One of the best things I read on this site. Ignore the criticism towards your convoluted and heavy style, it's great and original and it should be studied on universities all around the angloshphere
I read about seventy percent of this. Not bad, all the gender awareness coming out at once, but maybe consider the possibility that so many men are “incels” because their fathers had no authority over them. It has not always been like this, having to cull 20-30% of each generation of males because useless. This is the first generation in history where women had anything resembling real authority, and they don’t have a clue what they’re doing, so don’t confuse social collapse with normal.
About 1/4 incels for eugenic purposes should be plenty. Basically cutting off the lower tail of male genetics.
War as a method of purifying the excess makes sense (when blinders are put on to block out other effects). But...
I know the thought experiment really assumes a stable society that is not churning through one population and replacing it with another, but we actually live in a society that is. Absolute freedom of choice makes reproduction basically impossible at scale, and foreign cultures will retain natalism for 2 or 3 generations when transplanted here, and apparently population is crucial for retaining an economic and military edge on competitors, so every generation we replace somewhat proven genetic stock with probably poor genetic stock from the rest of the world, relying on systems built by our ancestors to maintain "our" continued order in a state that lacks loyalty, common vision, or genetic improvement over time. So, is getting rid of our bottom 20-25% worth bringing in that amount of men from the rest of the world and continuing that process perpetually, or are you simultaneously advocating a controlled depopulation to preserve genetic spheres of sovereignty (though perhaps reduced for whites) and a return of some kind of social/legal force behind natalism?
Hey Walt, looking to understand your perspective on this side of the "late bloomer ick":
I've read substacks like yours that claim women engage in a lot of in-group conformity.
If you share that belief, why can't that in-group conformity be utilized to make women as a group understand that when they are so rejecting of "incel"/late bloomer types, they are effectively just discriminating against a class of mostly autistic men?
Wouldn't this be especially effective amongst the artsy liberal women that you mention?
I understand if you think there is a basic, biological element to the rejection, but I'm thinking of this as a modern way of getting those numbers back up to around the '50s level.
I struggle to parse your prose, but, with the help of an AI translator into Gen X speak, I'm in heated agreement with your hot take. Intersectionality is an Ouroboros that will eventually destroy itself. But, I'm not sure how long this will endure.
Sure, biological women, especially White women, are now an oppressor class, soon to be treated like White men by the leftists. But, those White women tend to vote their identity -- not their long term self-interest. And, as long as women are the median voter and women continue to shift to the left, we're in for an Orwellian future hellscape.
We haven't hit bottom yet. Not sure when we will. Fourth Turning thesis seems to predict some time between 2027 and 2033. We'll need a crisis to hit that timeline, which means you should expect some sort of acceleration event.to force a capitulation. Keep your head on a swivel.
I’m liking for feet
One of the best things I read on this site. Ignore the criticism towards your convoluted and heavy style, it's great and original and it should be studied on universities all around the angloshphere
I read about seventy percent of this. Not bad, all the gender awareness coming out at once, but maybe consider the possibility that so many men are “incels” because their fathers had no authority over them. It has not always been like this, having to cull 20-30% of each generation of males because useless. This is the first generation in history where women had anything resembling real authority, and they don’t have a clue what they’re doing, so don’t confuse social collapse with normal.
Your writing comes off as a fusion of Jordan Peterson & Elliot Rodger. Sadly I think you would take that as a compliment
#Repealthe19thWorldwide includes no women holding political offices or serving on juries.
About 1/4 incels for eugenic purposes should be plenty. Basically cutting off the lower tail of male genetics.
War as a method of purifying the excess makes sense (when blinders are put on to block out other effects). But...
I know the thought experiment really assumes a stable society that is not churning through one population and replacing it with another, but we actually live in a society that is. Absolute freedom of choice makes reproduction basically impossible at scale, and foreign cultures will retain natalism for 2 or 3 generations when transplanted here, and apparently population is crucial for retaining an economic and military edge on competitors, so every generation we replace somewhat proven genetic stock with probably poor genetic stock from the rest of the world, relying on systems built by our ancestors to maintain "our" continued order in a state that lacks loyalty, common vision, or genetic improvement over time. So, is getting rid of our bottom 20-25% worth bringing in that amount of men from the rest of the world and continuing that process perpetually, or are you simultaneously advocating a controlled depopulation to preserve genetic spheres of sovereignty (though perhaps reduced for whites) and a return of some kind of social/legal force behind natalism?
Brought to you by Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
Final pic is 👌
I suppose if you ever came across Shakespeare in your benighted ramblings you might have heard it said that brevity is the soul of wit
Hey Walt, looking to understand your perspective on this side of the "late bloomer ick":
I've read substacks like yours that claim women engage in a lot of in-group conformity.
If you share that belief, why can't that in-group conformity be utilized to make women as a group understand that when they are so rejecting of "incel"/late bloomer types, they are effectively just discriminating against a class of mostly autistic men?
Wouldn't this be especially effective amongst the artsy liberal women that you mention?
I understand if you think there is a basic, biological element to the rejection, but I'm thinking of this as a modern way of getting those numbers back up to around the '50s level.
I struggle to parse your prose, but, with the help of an AI translator into Gen X speak, I'm in heated agreement with your hot take. Intersectionality is an Ouroboros that will eventually destroy itself. But, I'm not sure how long this will endure.
Sure, biological women, especially White women, are now an oppressor class, soon to be treated like White men by the leftists. But, those White women tend to vote their identity -- not their long term self-interest. And, as long as women are the median voter and women continue to shift to the left, we're in for an Orwellian future hellscape.
We haven't hit bottom yet. Not sure when we will. Fourth Turning thesis seems to predict some time between 2027 and 2033. We'll need a crisis to hit that timeline, which means you should expect some sort of acceleration event.to force a capitulation. Keep your head on a swivel.