Why would anyone not want a large family?

Personal life satisfaction increases, as an absolute matter, with the size of the family.

Washington Examiner:

A growing number of people in America prefer families of three or more children, hitting the highest desire for large families since 1971.

According to a Gallup survey released Monday, the number of people who prefer smaller and larger family sizes are statistically tied, bouncing back from a decadeslong trend of believing one or two children was ideal.

“Overall, this recent survey shows that Americans might finally be climbing out of the anti-family bomb shelter caused by the myths of the 1960’s of a population explosion disaster,” Terry Schilling, the president of the American Principles Project, told the Washington Examiner. “Favoring more children is a sign that Americans are returning to basic principles and values that life was made for — bringing forth the next generation through the family.”

Forty-five percent now favor larger families, with 29% finding three children as ideal, 12% who prefer four, and 2% each who prefer five, six, or more.

That is compared to 47% who believe two or fewer children is ideal, with 44% preferring two children and 3% preferring one. Two percent believe the ideal family should not include children.

Gallup pointed to several social trends from past decades that may have contributed to the decline in having children, including the preference for larger families “plummeting” from 70% in 1967 to 52% in 1972 “fueled at least in part by concerns about a global population explosion, resulting from the 1968 bestselling book entitled The Population Bomb.”

The organization started tracking this data in 1936, when 64% preferred three children, reaching a peak in 1945 at 77%. However, by 1973, the strong preference for families of one or two children became the norm, evidenced by the 50% drop in children-per-family from the peak of the baby boom to 1.8 children in 1980.

What stands out to Schilling, however, is that only 8% do not wish to have children, leaving over 90% with the desire for children at any amount.

“The 8% of America that’s anti-family has way too much representation in our culture — especially in entertainment, politics, news media, academia, and even corporations,” Schilling said.

Gallup notes that people under the age of 30 are at least twice as likely to say they do not want children, but the “vast majority” continue to prefer having children. Twenty-one percent of that age group already has children, and 63% hope to have children in the future.

Moreover, 69% of those who already have children want more, as well as 15% of 18- to 40-year-olds who want to be parents someday. Six percent of childless people aged 41 and older also wished they had children.

While ideal family size is not significantly different from men to women, other demographic traits do trend in certain directions.

Young people aged 18-29 are more likely than any other age group to prefer larger family sizes, and black and Hispanic people are also more likely to prefer larger families. In addition, Republicans, conservative independents, and lower-income residents tend to prefer families with more children.

By contrast, Democrats, non-religious, and wealthy residents are more likely to prefer only one or two children.

Despite stated preferences, birth rates have been on the decline, and adults are starting families much later in life, which is highly correlated to smaller family sizes.

In 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the average age of a woman who had her first child was 27.3 years, a record high.

Part of the answer for fertility declines, author Melanie Notkin writes in a piece for the Institute for Family Studies, is that much like the effect of The Population Bomb in the 1960s and 1970s, “we have a similar trend with the rise of anti-natalism where its nihilistic supporters believe the world is too sad a place to bring children into, along with climate change ‘doomerism.’ More practically, the current economy makes family forming more challenging for many young Americans.”

This negative cultural stuff from the Jews could be winding down. There are many signs of that.

But it will not leave without a fight.

Stupid peasants just buy whatever bullshit the Jews sell them

It’s amazing that the media just casually refers to the events of 1/6 as “the insurrection.”

Not “what some have called an insurrection.”

Just “the insurrection.”

The Guardian:

A year on from the Capitol attack by loyalist supporters of Donald Trump, many families are still reeling from members outing each other to law enforcement and offspring traumatized by their parents’ involvement in the insurrection.

Jackson Reffitt, a 19-year old from Texas, called the FBI weeks before his father, Guy Reffitt, stormed the US Capitol on January, saying that his father had been hinting at doing “something big”, Teen Vogue reported.

In text messages obtained by the magazine, Jackson’s younger sister texted their father in a family group chat, writing: “Dad, please be safe!! You know you are risking not only your business but your life too.”

Guy Reffitt replied: “I have no intention on throwing it away. I love ALL of you with ALL my heart and soul. This is for our country and for ALL OF YOU and your kids. God bless us, one and all … ”

Guy Reffitt has since been charged with numerous crimes.

The charges relate to obstruction of an official proceeding, obstruction of justice for threatening his children, transporting firearms with the intention of using them during the mob attack on the Capitol, and a misdemeanor charge of accessing Secret Service-protected grounds without lawful authority.

While in jail awaiting trial, the senior Reffitt texted news reports to the family group chat that featured photos of himself at the riots.

Jackson told Teen Vogue that as the attacks unfolded, live on television, he received a phone call from the FBI, asking him to confirm his father’s identity and he confirmed that it was his father at the riot.

Jackson now lives away from his family and rarely communicates with them.

It goes on.

This apparently happened a lot. Obviously not every case is going to be recorded. Those calls to the FBI are private. They don’t publish lists of people who snitched on family members.

It’s so alien, it’s on the level of trannyism.

I’m sure I’ve had issues with my own father, but the reality is, if he knocked on my door at 3 AM and said “I need you to help me with something,” then opened the trunk of his car to show me three dead hookers, I would sigh and then go get the shovels out of the garage.

I might suck air through my teeth and frown, but I wouldn’t ask about the circumstances.

This is what you do.

Family is family is family.

Nothing should ever be able to change that.

Every member of every family should have as its credo: “if we go down, we all go down together.”

But every single aspect of this modern society is about destroying the family, destroying the bonds that families naturally have with each other, so that there is only the state, ruling over the atomized individual.

Because if you don’t have families, you can’t have communities, you can’t have a culture or a society, you can’t have a nation. All you can have is you and the authority.

Every single thing in this new world order is an attack on the family. That is why abortion is a sacrament. That is why the core symbol of the global order is the gay flag.

The very single first thing that God told us after creating us was to be fruitful and multiply.

That means “put the penis into the vagina and ejaculate, then birth and raise the children to the point where they can themselves put the penis into the vagina and ejaculate.”

It doesn’t mean birth control, abortion, or anal. Those things – these modern sacraments – are against the first thing God told us to do.

If you look at the current world order, it can really be defined most specifically as anti-natal. Everything we see is against reproduction and family formation.

A few examples:

• Sex education – Telling teenagers that sex is for fun, so they’d better not get pregnant, and should use condoms and other forms of birth control; sex education also teaches gay anal.
• Women’s rights – Taking women out of the home removes them from the breeding process. Teenage girls, young women, are designed for making babies, not for being educated or working.
• Women’s empowerment – Women are taught that they don’t need men. At this point, they are taught that men are dangerous or harmful to their existence.
• Birth control – All forms of birth control are obviously designed to prevent reproduction.
• Gay stuff – They are literally trying to maximize the number of homosexuals.
• Pornography – Aside from the image this gives as sex as a recreational rather than a reproductive activity, it also drains men of their testosterone and sex drive.
• Divorce – Divorce obviously destroys the family, but it also makes the children of the divorce much less likely to form their own families

Obviously, you can go on and on.

But please note: everything on that list used to be illegal. Literally, it was against the law. Because the people making the laws understood that the purpose of society – the purpose of human existence itself – was family.

We cannot live without family, and the loss of the family is the darkness that is spreading out to cover the earth.

It can’t go on much longer.

This obviously isn’t about outlawing normal mammalian mating patterns as a part of an agenda to end procreation.

It’s about the well-established fact that women just really don’t like attention from men.

That’s why most women these days walk around half naked. They’re worried that their clothes could draw too much attention.

RT:

British police have been given a new toolkit to fight back against an “epidemic” of misogyny and sexual harassment, with acts such as leering and wolf-whistling being included in a list of prosecutable misdemeanors.

On Wednesday, the British College of Policing issued a guide for officers to help them deal with sexual harassment against women. The document encourages police forces to pursue prosecution under public order laws for singular offenses and charging under a 1997 harassment act when an individual repeatedly engages in behavior which includes catcalling and wolf whistling.

The police have also been told to take “preventative” measures, such as public space protection orders and criminal behavior orders which prevent people from visiting prescribed public spaces.

Officers have been advised to pursue criminal charges or apply preventative strategies for a list of offences, including kerb crawling, cornering, and upskirting, as well as leering and persistent staring. Viewing pornography in public is also included.

Chief Constable Andy Marsh, chief executive of the College of Policing, said in a statement that there was “epidemic” of “industrial” level violence and harassment against women. Some 1.6 million offences against women are recorded each year.

It’s all so tiresome.

Yes, if you invite millions of brown people into your country, you’re going to end up with a “pandemic” of women being sexually propositioned on the street.

Black and Arab flirting, at least with white women, goes something like: approach a random woman on the street and say “bitch that ass, let me get this dick in that pussy, raw, bitch, damn.” Do this 100 times a day, every day.

But it would be racist to prosecute that.

We all hopefully remember when that Jew woman with the fat ass posted a YouTube video “calling out” male harassment and all the men hollering at her were black and she was then accused of racism.

So instead, what this law will do is make it so a white woman can call the police on a white man who flirts with her.

Women do not have souls and therefore are incapable of conscious thought.

The following was not the only way a (white) man traditionally starts up a relationship with a woman, but was a very popular process, especially for men who are not extraordinarily handsome and/or displaying symbols of massive wealth and/or social status, not all that long ago:

1. The woman demonstrates signs of availability, through nonverbal communication, to a man she is potentially interested in (for example, in line at a coffee shop)
2. The man responds with a smile, eye contact, and either a clever quip or something like “sup” (often also with a very quick look up and down of her body as a show of approval)
3. The woman immediately rebuffs the man for responding to her non-verbal signals, often appearing annoyed or actually outraged – or she could opt for smugness, or most politely, casual disinterest – in any case, the initial demonstration of availability/potential interest is not acknowledged, because she isn’t even consciously aware she did that (commonly called “the first shit test”)
4. If the man cracks and makes micro-expressions demonstrating a lack of confidence, the deal is off, pussy totally dehumidified
5. If the man holds his confidence correctly, she will then back off away from him, and force him to give chase (for example, taking her coffee and acting incensed as she finds her table)
6. If he gives chase (follows her to her table, in this case), she will insult or demean him in some way, again seeing if he will crack and show weakness in his body language (or speech)
7. At some point, she may smile or giggle at something he says, in which case the connection is made
8. If she doesn’t smile, he might just say “alright, whatever” and start to move away from her
9. If he moves away from her emotionlessly, she might respond to that as a positive indicator, and make some gesture or comment implying he should stay, then give the giggle that confirms the initial connection
10. Interaction becomes less confrontational, and may end with “yeah, let’s meet up some time”

Before birth control, this process could mean she would be pregnant in a few weeks and they’d be married a month later. Before family courts, they’d end up sitting on a porch with a dozen grandchildren running around a few decades later.

I don’t think things really happen like the above 10 points much anymore, because of cellphones and so on (and even if it does happen, it doesn’t lead to family formation, because of government policy designed to make family formation effectively impossible). But this was normal human mating behavior when I was in my teens and twenties. It was basically the only way in which a man who was not super handsome and/or rich/status-stacked was going to strike up a connection with a woman he didn’t already have a connection to through a friend’s circle or whatever (even if you did have a social connection, i.e., at a party with mutual friends, it would still play out similarly).

Again, this is very important: women are not consciously processing all of this. It is just pure instinct. So, in this new reality created by the British state by using the absurd behavior of brown people as a pretext, it is very possible that the initial shit test (#3 above) will be to threaten to call the cops, and #6 will be to actually pull out the phone and call the cops. At that point, the only way you’re getting her number is if you hang around and get in a shootout with the cops – and win.

Again: I understand that this is all basically outdated information in terms of the way humans currently interact anyway. But it probably still happens sometimes, and these laws are clearly geared at preventing that.

Understand this: everything in our society is geared towards anti-natalism, because a satanic billionaire pedophile elite is attempting to massively reduce the population.

When I was a child, I had a pet gerbil. I don’t believe it remains a popular hobby for children, but in the 1990s, it was something that parents did for children: they bought them small animals in cages. Kids would sit and watch them, like a miniature zoo.

Looking back, it seems cruel, but I suppose sitting and watching a small animal in a cage is superior to playing with a tablet, which is what I see kids doing now. Kids should be given dogs, primarily. I think every child deserves a dog, and it should be a full-sized dog. Having a dog teaches children a lot about life and the concept of loyalty. The dog actually likes you and is not a captive in a cage, like a small rodent. (I will note that I still love aquariums with fish, and it’s a hobby I’ve always wanted to get into. Fish don’t know they’re in a cage, so there is nothing cruel about it. When I finally achieve victory over my enemies and am established in a large office in Manhattan, which will be in the New York Times Building, which I will own, there will be aquariums everywhere including a shark in the main entrance lobby.)

Pet gerbils live in a small cage, with a kind of sawdust in it that they can burrow into. Ours was in a glass aquarium, as for fish.

There were two gerbils, who were given to our family by someone who didn’t want them anymore, because it is a weird burden to create for yourself, looking after this miniature zoo. One of the gerbils died soon after we received them, and so there was only one in the aquarium. The gerbil developed a neurotic disorder wherein it would dig through the matting, down to the glass bottom of the aquarium, and then just continually scratch the glass with its claws. It would do this day in and day out.

I have found a gerbil blog that features a post about this behavior:

Scratching and biting at the cage are negative behavioral signs in gerbils. According to Current Protocols in Neuroscience, these repetitive behaviors are known as stereotypy and are common in caged animals.

These signs indicate that something is wrong, although what that ‘something’ is can vary. You should identify the problem so you can fix it or your gerbil will remain unhappy.

A gerbil will display repetitive scratching behavior when it can’t satisfy its natural need to burrow into the ground. This may be because it doesn’t have enough substrate, or it doesn’t have any bedding at all.

This behavior will focus on the corners of the enclosure. The reasons why are unclear, but perhaps the gerbil’s instincts encourage it to dig there.

This was my experience.

I remember watching this behavior, and thinking: “This creature does not understand that this glass is not dirt. He is naturally designed to live in a place where the ground under him is dirt, and he cannot understand the nature of his captivity, so he is doing the only thing that comes natural to him. He cannot recognize that it isn’t working, because it’s the only thing he knows how to do. To stop doing it would mean to simply give up.”

After a good while of this behavior, the gerbil stopped eating and died. It was not particularly sad to me, as I had no emotional connection to the gerbil.

I think about this strange experience often now, with relation to the way human beings are reacting to our unnatural social environment. We have effectively been put inside of a cage by people with no emotional connection to us. We are engaging in pathological behavior patterns, doing things that should work in our natural environment, but which do not work in the neo-post-modern proto-utopian urban domestic environment.

Girlfriends as the Glass Bottom of a Human Cage

The most obvious example of this social stereotypy in humans is found in the way that men deal with women.

I have peers, people in my age range, some slightly older and some slightly younger, who keep having “girlfriends.” They move in with these women, as if they are married, but they do not produce children. After a while, it always ends, usually in a psycho performative spectacle by the woman. The woman creates the spectacle for the purpose of making others think the man was doing something evil to her, when in fact she simply got bored and wanted to go do something else.

When men are in the trenches of these relational boondoggles, I say to them: “What are you doing with that woman? What is the goal of this endeavor?”

Here is an example of the conversation:

Me: What are you doing with that woman you’re living with?

Them: What do you mean? She’s my girlfriend.

Me: Yes, I understand that. What is the purpose of the relationship?

Them: Well, we get along and I like spending time with her.

Me: Do you like spending time with her?

Them: Yeah, I mean, sure, she’s funny and we have fun.

Me: Do you enjoy the way she controls your life? Is that fun for you?

Them: Well, I don’t know if she controls my life…

Me: But all your decisions are based around her. Every decision that you make.

Them: Well…

Me: That’s the definition of “controlling your life.”

Them: So what are you getting at? You saying I should be gay?

Me: No, I’m asking you what is going on. What is the purpose of this relationship you have formed?

Them: Well, we might get married, I guess, but [insert arbitrary reasons why they haven’t gotten married].

Me: Do you really want to spend the rest of your life with this woman?

Them: I don’t know.

Me: Why do you not have children with this woman you are cohabitating with?

Them: Well, we’ve talked about it, but we’re not ready.

Me: When will you be ready?

Them: Well, I don’t even know if she wants kids. I don’t know if I want kids.

Me: So what is the purpose of the relationship, where you live with this woman, and she controls your life?

Them: I don’t know man, she’s my girlfriend.

If gerbils could talk, the conversation I would have had with the gerbil digging at the bottom of the aquarium would have been very similar to that, I’m certain.

Humans are Mammals and We Reproduce Sexually

This the normal life arc of a man, as determined by biology and natural social norms derived from biology:

• You are born.
• For a brief period, you are a child.
• You enter puberty, wherein your glands begin dumping testosterone.
• You get horny – that is to say, your penis gets erect, and you have an overwhelming desire to stick it into a girl.
• You start making gestures towards a girl. It is some kind of performance, or demonstration.
• At some point, a girl responds positively, and you begin a process of trying to get her alone and naked.
• Eventually, you get her alone somewhere and have sex with her. She protests, but you’re stronger than she is, and you know she wants it just as much as you do, or else why would she have let you catch her alone like this?
• You repeat this behavior, with the girl being more into it after the first time. She professes her love.
• Eventually, she tells her mother that her mensuration doesn’t seem to be happening as it usually does.
• Her mother questions her with regards to who’s been sticking his whatever in her wherever.
• The girl confesses.
• Her mother tells your mother what has taken place.
• Your mother tells your father to go tell you what this means.
• Your father tells you that you are soon to be married, and to be a father yourself. He tells you some stories of what it was like when this happened with him, and tells you it’s all going to be fine. You’re a good man and you’ll make a good husband and father.
• You get married. Your child is born months later. You love it.
• Now, you need to make sure to work hard, to take care of the child.
• You have more children.
• You continue working.
• You grow to develop a bond with the woman that goes beyond sex, because you’ve been with her for years, through the standard trials and tribulations of existence.
• At some point, you end up in the same position as your father was, explaining to your son that he’ll be getting married soon, and to not be afraid; you remember what it was like when your father told you this. You tell him he’s a good man and he’ll make a good husband and father.
• You are excited to be a grandfather, but not as excited as your wife is to be a grandmother.
• As you age, you start to work less, and your children begin to take care of you, as you took care of them.
• You die.

That was the cycle of life for most people, throughout all of history.

There is a myth about a “shotgun wedding,” which is when a man takes a woman’s virginity and the girl’s father goes and points a shotgun at him and demands he marry the girl. I doubt there were shotguns (or swords, or weapons of any sort) involved most of the time. Most of the time, it was two teenagers, who had probably grown up together, and whose parents already knew each other, who snuck off in the woods together and did the deed.

I’m sure that most of the deflowerings would qualify as “rape” by modern standards, but the girl knew what she was doing when she ended up alone with the boy that was pursuing her, whether she giggled and said “no, no” or moaned and said “yes, yes.” Most likely, the boy would have been pressing the issue for a bit, and the girl would eventually decide to go meet him alone when she was ovulating.

Note: For those of you who don’t know, because they sure as hell don’t tell you in sex-ed: women tend to usually get pregnant only two days a month, which also happen to be the only two days a month they have anything approaching the male sex drive (even then it doesn’t really approach the male sex drive, in terms of intensity, at all, because women don’t have very much testosterone). And yes, it is possible that a girl can get pregnant other days of the month.

Furthermore, if I may veer slightly into nigh lewdness, the teenage boy is going to be so excited that he’s going to ejaculate very quickly, and teenage boys have almost hyper-powered sperm.

So: it actually is likely that the “virginity incident” would result in impregnation. Especially since people were much healthier back then.

Sometimes, this inevitable incident was preempted by more sophisticated parents through an arranged marriage, but that was largely for more upper class people. In the arranged marriage, it was still just two horny teenagers; the parents or others in the community simply took control of the situation, and directed the teenage sex drive into a controlled environment. Also, if the norm was arranged marriages, this gave the teenagers something to look forward to as they attempted to control the sex urge.

The Church did its best to encourage arranged marriage, because the sex before marriage act that takes place in nature was considered barbaric and immoral. Who knows what the rate of virgin marriage actually was, but if you go back and look, you will find that the time between a marriage and the first born child was typically nine months – or just a little bit less. Even in very strict Christian society, no one was doing the math and shaming people.

I’ve seen statistics that claim in America, the (female) sex before marriage rate in 1900 was as low as 10% and as high as 60%, but obviously, people are going to lie about it. It’s a lie that doesn’t hurt anyone. They would marry their first sexual partner, as a result of the pregnancy issue.

The point is this: sex was associated with marriage, whether the deed happened before or after, because sex was associated with pregnancy and children. Whether it was an arranged marriage or a so-called “shotgun wedding,” the marriage was the result of a sex drive, not a result of “oh we think it’s time to have kids.”

“Family Planning” as Anti-Natalism

What birth control and the sexual revolution did was transfer all sexual power to women. The previous consequence of a woman having sex meant that she would have to deal with children, and she needed someone to feed those children, so she needed to use the power of sex to secure a man who would provide her with resources.

Birth control allowed women to weaponize sex.

It allowed them to gather resources from a man without having the man’s children. She could say “I’m not ready for children.” That was not an option before birth control, because the sex act resulted in children as a matter of science.

This was part of a larger social engineering project by the people who have locked us in this cage.

Women’s sexual liberation was only possible due to the scientific creation of the various forms of birth control. They used arguments that seemed to make logical sense to men, apparently – they argued that they wanted “equal rights.” This has of course resulted in absolute domination of society by women.

The concept of “family planning,” which translates into “women navigating around pregnancy for the reason of using sex as a weapon,” only became possible in the age of birth control, in all its dazzling and diabolical wonder. Up until then, people would have sex because they were horny, the result was children, and the social norms, reinforced by everything from religion to economics, meant marriage. This is how human beings managed the human reproductive drive (excluding Africans, Australian Aboriginals, and maybe some other brown people, who raised children communally like many apes).

Traditional marriage was a legal contract, typically between the man and the girl’s father. That is the ritual you see in modern marriages, when the father walks the bride down the aisle and turns her over to the man. The reason it was a legal contract was because couples might have fights, they might have problems, they might want to have sex with other people, or whatever. Who knows what’s going to happen in 10 or 20 years between two people who had sex because of hormones, so it was written in blood on stone.

Marriage is no longer a contract; it is a pointless, archaic ritual. The fact that divorce is not only legal, but there is such a thing as “no-fault” divorce – which basically indicates a woman has gotten bored – means that marriage has no actual meaning. That’s why it was so easy to force through homosexual marriage: because heterosexual marriage had already come to be seen as a meaningless, performative ritual, perhaps vaguely related to tax forms.

Women having “careers” played directly into this, providing a cover story for the power scheme that women were and are running. The result was no children and the death of the family unit as the core building block of society.

Everything we’ve witnessed in society since then has followed directly from this original sin of birth control.

Romantic Gibberish

In the midst of the desecration of the marriage contract, the cage-builders (cultural engineers) were shoveling this romantic gibberish about “true love” and “finding the one” onto the flaming doom-heap. The entire plot was lost. Human coupling was not about children, so it began to be about a metaphysical journey to find a person with the magical power to fill you with eternal happiness.

What they did was redefine sexual infatuation as “falling in love,” and claimed that this feeling could “last forever.” Clearly, sexual infatuation cannot last forever. Once you see a woman in a certain light, over a period of time, you can no longer view her as the perfect object you imagined when your erection was raging. A similar process happens in the mind of the woman, though I would not claim to understand its mechanics.

There is no such thing as “true love.” It is a fantasy, like Santa Claus, designed for adolescents instead of children. What happens is this:

• Your body is telling you to reproduce, and thus making you horny.
• When you have sexual attraction to someone, your brain starts dumping chemicals that are not just sex chemicals, but emotional chemicals which fuel nonsensical thoughts.
• You start to view the object of your sexual attraction as perfect, even though she’s just some stupid bitch.

When the sexual infatuation wears off, you no longer feel euphoric around the other person. That, according to the gospel of modern media, means that it was not actually “true love,” and you might as well move along to the next “partner.”

In nature, the emotions associated with the sexual infatuation are your brain tricking you, because beyond food and warmth, your number one biological prerogative is reproduction. After you live with this woman, raise kids with her, deal with all that living entails, of course you’re going to develop a different kind of love for her. That is not sexual infatuation, but is something deeper and more meaningful. You see it among elderly couples.

But here’s the issue: No man ever said “oh man, look at those tiddies, they would be great for my infant child to suck milk from.” If a man did think that, you would think him perverse. But that is the end goal of the brain, that is creating the erection and the love emotions. The sexual impulse is the drive to create children, but it is masked in the psyche. The chemicals in the brain are lying to you about the end goal of your erection.

When you separate the two things – sex and children – by calling the sexual impulse “true love” and then claiming that producing children is a logical decision that you make, you have effectively broken the established biological reproduction process.

“Boyfriends” are Battered Abuse Victims

As much as “free love” was touted, women never intended to give away sex for free. So what we end up with is a situation where women practicing birth control use men as emotional, and often financial, slaves. Maybe you can do “pick-up artistry,” and go out and put on a show for women and she will reward you with sex, but if you want long term access to a vagina, you have to play by the rules of the woman, and her rules are always that she has total control over your life. (This situation has gotten much more extreme in recent years, where so many women have become obese, and thus out of the mating game for any self-respecting man.)

Men very often end up going through a series of “long term relationships,” which always end, because they’re not contracted, and the woman gets bored. For most people I know, there aren’t any children. If there are children, it doesn’t seem to stop women from just imploding the relationship and moving on. This has been called “serial monogamy.” What it is is a cycle of abusing men, which men willingly subject themselves to, because the chemicals in their brains don’t understand what is going on. The brain is telling you: “you are having sex with this woman, so you need to take care of her because she is caring for your spawn.” But there are no spawn.

Women are exploiting a loophole in your neurobiology for the purpose of enslaving you to them.

During these relationships, the woman is virtually always in a mother type power situation over the man. Men are typically in some kind of personal denial about that. None of them want to admit it, and it apparently just feels normal to them that their “girlfriend” controls their life.

As of 2019, only 30% of millennials were married with at least one child, but thanks to the magic of abortion, only 24% of millennial women are single mothers (presumably, as many as a third of the “spouse and child” are step-dad situations).

Theoretically, women eventually get to be in their thirties, and feel they want to have at least one child, and decide to “settle down.” They usually marry some man who is dopey and well-off financially.

However, a lot of millennial women are not doing that. They are instead just continuing the process of “dating” and moving in with a different man every few years, then destroying the relationship, then going out and looking for another one. A portion of Gen X women are now doing this into their 40s and even 50s, and that looks like it is going to be the path of a much larger portion of millennial women.

The men who get dragged through this process are victims of incredible abuse. It is an Anti-Male Industrial Complex.

Men are simply doing what their biology tells them to do, and women drag them through broken glass.

Broken Machines

We had a system that worked fine, and we changed it in an attempt to build a utopia, and now we are lonely, hollow, broken things.

We are attempting to do something natural, to fall into the patterns of nature, and it doesn’t work, because we are living in a completely artificial environment, not different to my poor gerbil.

Men have a desire for the company of a woman, because we are hardwired to reproduce. But if you are not reproducing, the woman is totally useless. But the psyche cannot grasp it.

Clearly, it is more complicated than simply trying to fill a natural role. Human beings are mammals, but our psychology is more complex. It’s not as big of a difference as humanists make it out to be, but we are more complicated than apes.

Many of these men who are playing the role of “boyfriend” were raised by single mothers or from otherwise broken families. (I would classify having a weak father who deferred to your mother as a “broken family.” It’s not functioning as it should.) They are accustomed to female authority, so they are looking for female authority. Women exploit men who come from broken families. They target them.

One thing I’ve noticed is that these men in their late twenties through their mid-thirties tend to have “girlfriends” their own age. That is a question I will ask them: “well, if you’re going to get married, why not get one fresher?” It seems to me an obvious question. These men are often in good shape, and making some money, so why not get the youngest girl possible, if you’re planning on having children?

Because they don’t know what they’re doing. They’re not even thinking about it. They never had to think about it before, because it was just something that fell together, as a result of biological drives.

The Root of Our Decay

The family is the root of society, and the collapse of the family is what destroyed our society.

If we woke up tomorrow and all forms of birth control ceased to exist, from condoms to abortion, and we also banned all forms of government financial aid to women (including affirmative action hiring, free daycare, and all of the rest of the various feminist programs), it would take about 18 months before society reorganized itself into a far-right fantasy.

This is what would happen:

• Women would have to get married.
• Men would be the ones setting the terms of the marriage, because they would be the ones with all of the resources.
• Women would reorient their needs and desires to that of a married woman raising children, and support their husbands who were providing their income.
• Women’s desire to do all of these weird things they’re doing, pushing homosexuality and an anti-white agenda, would disappear, as their maternal instincts would be focused on their children.

We talk a lot about Jews on this website. As a Christian, I do believe that Jews, who define themselves by a rejection of Christ, are the embodiment of Satan’s agenda on earth.

However, the empowerment of women was a prerequisite for everything else that is happening right now. It wouldn’t matter that “no-fault divorce” existed if women would honor the vows they made before God, but a woman is utterly incapable of making basic decisions, let alone grasping the concept of honor.

The first decision that the first woman made was to take the advice of a talking snake that she’d just met minutes earlier.

If the snake had approached the man, he would have told him to get away from him with his weird schemes. But Satan used the woman to manipulate the man. That is our exact predicament presently.

White women remain the most active and aggressive persecutors of white men, even now. Probably, none of you were raised by a Jew, but you were raised by an agent of the Jewish agenda. You’ve probably never had a Jew wreck your personal life, but you’ve all had your lives wrecked by women – if only your mother.

There isn’t really a solution to the problem of “what do we do about women?”

Anyone who tells you they have a solution is lying to you. Any man who says that it’s easy to “find a good girl” is the most vile kind of fiend. There are no “good girls” in a feminist society. That is what “women’s empowerment” means. It means they’re allowed to make decisions. All of their decisions are going to be bad. Every aspect of our society incentivizes the worst conceivable behavior in women.

The option that you have is to not let them control your life. Don’t be some bitch’s “boyfriend.” You’re better than that. You don’t deserve this society that you’ve been thrown into. You did nothing to deserve this. Do what you can, see if you can figure something out, but don’t let them take your self-respect.

In any situation where you are involved with a woman, you need to be ready to get up and walk away as soon as she stops doing what you want her to do. Do not ever engage them in arguments. That is below any man, to get down into this sickening psychodrama that they feed on. Do not ever allow them to dictate your behavior.

Hm.

I was certain the media told me that everyone had to stop breeding because otherwise we were all going to burn up from global warming.

Now, the fact that people have stopped breeding is a crisis.

I guess it’s a bit like that time that the media told me that wearing a mask made you more likely to get viruses, then told the government to force everyone to wear masks, even in the open air outside.

It turns out that 40 years of anti-natal propaganda by the media, government and education system was a mistake.

But hey – everybody makes mistakes though, you know?

BBC:

The world is ill-prepared for the global crash in children being born which is set to have a “jaw-dropping” impact on societies, say researchers.

Falling fertility rates mean nearly every country could have shrinking populations by the end of the century.

And 23 nations – including Spain and Japan – are expected to see their populations halve by 2100.

Countries will also age dramatically, with as many people turning 80 as there are being born.

What is going on?

The fertility rate – the average number of children a woman gives birth to – is falling.

If the number falls below approximately 2.1, then the size of the population starts to fall.

In 1950, women were having an average of 4.7 children in their lifetime.

Researchers at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation showed the global fertility rate nearly halved to 2.4 in 2017 – and their study, published in the Lancet , projects it will fall below 1.7 by 2100.

As a result, the researchers expect the number of people on the planet to peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, before falling down to 8.8 billion by the end of the century.

“That’s a pretty big thing; most of the world is transitioning into natural population decline,” researcher Prof Christopher Murray told the BBC.

“I think it’s incredibly hard to think this through and recognise how big a thing this is; it’s extraordinary, we’ll have to reorganise societies.”

Why are fertility rates falling?

It has nothing to do with sperm counts or the usual things that come to mind when discussing fertility.

Instead it is being driven by more women in education and work, as well as greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to have fewer children.

In many ways, falling fertility rates are a success story.

Which countries will be most affected?

Japan’s population is projected to fall from a peak of 128 million in 2017 to less than 53 million by the end of the century.

Italy is expected to see an equally dramatic population crash from 61 million to 28 million over the same timeframe.

They are two of 23 countries – which also include Spain, Portugal, Thailand and South Korea – expected to see their population more than halve.

“That is jaw-dropping,” Prof Christopher Murray told me.

China, currently the most populous nation in the world, is expected to peak at 1.4 billion in four years time before nearly halving to 732 million by 2100. India will take its place.

The UK is predicted to peak at 75 million in 2063, and fall to 71 million by 2100.

However, this will be a truly global issue, with 183 out of 195 countries having a fertility rate below the replacement level.

Why is this a problem?

You might think this is great for the environment. A smaller population would reduce carbon emissions as well as deforestation for farmland.

“That would be true except for the inverted age structure (more old people than young people) and all the uniformly negative consequences of an inverted age structure,” says Prof Murray.

The study projects:

-The number of under-fives will fall from 681 million in 2017 to 401 million in 2100.
-The number of over 80-year-olds will soar from 141 million in 2017 to 866 million in 2100.

Prof Murray adds: “It will create enormous social change. It makes me worried because I have an eight-year-old daughter and I wonder what the world will be like.”

Who pays tax in a massively aged world? Who pays for healthcare for the elderly? Who looks after the elderly? Will people still be able to retire from work?

“We need a soft landing,” argues Prof Murray.

Are there any solutions?
Countries, including the UK, have used migration to boost their population and compensate for falling fertility rates.

However, this stops being the answer once nearly every country’s population is shrinking.

“We will go from the period where it’s a choice to open borders, or not, to frank competition for migrants, as there won’t be enough,” argues Prof Murray.

Some countries have tried policies such as enhanced maternity and paternity leave, free childcare, financial incentives and extra employment rights, but there is no clear answer.

Sweden has dragged its fertility rate up from 1.7 to 1.9, but other countries that have put significant effort into tackling the “baby bust” have struggled. Singapore still has a fertility rate of around 1.3.

Prof Murray says: “I find people laugh it off; they can’t imagine it could be true, they think women will just decide to have more kids.

“If you can’t [find a solution] then eventually the species disappears, but that’s a few centuries away.”

How do countries fight falling birth rates?

The researchers warn against undoing the progress on women’s education and access to contraception.

Prof Stein Emil Vollset said: “Responding to population decline is likely to become an overriding policy concern in many nations, but must not compromise efforts to enhance women’s reproductive health or progress on women’s rights.”

What about Africa?

The population of sub-Saharan Africa is expected to treble in size to more than three billion people by 2100.

And the study says Nigeria will become the world’s second biggest country, with a population of 791 million.

Prof Murray says: “We will have many more people of African descent in many more countries as we go through this.

“Global recognition of the challenges around racism are going to be all the more critical if there are large numbers of people of African descent in many countries.”

Great idea – we’ll just replace the entire world with African blacks!

That will totally solve the problem.

After all, every single human being on earth is exactly the same, and completely interchangeable with one another.

The only problem will be that everyone on earth hates black people because of an aesthetic distaste for the color of their skin, and this causes black people to fail at everything.

The Western export of the notion of consent is having remarkable consequences in India.

Metro:

A man in India is blaming his parents for giving birth to him ‘without his consent’.

Raphael Samuel, 27, has compared having children to ‘kidnapping and slavery’ and said his parents created him for ‘their joy and their pleasure’.

The self-titled ‘anti-natalist’ believes procreation is a ‘supreme act of evil’ and that life which has not given its consent to live should not be brought into the world.

…

‘My life has been amazing, but I don’t see why I should put another life through the rigmarole of school and finding a career, especially when they didn’t ask to exist.’

On the one hand, he’s functionally retarded in an evolutionary sense, but on the other hand, Indians not reproducing is objectively a good thing. So should I attack him and his view or turn this into a shill piece for the Indian anti-procreation movement?

Tough choice.

Raphael, from Mumbai, runs the Facebook page Nihilanand, which is liked by hundreds of social media users.

The anti-natalist movement has emerged in India as younger people attempt to resist societal pressure on them to have children.

In numerous images he asks his followers to consider why they are alive, writing: ‘Your parents had you instead of a toy or a dog.

‘You owe them nothing. You are their entertainment.’

In another picture he states: ‘The only reason your children are facing problems is because you had them’.

While in a third he asks: ‘Isn’t forcing a child into this world and then forcing it to have a career kidnapping and slavery?’.

He is joined in his beliefs by Pratima Naik, 26, from Bengaluru, who is at the forefront of the anti-natalist movement and also committed to never having children.

…

His page, entitled Childfree India, wrote last month: ‘Should we continue to bring more children in this world and accelerate the process of environmental and social degradation?

‘Do you think existence is pain, and not bringing a child into this world, is a guaranteed way to avoid unnecessary suffering to the child?

‘We are a group of people who have decided not to reproduce. We are Childfree Indians!’

Okay. This explains why there are so many transgenders in India. They’re strugglophobic faggots.

You see, when Jordan Peterson tells you “life is pain” he’s not entirely wrong, you know? He’s wrong in the context of what he’s suggesting and in the context of what he’s trying to do, which is to imbue you with passivity and turn you into a masochistic frog-voiced walking lobster, but pain is a very real and very critical part of life.

This doesn’t mean that life is something horrible you have to endure in a “carry your cross” kind of way, but it does mean that you should achieve and improve and that the process of achieving and improving is necessarily a hard one. There will be pain, and there will be struggle.

…and there will be glory.

Never abandon the principle of struggle.

You’re not here to endure torture, you’re not a defenseless woman tied to a chair. You are a man, and your struggle is the one you decide. If you don’t decide for a struggle, life will choose for you one you most likely won’t want.

You have to set your eyes on the prize and pay the price. Sweat, blood, and even tears. Whatever it takes.

Still, try not to cry because crying is for faggots. But if tears are part of the price, you better be ready to pay it with your head held high.

You have to listen to what I’m saying here through these words in your screen. This is important. You are here for a reason. This epoch is the way it is for a reason. You chose this challenge because you are part of existence. You are part of Creation. You exist.

Have you ever tried imagining not existing? Not being here? Not being anywhere. Just not being. Tonight when you close your eyes before bed try imagining how that would be. Look into the darkness and you’ll find the void, and you’ll feel the void. You’ll be intimidated. You’ll be scared. But then you will smile. You’ll realize you’ve been blessed with the capacity to do what you just did, with the ability to think and experience, and with a role in Creation itself.

He decided to remain child-free after deciding the world was not a conductive place for raising a family.

If this isn’t a “conductive place for raising a family” then what is? They’ll never find a perfect time because they don’t realize the perfect time is any time. It’s always going to be hard, it was never easy. There was always struggle. There were always hardships.

So far we’ve always raised above.

We’ll continue to fight, and we’ll keep defeating the monsters of our times.

Victory awaits.

Pushing white people to have fewer children to “help the environment” is a meme that has been around before. But it looks like they’re giving it another whirl.

Here’s Friday’s front page from the French newspaper Libération.

“Fewer children to save the planet?”

“Diapers or the ozone layer, do we need to choose?”

This is a pun in French.  It’s also complete nonsense, since the ozone layer problem has already been solved.

The article references a similar piece in the Jew York Times.

It’s accompanied by personal commentaries like this one, from Gaëlle.

Personally, I don’t plan to have children in my life. I don’t like them but I don’t detest them either. The environment is a factor that reassures me about my choice. There are so many people emigrating because of climate change and, in parallel, they tell us that we need to continue to procreate, particularly for retired people. I prefer to welcome migrants than to have children with an uncertain future who will go on consuming ever more. They tell us: between now and 2040 it could all fall apart. Children are a chasm for finance and energy. When I meet people, I try to make the situation clear quickly by saying I don’t want them. I don’t see myself changing for anyone, nor putting my career in parentheses.

Of course these messages are only ever pushed upon white people, despite white birthrates being below replacement level in virtually every country where white people live. And white people will be the only ones who can come up with technological solutions to whatever problems exist. Are the teeming hordes of Africa going to help with environmental engineering?