing
2. publicly eschewing “racism”, “islamophobia”, etc. allows the rich and powerful to look like they actually care about people other than themselves.
This is INCORRECT. In the age of immigration Kevin McDonald shows evidence that basically all the pro immigrant groups and especially the groups that protested the 1921 immigration law and any regulation of immigration in the 20 years prior were ALL jewish and about 5% quaker. This pattern holds in the UK, Australia, and other Western nations thoughout the 20th century.
IT IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING CO-ORDINATED. They organise it internationally, just like they organised the first postal system and international financing for hundreds of years. You don’t need to be a genius to see something so obvious. I would put my house on it STILL BEING CO-ORDINATED TODAY.
What are you bitching at me for? It’s mug of pee (ian smith) that’s disagreeing with you. He says that mass immigration was not started by Jews & is primarily about the richest 1% dividing & conquering the 99%. He accuses steve sailer of not getting it.
I am simply trying to present all the theories in a neutral way without taking his side or your side. I think that’s my job.
macdonald says nothing about late 19th c immigration.
jews protested the 1921 act. they had no influence over the immigration of irish and others in the late 19th c.
FACT!
it’s not just a claim but a fact that the effect of immigration in the US is the transfer of income and wealth from the 99% to the 1%. eric weistein, a jew, has said this. it was established first by jorge borjas, an immigrant himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Borjas
and also pushed by Noam Chomsky
[redacted by pp, dec 19, 2018]. chomsky has NEVER said anything like that EVER.
the US was a racially mixed country in 1776. it doesn’t need immigrants for that.
marx and engles observed that the british capitalists liked irish immigration because it made it more difficult for the proletariat to unite against them. in 19th c britain jews had little power.
chomsky has never made the connection peepee. and he put out a vid after trump’s election pleading for latino immigrants. and ethnicity is only one part of the identity politics fraud. there’s not transgenderland sending immigrants…other than canada.
tucker carlson has said it. identity politics has no actual goals, precisely because people do have immutable differences. in this way it is a permanent distraction and division.
it’s strange because if you listen to the black left, they claim elites want us to think that racism is over, and that shows like the cosby show exist to make it look like blacks are doing well so reparations aren’t needed. you and tucker are saying the opposite. elites want black to talk about racism.
It’s not strange at all.
Elitists want both sides to talk about racism.
The conversation is desired, no one side’s viewpoint.
The mistake is thinking that Tucker’s side is the objective viewpoint:
“precisely because people do have immutable differences”
this supposition by Tucker ensures that identity politics will never die.
To presume people are fundamentally equal, or at least, the range of differences in no way matches up with the differences we see in quality of life, is a pretty bold proposition.
Without that belief, proles will never unify.
the alt-right doesn’t have to be right about anything. that’s not the point of it.
the point of it is to say all the things the establishment forbids one to say, and this because the establishment has lost all credibility and legitimacy over the last 40 years, culminating in trump.
and at this stage it can’t be reformed. it can only be replaced.
until blacks and other “visible minorities” stop jiving about “racism”, they’ll continue to be an impediment to themselves and the proletariat in general.
look mugabe, you need to come to terms with the fact that white people shit the bed with slavery and that we’re pretty much going to have give it all back to the world, which will likely involve unmaking most of the society.
in your heart, you know that ‘but slavery’ is the Ace of Spades argument, or Ace of the Spades in your world, I guess.
you know it can’t be refuted.
stop lying.
just accept it.
sit back and relax.
here is one of swank’s (((people))) who knows the american judiciary is 100% illegitimate and criminal.
“ok mugabe, you need to come to terms with the fact that white people shit the bed with slavery and that we’re pretty much going to have give it all back to the world,”
(((Thanks for your worthless opinion)))
I mean, if the government is 100% corrupt and criminal, which all of them are, then it follows that any branch will be so.
nothing I’ve said is inconsistent with this.
my jurisprudence is functional, muggy’s is aspirational.
muggy is wrong because he believes that something non-corrupt can exist within something that is fundamentally corrupt, which is why the notion of there being “one true jurisprudence” is stupid and gay.
swank sway: the correct jurisprudence is whatever works and preserves legitimacy. evidence: how civilization functions.
muggy say whatever he say. evidence: high hopes and farts in the wind.
and my opinion isn’t worthless.
it’s the truth.
take a look outside. that’s what’s happening.
it’s unique in the sense that the undoing is by bad conscience alone.
how fucked up is whatever was done that bad conscience causes you to let go of the society built on the bad deed?
must be pretty bad.
I would rule out 3, 6 and 7.
There is also a combination of other factors : people have always migrated massively and generally there were looking for better places. But it was more as settlers or invaders. What’s new is that elite don’t fight, allows and even attracts migrants.
There may several factors because migration is not a continuous phenomenon and its doesn’t appears at the same time in the same place. So pressure from without is constant and varies but it seems that the actual migration depends more on internal factors (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany have very different migration timelines despite being in more or less the same position). Same comparing south Brazil to Argentina and Uruguay in the 30/50 relative to Indian mestizas.
So after reflection, a combination of 1, 4 and 5. But I feel’something is missing in the puzzle and I don’t see what it is. So my best answer would be I don’t know.
I would rule out 1 wich is too complicated a strategy given that all elite groups make everything to smooth migration and hide problems. So I am left with K McDonald stuff wich is weird.
Well, what are the implications of Dunbar’s number in all of this? The more people we’re interacting with and the diversity of those people will tell us whether or not we are more accepting of immigrants.
I have a theory that r-selected Jews, such as Hasidics and liberal Jews (though Hasidics are not liberals) tend to favor immigration, while K-selected Jews tend to favor support for Israel and lack of immigration. It makes a lot of sense at the end of the day and is the only answer to the question about why elites would choose to promote ethnic diversity, if you believe Jews are actually the elites.
Also, Puppy, yo9’re a retard. Why did a lot of cultures from all around the globe accept white conquerors as their superiors and let them into their countries without any push back or retaliation?
It’s because societies that are advanced enough to not be tribal and have interactions with other societies that are different than theirs will be less concerned with maintaining ethnic genetic interests rather than class behaviors.
Also, Puppy, it seems that more intelligent folks have always been less racist. Think about all great civilizations and they’ll all seem to have diversity in common. The higher someone’s exposure to different groups of people, the more likely you are to consolidate those new groups of people into your own, for your own benefit. Unless you’re autistic, and I mean that quite literally because autists tend to have a very soliptically determined worldview.
Thinking about it, solipsism would be the only cause of one’s hatred to another from a philosophical standpoint. And solipsism drives people to appreciate only things similar to them. without that, there is no soliptical force. That’s why whites can act so tribal at times.
I guess it goes ethnic genetic interests go like this….and this relates to solipsism by the way….if a person is entirely soliptical in his or herself, then he will choose things that are remnants of himself or else reject everything else that fails to remind him of himself.
At the end of the day, it comes down to the individual level. Our psyches are not built to associate with things greater than ourselves because we are the greatest things to our psyche. Therefore any genetic interests will only be superficial and skin-deep because people need it to generate some fundamental idea of themselves in relation to the world around them. that is why we associate with race, with species, we classify things. In order to organize their relations to us in the Universe. Puppy is a narcissist so he sees people who aren’t like him doing things that he feels only he can do, and that’s why he’s driven to madness.
I’m not sharing this because I hate Puppy and can’t stand the guy…which is a little true…but because I feel the same way Puppy feels. I don’t understand how my beliefs and stereotypes of others fail. That’s what Puppy feels too. He feels a sense of intellectual inferiority because his stereotypes, his understandings of the world are shattered by people who defy it. Let us not act like Puppy and instead restore peace to our democracies! Thank you.
This person needs a brain transplant ^^^^
“In an essay on Sephardi Jewry, Daniel Elazar at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs[87] summarized the demographic history of Ashkenazi Jews in the last thousand years, noting that at the end of the 11th century, 97% of world Jewry was Sephardic and 3% Ashkenazi; by the end of the 16th century, the: ‘Treaty on the redemption of captives’, by Gracian of the God’s Mother, Mercy Priest, who was imprisoned by Turks, cites a Tunisian Hebrew, made captive when arriving to Gaeta, who aided others with money, named: ‘Simon Escanasi’, in the mid-17th century, “Sephardim still outnumbered Ashkenazim three to two”, but by the end of the 18th century, “Ashkenazim outnumbered Sephardim three to two, the result of improved living conditions in Christian Europe versus the Ottoman Muslim world.”[87] By 1930, Arthur Ruppin estimated that Ashkenazi Jews accounted for nearly 92% of world Jewry.[33] These factors are sheer demography showing the migration patterns of Jews from Southern and Western Europe to Central and Eastern Europe”.
So, in the 11th century 97% sephardi, 3% ashkenazi split of the world jewish population.
By 1930, 92% ashkenazi, 8% Sephardi.
Seeing as ashkenazi jews, we are told are continually mixing with europeans, or so we are told, how is the above possible? Obviously some of the jews that mixed with europeans would have converted to christianity of have been raised as christian. Especially considering the massive social penalties to not being a christian for most of recorded history. The plot thickens.
it isn’t possible. arthur ruppin was just making shit up like [ redacted by pp, dec 19, 2018]
the majority of israeli jews are non ashkenazi.
Only someone brainwashed by jews would say open borders makes sense. In Israel, the % of the population that want open borders is ZERO. In the US the population of jews that want America Del Norte is 90%. Boy, wow, wonder what the deciding factor is. Hmmmm. I am Puppy maybe they are doing it in relation to wanting diversity of sewage water for scientists to studeee dum dee dum daaa daaaa
I wonder what Chris Langan thinks about immigration Puppy.
We all know what autism causes Bill Gates to think (or NOT think).
Pumpkinperson,
Do you see any future prospects for online IQ tests, or atleast digital ones? What are the challanges?
I think that would be an simple way to make IQ testing cheaper and more avaliable.
Yes i predict future revisions of the WAIS will be given over video conferencing. The psychologist will charge less, but will save money by working from home.
The problem with IQ tests is the mptivatiom factor. If we dont up the stakes for how IQ tests are perceived in our society, then we will never see success in bringing about an IQ revolution.
jews had nothing to do with the failure of the know nothings.
do the goyim have agency? if their so easily controlled by jews in 1880, maybe they should be.
pill is obviously a jew. a welsh jew, like jon ronson and sacha baron-cohen. sad!
…if they’re so easily controlled…
if macdonald blames jews for the irish potato famine then he needs to take haldol.
jews are a problem as are shabbos goys as are gentile capitalists like the kochs.
the koch brothers aren’t pro open borders, because they’ve been brainwashed by jews.
get a life pill.
and a brain.
eric striker is right about everything. his real name is joseph jordan and he lives in queens. or so i have read.
it seems pill thinks all gentile billionaires in the anglo-sphere are autists promoted by jews.
strike and mike refer to the IDW as “the dork web”.
and to jordan peterson as “jordan peterwasher”.
is should say in all caps and bold…
THE HBD/SAILER/SHOE/LION/GAYMAN/FLUSHTON/ETC. VIEW OF THE WORLD IS INDIVIDUALIST…
THE INDIVIDUALIST IDEOLOGY HAS SO ROTTED THE BRAINS IN THE ANGLO-SPHERE THAT THE VOLK IS NOT ANOTHER LEVEL FOR THEM…
IT’S NOT EVEN A THING…
MAN IS NOT ONLY A SOCIAL ANIMAL. HE IS THE SOCIAL ANIMAL PAR EXCELLENCE.
THE TRUTH…
How is Lion individualist? He’s as anti-libertarian as HBDers come. And I think even accepts the idea of EGI.
all hbders are individualists in his eyes, in that we believe individuals roughly maintain the same rank order in intelligence no matter what environment they’re born in. The P = G + E model is inherently individualist in claiming we’d be roughly the same people regardless of circumstance & thus denying the power of society to make us who we are.
Does Lion accept the P = G + E model? I never got the impression he did, except for maybe IQ (I’m not even sure if I fully accept it)
Western countries are now controlled by the female vote. Cultural and technological evolution made white females (almost) equal to men. The playing field is now (almost) level. Their long festering jealousy/envy of men then surfaced as hatred of white men. White females now believe they can dominate white men and establish a strictly matriarchal society. Immigration of non-whites is one mechanism for accomplishing this. White females regard non-whites as allies (consider “intersectionality”) in their fight to become dominant over white men.
Robert P
There might just be some truth to what you are saying here. This is becoming increasingly the case, while it seems to me that most of the dangerously destabilizing problems in society today(outside of wars) are either started or enabled by women. Personally I think this is rooted in something deeper, a phenomenon seen in almost every aspect of nature, namely, regression to the mean. It looks like even on a societal level there are forces that drive towards the regression to the mean. If power is unbalanced the disadvantaged or non-privileged will conspire to take down the so called privileged or figure out how to exploit them. A more romanticized perspective would look at this exploitation as a complementary collaboration of the sexes and for most normal people that is the case but as soon as that dynamic breaks or becomes sufficiently corrupted then it becomes a free for all. Of course this is the age old negotiation between the sexes which was tempered with the conception of romantic love. Now that this notion is wearing off women are increasingly becoming married to the state and are now seizing an opportunity to wrestle power away from men.
My sense however is that behind all this is the Democratic party. The left has won most of it’s battles in the last 50 years which means that once the dust settles they are going to have to contend with the fact that the Republican party is increasingly becoming the party of white america and would basically win every election from here on in seeing as whites have the majority in the US. So they devised a plan to divide the country along racial and sex lines. They figured that if they get white women on board by dividing the sexes, along with minorities they would be able to stay in power. The last few years it seems that the Dems have gone completely off the reservation though. They cleverly diverted attention from the elites after the crash, just when it seemed that true reform was just around the corner(jailing bankers, slashing bonuses, better oversight, getting at the core of corruption, occupy wall street etc) the Dems through Obama distracted everyone by re-igniting the race wars and now the sex wars. Immigration of non-whites once again is primarily a Democrat policy, the women that truly go along with it or favor the out group are a small minority of in-group embittered rejects. The rest are simply Democrat supporters that tow the party line.
IMO this has two culprits, the elites and the Dems that are doing their bidding. Of course women are happy to go along with it as long as the state rigs the game in their favor(divorce settlements, equal pay for less work, forced equality and diversity quotas and anything else they can get away with). This will only get worse before it gets better, that is if they do not bring everything crashing down. The Dems would have to lose very badly in the next two elections for them to change their strategy or until the elites migrate their interests to the Republicans. As long as Trump is in power though I don’t see that happening.
Now I don’t buy into this whole Jewish conspiracy, to the degree that they are involved IMO it is mostly on the level of their interests aligning with the rest of the elites and perhaps a reasonable amount of safeguarding their own people. But the days of overt racism are over so at this point I think this is purely about money. In other words I seriously doubt that the 20%(11% worldwide) of the elites that the Jews(or of partial Jewish ancestry) amount to can seriously convince or play the rest of the elites into going along with some kind of insidious plan. I find that highly unlikely. Are they going to get something out of the deal for their own people, well of course they are, but it won’t be any more than the majority group gets out of it.
Of course there is no way in hell that women would manage to wrestle control from men, it is simply impossible. Men will eventually get clued up to what is happening and will promptly put an end to it while the fact that men massively outnumber women at the extremes of the cognitive distribution means that if some women are getting what they want its because a few men up the ladder thought it was a good idea to give it to them. This ties back to the Dems, elites and more specifically the beta silicon valley elites that are in bed with the Dems.
You use the word “elites” without much in the way of definition. If your use of the term primarily refers to those with power then perhaps one should consider who has the most power. It isn’t always “the money” people.
Females make up 80% of elementary school teachers and 75% of HS teachers. Females now control college and university level education also (about 50% of the faculty), especially the administrators. I have been a teacher. The hand that rules the chalkboard rocks the world.
Why do we have leftists in control of the major news media? Are they not handed their core political beliefs by teachers? Lawyers and judges – also taught, of course. In short, as you well know, tyrants have known forever that controlling the education of children is the most effective way of controlling a population.
As America moves to the left, the true “elites” are the teachers. Thank a radical feminist teacher. They don’t need to be manipulated by rich men. They have their own agenda, And they have much more, largely unrecognized, power than most men know.
You’re right that women do have disproportionate representation in University enrollment and as school teachers however for the time being most positions of power are held by men. School principals and superintendents are overwhelmingly men. Those are the positions that matter. Now of course having majority teachers is still a very strong hand. They are after all the point of contact for the students and this constitutes the best way to push their ideology on them(hence intersectionality, snowflake culture and all sorts of gender madness and confusion). However note that teachers tend to be people oriented(otherwise they wouldn’t be able to do their job) so even the men that teach at schools probably overwhelmingly have leftist leanings and vote democrat. This is indeed a problem that needs to be addressed.
As for women gaining any real power, once again I’m going to have to push back on that. Women are basically outpaced by men at the higher ends of the competence spectrum by a factor of more than 2 to 1. If we enter the genius levels this reaches a rate of more than 10 to 1. If women were to get the sort of power and control that matters it would have to come through some truly tyrannical, draconian measures and at the clear expense of meritocracy. For now I don’t see that happening however it is obvious that the scales are rigged to favor women. As long as it’s minimal then people will be fine with it. As soon as they cross the line(which they are coming dangerously close to) society will not stand by, people will react. A lot of parents including women will react to this because unlike most of these feminists most women come from normal backgrounds and don’t buy into any of this bullshit they are mothers sisters daughters of men and I believe they will come to their defense. What we have here is likely a combination of a vocal minority that has for the moment been given a powerful platform in conjunction to the machinations of the democrat party.
Having said all this – now this is going to come off a little sexist – my theory is that the increasing trend towards irrationality and social unrest is due to the increasing gains of power and influence women are having in society. Don’t get me wrong I’m not against women in power and have nothing personal against women while I think there are many many highly intelligent highly competent women but I am first and foremost for meritocracy. However my feeling is that due to these diversity and equality doctrines that are slowly being pushed at the expense of meritocracy this means that a lot of ill equipped women are rubbing shoulders with men they cannot compete with in terms of competence. So they come up with all sorts of reasons why this is the case. The left keeps telling them that men and women and all the races are equal so if they are not represented it’s because of some kind of insidious oppression by the white man. Out of this mentality enabled by a disproportionate amount of low IQ women in positions of power spawns all the madness that we see today. Eventually this debate will be settled though and all will go back to normal, and these feminist opinions will become fringe again.
For reference by elites I’m talking about the <1% and the intellectual/political elites that have disproportionate power and influence but might otherwise not qualify for the economic 1%.
“You’re right that women do have disproportionate representation in University enrollment and as school teachers however for the time being most positions of power are held by men. ”
You mean men like Larry Summers? Or all those conservative male deans?
“..even the men that teach at schools probably overwhelmingly have leftist leanings and vote democrat.:”
They tend to get fired if they are not leftists. By females. See above.
“As for women gaining any real power, once again I’m going to have to push back on that.”
So, Nancy isn’t going to be third in line for the presidency? A female did not control the DNC? Hillary didn’t get a majority of the popular vote for the presidency? Females have no “real power”. I respectfully disagree with you.
I am aware that there are more male than female geniuses and imbeciles (BOTH tails of the Bell Curve), but:
Don’t dare teach that in school. The radical feminists will have your butt. And, while it explains why more men get Nobel’s I don’t think it counts for much in the educational system. It is a matter of numbers, relative numbers versus absolute numbers. Even if male geniuses outnumbered females 100 to 1 (relative numbers) in the general population, the absolute (not relative) numbers are such that they cannot all be teachers.
Normal females from normal families? IMO radical feminists tend not to reproduce large numbers of their OWN children. After all, abortion is one of their cherished sacraments. They just radicalize those normal girls (and boys) starting in kindergarten.
“..now this is going to come off a little sexist..”
I’m not a little sexist. I am a certifiable misogynist. And I’m not at all ashamed of it. There are, of course, some good Western females. I’m married to one. But IMO they are few and far between.
“Eventually this debate will be settled though and all will go back to normal, and these feminist opinions will become fringe again.”
I have watched radical feminism for 7 decades. IMO it has only become more insane and more main stream.
“I am aware that there are more male than female geniuses and imbeciles (BOTH tails of the Bell Curve), but:”
Right and my point being that as men start to lose more and more positions for the sake of diversity quotas they will become more and more vocal about it. It will become a huge scandal and all will eventually go back to normal. It is a huge hurdle to overcome for women to wrestle power away from men. It would be different if males and females were equally represented at the tail ends of the distribution. Women could usurp power citing a harder work ethic or it’s about time etc. It’s an entirely different thing when men are at least twice as good as women in those positions yet women are handed them on a platter. People will not stand for that sort of thing. We are innately meritocratic(in a sense hierarchical) and whenever things don’t follow that structure people get very annoyed. It’s simply impossible to overcome the competence disparity. The draconian measures they will have to engage in to bring this about would be way too noticeable. For now they are getting away with it because men are essentially allowing it to happen. Not for much longer though, already Jordan Peterson is sounding off the alarm. The other month an Italian Physicist, Alessandro Strumia gave a lecture on the favoritism towards women regarding hiring practices in – I want to say Physics(it might be STEM in general) – whereby women were getting positions with far fewer citations than men were. In other words they were selectively lowering the bar for women.
So it’s out there. Doesn’t take much to right the ship though I will agree that female school teachers and their practices(one might say agenda) is a serious problem that needs to be addressed but once again I have to say this is primarily directed by the Democratic party/elites. You yourself mentioned all those female “leaders” of the Democratic party. Those women didn’t earn their positions the Democratic party had to cater to them in order to appeal to the broader female vote and along with the minorities stand a fighting chance to win elections. The Dems are becoming more and more radicalized in this sense, I feel they have reached the point of no return(that is without suffering some serious crushing defeats first). They are basically the party of women and minorities. They still don’t have the majority of white women but they are getting there(50% in 2018 as opposed to 43% in 2016). If they manage to get the clear majority of white women they win, period.
The Dems in my view have entered into a current course that will leave them checkmated in 6, no matter what they do. Their best bet is to concede this battle restructure their party and if they are lucky re-emerge in 2024 with a more reasonable and robust platform.
mike enoch even has an excellent imitation of peterson.
it’s reality. the alt-right is simply more intelligent/higher IQ than any of its competitors.
it used to be that “racists” were morons. not anymore.
nice try.
you’re comparing the niche of one side to the mainstream of another side.
Peterson v. Chomsky would be more accurate. Even Peterson v. Zizek.
Peterson would lose, there.
sorry you can’t run for president michael. you shouldn’t’ve hit that lady.
wtf?
peterson is a retard.
how autistic do you have to be not to know that?
you weren’t clear about your opinion of him.
Peterson is alt-right, then you said the alt-right were really smart or whatever gay shit you heard at the bathhouse this weekend.
let’s be real about this.
the alt-right comes off as very gay.
Peterson seems a little homo.
peterson is alt-right?
again with these bad jokes.
next swank will be telling us ben shapiro and milo and pinker are alt-right.
you know them by their fans, muggy, not by what they label themselves as.
a black guy isn’t black because he says he’s black, he’s black because other people say he’s black.
identity is socially constructed, or are you more individualist than you think?
peterson is the first case i’ve seen from the beginning…
of how the jews make gentile puppets.
There’s also a great want and adoration of diversity.
Apparently this kid is a genius with a 160+ IQ. Looks like he didn’t get high IQ progressivitis.
if you stopped listening to hereditists you might realize that what is the only conceivable goal of identity politics, namely a society in which everyone achieves his potential is impossible precisely because of GxE.
and identity politics hasn’t even gotten as far as everyone. even if all identified groups had the same potential in some possible society yet unrealized, what about everyone else? it’s patently retarded and just a means of concealing the man behind the screen named capital.
post-modernism is sometimes defined as “suspicion of all grand narratives”.
when the establishment has failed, as it has in the US, and yet keeps up a din of “don’t be a racist”, “don’t be an anti-semite”, etc., then a revolutionary says, “fuck you, you black jewish faggot!”
muggy, you ignorant slut.
you mean to say “reactionary.”
i hope that’s just a bad joke.
the true revolutionary regards the current power elite as gangsters, or ate best rival gangsters.
it’s like stanley crouch said: i don’t know if it’s because of slavery, but there’s something about black people that they’ll refuse to do something just because you asked them to do it.
how many “sins” did jesus commit in the eyes of the jews?
as soon as you obey and play the dems are the real racists game you lose. you can’t win the battle of ideas playing by the rules the powerful have instituted to maintain their own power.
bannon is way to apologetic. he should go with what he told the FN. when they call you a “racist” it’s because they’ve lost the argument.
…way too apologetic… how many times has he used the absurd phrase “judeo-christian” and said the types who appeared at c-ville should be banished from all political discussions?
Yeah thats the emperors clothes. Once someone has the brains and guts to challenge taboo and ask why racism is the number one concern of our elite, the curtains will come down on the (((nature))) of said elite and the true opinion they have of minorities as pawns and nothing more.
yeah, no, you guys aren’t playing identity politics from the other side at all.
reactionaries believe they are revolutionaries because they adopt vague marxist viewpoints regarding governments and power (gangsters, or ate best rival gangsters), but adopted language does not mean adopted beliefs.
those same people would be fine with a government that simply enforced their preferred status quo.
or do you think the civil war was about States’ Rights, too.
this is why you’re hopelessly autistic. you put too much stock in the words and too little between the lines.
I believe rhythm is an important part of being intelligent. Most intelligence comes from being successful at dancing or fighting, like our primitive ancestors. I think this is an important component of how to make things work in your favor if you just intimidate another person. It works every time. Rhythm is life, rhythm is love.
Cant rythm be learned? Mayb the pace of learining and top performance is intelligence.
Learning capacity is critical, of course. I think that’s an obvious statement. How rapidly you learn and then put it into action is obviously a super good metric for intelligence. I think that intelligence boils down to Pumpkin’s observations on adaptibility. If one is quick to adapt, an example being a fight, then will win that fight. So I think both learning capacity, which is essentially Pumpkin’s definition of adaptiblity, is reasonable.
Unfortunately, white people dont have rhythm, so they fuckin suck.
It’s metaphor, Puppy. Do you get it?
Its clear ‘loaded’ is a certain former haitian commenter.
uh no
For life. Rhythm being a testament to timing in life. Timing is everything. You could have been a genius in another time period. So could have I. But unfortunately, there is only one race that can ascend. And it’s the blacks. Soon, it’ll be another race. Breed a group of leaders, and they shall birth the sons and daughters of a revolution.
The secret to certain aspects of life are acting like a bitch imo. I think the impulsiveness of females is a very strong reminder that to beat someone, you have to out-think them in a manner that’s rapid. If you don’t act, rapidly, then you’ll fail.
I think as men, we’re just mirror of females we meet in our lives. If a female acts positively to you, then there will be a positive force in your life. It’s hard to be outcome independent when it comes to not valuing the thoughts and opinions of women. But at the end of the day, like commenter Robert P said, you can’t let women take over your life.
Peopleh having fun regardless of race is key. Make sure yo9u’re having fun, Puppy.
We live in r-selected times where psychopathy pays off unfortunately.
I am God.
It’s funny how my avatar looks like a Raven’s Matrices symbol.
Puppy is right about Jews and globalism. The Ashkenazi’s rule the world. Its theirs and we are just living in it. pumpkin can you do another post on the Ashkenazi’s and their intellectual superiority again?
I once had a black person tell me, “this is the white man’s world, we’re just living in it.”
I said, “That’s true. If by white you mean Jews and wealthy white gentiles…”
Well yeah, Jews are white.
China, Iran, Turkey, japan, Bolivia, Mongolia, and the African/Chinese co-operation countries, are independent. India, Russia, South Africa, South Eastern Asia, North Africa, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Central Asia, Iraq and Yemen could all get independent in the future.
Independent from ZOG ofcourse.
also a horror themed post would be great since this is a horror blog.
So, one theory of why Western leaders support immigration is that elites are pulling the strings from behind the scenes because they want a globalist market, and cheap labor. Sounds reasonable enough and to some extent this may be true. But to what extent? If some very rich and powerful globalists/capitalists/Jews/establishment Republicans (take your pick) are pulling the strings of one or both political parties from behind the scenes, then why is socialism growing in popularity in America, especially among the young? Why is it being lionized by the American educational system? Are the capitalist puppet masters incompetent? Suicidal? They can’t control the educational system? Or do they expect to be the pigs who are more equal than other socialist pigs once global socialism or communism is achieved? Do they expect a fascist type of economic system? State capitalism?
IOWs, if evil capitalists are controlling the show from behind the curtain, then why are they letting support for socialism grow among the young and why are they letting immigrants who will vote for socialism into the West? Short-sighted and not so smart after all?
Everyone has a death wish, man. At the end of the day, we’re driven by our libido, in the psychological sense, to seek out pleasure and happiness, but our death drive is so strong in this very moment in time that it outweighs the progress we could make with our libido. Like Mikey is saying, people are losing their will to live or to promote their own interests. we’ve turned into philosophical zombies, agents with no control over our thoughts, with a strong lack of rationale in action. I think this was the Malthusian bust that was talked about for centuries. When a population becomes so diverse, globalized, and populated, we see a deterioration in all aspects of our virtues, our thought-patterns, etc. See “Mouse Utopia” for more details.
rogan interviewed penrose recently. i haven’t watched it, because penrose is a great example of a high IQ autist. this is very common among physicists. philosophy professors in the anglo-sphere are low IQ autists. his wiki claims penrose goes on and on about how the laws of physics can’t explain consciousness.
of course they can’t fucktard. if you want a picture of what consciousness is vs what the phenomenal is. consciousness is the hand, the phenomenal is the glove.
hands existed before gloves. gloves exist for hands.
btw, as carlson has adumbrated…
any society with yuge differences in rank will fail as soon as the people on top think they’ve earned it and owe nothing to those below them.
this is a simple fact of how societies work, morality needn’t be considered.
that’s wrong.
a society with massive inequality will fail as soon as the people on the bottom realize that they are ALL on the bottom for no good reason — or more accurately, as soon as any class below the top class realizes that their place owes nothing to merit. not a second before.
My favorite movie….
so just forget about hereditism and “racism” for a second and just look at third world (developing) countries whose borders have been determined by colonial powers.
this is all of latin america and black africa and s asia and the maritime continent/malaysia.
would these places be better off today had it not been for european interference?
maybe. maybe not.
would they be better off today if the europeans had never left?
probably.
but that’s not the point. the point isn’t that white folk are superior. 99% of them are super gross. have you been to COSTCO or the DMV?
BUT there’s this yuge contradiction between the right of self-determination of all peoples and the right of self-determination of the indigenes of the developed world.
american economic, military, and cultural influence is malignant. keep it to yourself america.
You like rammestein as well?
the alt-right is steve bannon, the trump of the campaign, plus the bernie of the campaign, plus saying the things that bannon and trump are accused of thinking, plus hard-core anti-semitism.
basically it’s national socialism (but not third reich larping or the fuhrerprinzip, though its polity has never been discussed). it’s sweden before there were so many non-swedes, but with the controls on trade, cross-border capital flows, and immigration that were the rule until the 70s for all countries.
if you actually make an effort you will understand why this amounts to the same thing as that politics which maximizes popular sovereignty. the alt-right is composed of high IQ young men who have desire to be led or to lead. they’re very anti-authoritarian.
…who have no desire to be led or to lead…
the old conservativism is dead, and the NPCs/dupes/antifa with neon hair are simply too dumb not to lose. their masters are going to lose, and they know it.
popular sovereignty and democracy are stupid because people are stupid.
government by consensus still has the injustice built in via the word government i.e. violence.
modifying the old saying…two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner — no better than King wolf deciding, now is it?
the alt-right is concerned with power and wants to regain its lost power and will cling to any piece of rhetoric that furthers that end.
as if the average or even above average person has enough integrity to unify stated political belief with the intent and desire to follow through with consistent action.
muggy, please…
Got to hand it to trumpy, he is trying to keep his campaign promises. Im reading the economist and this trade war anti NAFTA thing was exactly what he harped on about in the campaign. I thought Larry Kudlow would slate Trump for going against Masters pocket book, but apparently hes doing the renegotiation of NAFTA and the china relationship.
One thing autistic economists don’t get is that free trade is mercantilism. Only 1 side will do better out of it than another…this is why Britain used gunboats to enforce ‘free trade’ for 100 years after the Corn Laws went through.
A good example is the opium wars.
Or colonial north america.
exactly what chomsky says. british masters weren’t always pro-“free-trade”. they became pro-“free-trade” only when they knew they’d win.
not only does free-trade undermine popular sovereignty, it’s also just bad economics.
inter alia because for any country to develop it must do more than sell dragon fruit to austrians. until shit hole countries make software and airplanes they’ll continue to be shithole countries.
that is, unless they’re part of the Gulf Co-operation Council.
Its a bit like a football match and both sides agree not to dive or commit fouls. The better team will always win. You can run the Germany Mozambique trade scenario 100 times, and every time, Germany’s eco will show entropy and Mozambiques will be suffering dutch disease or taking on cash crop duties.
Government shutdown over funding the wall is great too. Unlike a number of alt righters I am not giving up on Trumpy.
In response to Pumpkin Person:
“It is a huge hurdle to overcome for women to wrestle power away from men.”
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. And, once they are older this weakness-is-strength behavior works just as well by counting on the “kindness of strangers” (see, A Streetcar Named Desire). A common, recently exhibited a helluva lot, strategy is just to falsely accuse a man and get a “knight in shining armor” (read: gullible idiot or Don Quixote type) to fight ones battles for and “protect” one. IOWS, just pit one man against another. Once older enough (0 or 12?) just rely on being able to lead men around by their (men’s) lust. Females are the weaker sex physically, but statistically they are not mentally inferior near the mean of the IQ curve, where they tend to cluster. And it doesn’t take genius for them to know something that isn’t exactly rocket science, i.e., that men will do almost anything for them for sex. I have to wonder if you are married?
“For now they are getting away with it because men are essentially allowing it to happen.”
Or maybe liberal alpha males are virtue signalling by protecting poor little females from betas? Did SCOTUS give them the right to murder babies out of their “kindness” (read “desire”) for females?
You believe the pendulum will swing back to male dominance? But technological changes have altered the playing field, and will continue to alter it in the future. In the Western (developed) world females now have physical equalizers. They can now compete not only passive-aggressively but also just plain aggressively. Things will get VERY interesting when (not if) ectogenesis becomes a reality. And it is coming, Probably sooner than many think.
Concerning the Democratic Party and the role of the female, there seems to be some disagreement about horse and cart. Did “Democrats” use radical feminists for votes or did radical feminists take over the Democratic Party and use it for their own agenda? You seem to agree that the Democratic Party is, to a first approximation, the party of non-whites and females. (And BTW Republicans now are basically the party of white men). But non-whites are not the intellectual leaders of the Democratic Party. Asians are not prominent leaders of either party, possibly because their numbers are too small, or possibly because they don’t need government as much as more dependent people do. And, while blacks may be prominent in the Democratic Party, Maxine and Sheila are not exactly intellectual leaders. Neither are black men, with the possible exception of mulatto Obama. Females like Pelosi, Hillary, DWS, Feinstein, Gillibrand, and others are not geniuses but they are IMO what passes for the intellectual leaders of the Democratic Party. IMO Democrats R females.
Did not do a very good job of editing. For example one line should read:
once old enough (10 or 12?).
Getting sloppy. Sorry.
absurd. women will never be taken seriously as long as they look like drag queens and transsexuals, as long as they aren’t Cynical. my mother’s mother dressed plainly, never wore makeup or jewelry and she was just a roman not a quaker.
but even then women will never be 50% in top positions because:
1. there are more boy geniuses.
2. men are willing to sacrifice, work themselves to death, etc.
3. men are aggressive. even the jewish lesbian fran liebowitz has said this.
4. even in the most gender equal society, women are more attracted to a man who makes more than men are to women who make more.
iceland in particular and scandinavia in general are the world’s most gender equal countries. in this way the alt-right is feminist, but as peterson has correctly observed, in such countries women are much less likely to major in engineering.
4. even in the most gender equal society imaginable, women are more attracted to a man who makes more than men are to a woman who makes more.
Also, many women want to devote a big part of their lives to motherhood. One reason Oprah became so rich and influential is she decided extremely young that she would never be a mother (having lost a baby at 15)
Western females are winning the political wars. For example, it is the female vote that put Democrats back in power in the House in the midterms, because Democrats are the party of females.
Also, statistically, Western females no longer much want to be mothers. The early Women’s Liberation activists made that perfectly clear. Not only has abortion killed over 60 million innocent unborn people in America alone, but the fertility rate of Western females is below population replacement rate, less than about 2.1 children per female. That means the indigenous (white) population of the West is decreasing in number. For many Muslim countries that is not so. Iraq for example still has a fertility rate of 4.4, Afghanistan 4.6, Syria 2.9, Egypt 3.3, Saudi Arabia 3.3. And the fertility rate for females in sub-Saharan Africa remains very high. Spoiled-rotten radical Western feminists can’t be bothered with reproduction. Pregnancy is slavery, after all.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN
Look at the table of fertility rates by country and region. Find a Western country, North American, European, Australia, whose fertility rate is above replacement (about 2.1)
From table in link, asterisks mine:
Region Fertility Rate 1960 Fertility Rate 2016
World 5.0 2.4
**Arab World 6.9 3.3
Caribbean small states 5.6 2.0
Central Europe and the Baltics 2.5 1.5
East Asia & Pacific 5.4 1.8
East Asia & Pacific (excluding high income) 5.8 1.8
**Euro area 2.6 1.6
Europe & Central Asia 2.8 1.8
Europe & Central Asia (excluding high income) 3.1 1.9
European Union 2.6 1.6
Fragile and conflict affected situations 6.6 4.5
Heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) 6.7 4.9
Latin America & Caribbean 5.9 2.1
Latin America & Caribbean (excluding high income) 6.4 2.1
Least developed countries: UN classification 6.7 4.1
Middle East & North Africa 6.9 2.8
Middle East & North Africa (excluding high income) 6.9 2.8
**North America 3.7 1.8
OECD members 3.2 1.7
Other small states 5.1 3.1
Pacific island small states 6.8 3.2
Small states 5.3 2.9
South Asia 6.0 2.5
**Sub-Saharan Africa 6.6 4.8
**Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding high income) 6.6 4.8
High income 3.0 1.7
Low & middle income 5.7 2.6
Low income 6.6 4.6
Lower middle income 5.9 2.8
Middle income 5.6 2.3
Upper middle income 5.4 1.8
Look up fertility rates on Wiki, especially by regions of the world.
Western females are too busy competing with men for power to actually reproduce at a population replacement rate. Demography is destiny.
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.
There’s justified reason for misogyny. we let racism slide more than that and misogyny is a lot more rational. it is literally a war between two different species. I dunno how to explain it, I’m not going to explain it, but it seems to me that men and women cannot coexist in this world in large populations. it causes distrust and destruction. a perfect example that i will always keep coming back to is Mouse Utopia. in small populations, monogamy and trust thrive but in large populations, might as well make most men slaves and live in a strongly feudal system where only 5% of the population reproduces.
post 70s feminism is just lesbianism.
if there were some objective measure i wouldn’t be surprised if men in top positions are taller, more robust, better looking etc. than women in top positions are beautiful.
so men are selected for seemingly unimportant physical traits too.
as milo said: lesbians are the root of all evil.