Counter-Currents
1,105 words
This is an attempt to understand the psychology of male wallflowers.
A “wallflower” refers to a girl who waits . . . and waits . . . and waits off to the side for a fellow to ask her out on the dancefloor. Some girls are wallflowers because they are unattractive. But others are just a bit too modest, shy, and diffident.
Human beings are social animals. Thus being unsociable or unapproachable is a vice, because it impedes well-being. But in women, we regard it as a forgivable vice. Ultimately, this attitude relates to sex. For men, sex ends in an orgasm. For women, it sometimes ends in pregnancy and childrearing. Thus it is rational for females to err on the side of caution. A woman who is too sexually forward is not really respected by men or by women. This prejudice against outgoing women, although rooted in sexual modesty, extends far beyond sex. Thus women are penalized—and penalize each other—for being too outgoing in areas of life that have nothing to do with sex. For instance, many men cringe simply when women speak loudly.
Men, however, have no excuse for being wallflowers. For men, being outgoing, forward, boisterous, and socially available are seen as good things. Again, this attitude may be rooted in sexual biology, but it extends into all areas of life. For men, even excesses in this area are regarded as forgivable. Why, then, do some men hang back?
It is tempting to just trot out the distinction between introversion and extraversion to explain this. Aren’t some people just born that way? But I know of extraverted wallflowers as well. I have also observed that male wallflowers seem more plentiful with each passing generation, which leads me to think this phenomenon is based on parenting and other environmental factors, rather than basic character types. (Assuming, of course, that introversion and extraversion are inborn rather than acquired.)
The male wallflowers I know are all highly talented people. Some have a great deal of potential, much of it unrealized, and as I argued in “On Potential,” when a guy is pushing forty, having “a lot of potential” is no longer a compliment, since by then, we expect more actual achievements. Other wallflowers I know are actually quite accomplished, but they have received nowhere near the recognition they deserve. My standard advice to wallflowers is that they need to do more. They need to accomplish more, and they need to do more to promote their accomplishments. What are you waiting for? A handsome prince? Hence the wallflower metaphor.
Whenever anyone shares a psychological theory, he is usually talking about himself, at least in part. Whatever insight I have in this matter derives from introspection. Years ago, I asked a friend and mentor to read my doctoral dissertation. When I sent it to him, though, I did not include his name in the acknowledgments. I almost typed it, but then I thought something to the effect of, “I want his honest opinion, and thanking him in advance smacks of flattery.” So I left out his name. It was, of course, the first thing he noticed, and he was deeply offended. After all, his work had profoundly influenced me. Acknowledging that was only just. But I was frankly appalled at his reaction. After all, I had the purest of motives.
But what sort of purity was this, exactly? I of course wanted him to like my work. But I didn’t want to make it easy. I didn’t want to make it transactional. I didn’t want to give him anything upfront. I wanted his praise to be, in effect, a gift to me. It’s only what I deserved, after all.
Narcissism doesn’t begin to describe this phenomenon. Everybody wants recognition for his merits. That goes for people who go out and conquer it as well as for those who hang back and wait.
Insecurity doesn’t begin to describe it either. I was quite secure about the value of my work. If I doubted anything, it was the objectivity of my friend, hence the desire to abstain from anything that smacked of flattery.
The essential factor was my secret longing for the gift of recognition. But that’s not generally how the world works, especially for men. So why were my desires out of sync with reality?
There is one part of the world where one does receive recognition of one’s worth simply as a gift: the family. Parents simply give their children love, and they do so unconditionally, in advance of any actual achievements. Think of all the trouble your parents went to when you were a squalling, needy infant, incapable even of feeling gratitude, much less paying them back, even in the coin of simple manners. Parenting, at root, can’t be transactional. There’s a huge amount of investment that has to go into a child before he can give anything back. One has to prime the pump. Parenting isn’t a thankless task, but sometimes “thanks” is all you get from it.
But what happens when a child feels under-parented? What happens when he feels he wasn’t given enough? Then he goes through life looking for people to give him what his parents didn’t. In my case, my parents recognized early on that I was a very bright child and did everything to encourage me. But they didn’t really understand me, especially when I started coming home from college talking about philosophy and political theory. Once I realized that my behavior stemmed from feeling under-parented intellectually, I became much more comfortable with how the game is played. Doing good work is not enough. You need to promote yourself as well. You need to fight for recognition, not just wait for it. And to gain recognition from others, you have to give it.
Millennials and Zoomers are the children of the most self-absorbed and self-indulgent generations in American history. Is it any wonder that their sons feel under-parented, across the board? Is it any wonder, then, that a lot of them are wallflowers? Nathaniel Branden once said something to the effect that a lot of psychological hangups can be articulated as “At some stage of my life, my needs were not met, and I’m not budging one inch until they are.” The trouble is, of course, that once you are a grown man, nobody is going to give you anything. And if you are waiting for that to happen before you start your life, you will never start.
But is a grown man really going to let a needy little boy stop him from living?
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
47 comments
This piece oddly fails to address the main reason for men being wallflowers these days: the sexual- political environment, which is completely stacked against all but the most alpha of males, since most women no longer need male providers, which was why they used to couple themselves to beta males, always thinking (in the limitless arrogance that all women of even the remotest attractiveness possess) that they could have done better.
Anytime a man who is a beta or less approaches a woman romantically, he is setting himself up for an accusation of sexual harassment that as likely as not will end up in him getting fired from work, or in deep jeopardy at school.
And outside of work or school, where else is anyone supposed to meet someone? Online? That just leads to a long-distance romance, which ends up being the financial equivalent of what girls have now apparently formalized as “onlyfans” accounts.
Male wallflowers = MGTOW, and for the same reason.
And I’d be willing to bet that most male wallflowers are that way because they tried and tried, and ended up realizing that their Sisyphean attempts were getting them nowhere, and that NOT trying simply ended them up in the same place (alone), but without the sting of constant rejection or the financial depletion of trying to court someone long-distance.
This is basically correct. I conjecture that most men become shy and introverted because they have received negative feedback for much of their life. For example if a man has been called creepy or mocked for hitting on girls he is less likely to hit on girls in the future. If a man was the uncool nerd in highschool who no one wanted to be friends with he will be shy in college for fear of alienating people like he did in high school.
completely stacked against all but the most alpha of males, since most women no longer need male providers, which was why they used to couple themselves to beta males
How do you know women aren’t willing to go out with beta males? And how do you know that in the past they did so for a meal ticket?
Are you suggesting that women be denied the ability to self-support so they are forced into marriage for a meal ticket?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTruFemcels/comments/dwuxw1/what_is_a_femcel_in_your_words/
MGTOW is pathetic and blaming some nonexistent Order of Alpha Males that conspires against anyone below 6 feet in height to round up all the women and divide them among themselves is the biggest load of hogwash I’ve seen. The reason nobody dates you is either because you don’t have your affairs in order and haven’t self-actualized to the point where you are desirable to the opposite sex, or Jewish feminism has succeeded in chasing your short-sighted minds away from women altogether, convinced they are simply abhorrent creatures that are out to get you. Don’t flatter them: despite their wild claims, feminists and SJWs don’t speak for all women, not by a long shot.
Focus on yourself, your confidence and building up a stable, independent life, and a partner will come to you, or you to them. If you let the mind-virus convince you that women aren’t worth chasing, you’ve lost the game before even starting.
Low-tier manosopheric boilerplate. I’m a bit surprised that people are still lacking self-reflection enough to still write this type of cringe, self-absorbed, crybaby, melodramatic drivel (“the Sisyphean task” made me literally laugh out loud); and quite more so to see one of them still orbiting the dissident right.
No, you endlessly bitching women-haters who pay a ridiculous amount of deference to some half-baked sophomoric theories belonging to daytime TV-tier self-help gurus that any serious person would just laugh at. Women don’t dislike you for being a beta, but for the same reason that anybody else does. You simply suck as people.
The fact that all manospheric types tend to show the same character flaws and share the same weird style of writing — an over-emphasis on idiosyncratic keywords, to the exclusion of common terms (why never “attractive” instead of “alpha”?); an eagerness to deliver the whole of their simplistic philosophy in whatever number of words they are using (like some short on time Jehova’s witnesses eager to relate the “good news”); and what I said previously about melodrama and schmaltz hyperbole (the Sisyphean task of finding a date… bwahahaha!!!) — only goes to show that there’s a lot more wrong with you than simply being unattractive to women. Again, have you ever stopped to wonder why you’re also unattractive to men?
There is of course also a possibly happy medium for luckless Right Wing Romeos which of itself contains three options:
1. Give up completely (the dating game and learn to like/love yourself and your friends- if any)
2. Date really old women. (who will treat you like a prince no matter what your looks)
3. Turn gay. (if in the event of having tried and failed at options 1. and 2. Remember, there is always the inspiration of Ernst Rohm)
The so termed unconditional praise given to ones children may not be so unconditional. Parents are praising themselves indirectly through their children. They have a genetic link to their biological offspring, or at least their supposed child rearing skills in the case of adopted children.
‘Millennials and Zoomers are the children of the most self-absorbed and self-indulgent generations in American history.’
You are generation x I take it?
‘a lot of psychological hangups can be articulated as “At some stage of my life, my needs were not met, and I’m not budging one inch until they are.” The trouble is, of course, that once you are a grown man, nobody is going to give you anything. And if you are waiting for that to happen before you start your life, you will never start living.
But is a grown man really going to let a needy little boy stop him from living?’
That applies to me. I have never heard it expressed so succinctly. Thank you.
As an addendum what do you think of Vox day’s concept of the gamma male? A male who does not accept his lowly place in the male status heirarchy and seeks to undermine better men.
I notice it a lot in my generation.
That is how most of the public would describe White Nationalists if they were familiar with Vox Day.
Elaborate if you do not mind… how so,?
Most of the public has an image of White Nationalists as incel-loser types who want to destroy modern society because they can’t compete in it. The so called “gamma males” that VD describes seem to fit that image, but most people aren’t familiar with the term.
The problem is not with you, dear Horatio, but with the stars…or a man-hating society.
I enjoyed this heartfelt piece. I have struggled with these issues all my life. I disdain self-promotion. Should we engage in it just because pushy people get their way? When I was about 10 years old I had a nonspeaking, nonsinging part in an opera – Cavallaria Rusticana. The toreador was to give his whip to me, and we practiced this. But during the performance when the toreador thrust his whip forward the little girl standing next to me reached across me and grabbed it by the hilt. I’ll bet her parents told her to do that. Now, I realize her action was an unjust act of appropriation rather than self-promotion per se.
But at the college where I worked, which was not top tier, faculty had to write themselves up in “self-assessments,” touting their accomplishments. I don’t think we CAN self-assess; I think others have to evaluate our performance. I loathed this activity and considered it illegitimate. It favored the pushy under-achievers. I think Dr. Johnson’s actions were laudatory, exactly what I would do. I have had this kind of thing happen to me. I think the other person was at fault for not appreciating his thoughtfulness.
This piece is challenging; maybe I’m mistaken.
On the other hand, at a bar or social occasion, you gotta get in there if you want the girl.
National service with maximum harshness in the initial period. Anyone opting out for ‘religious’ reasons loses citizenship and becomes a resident alien.
There is no substitute.
National Service in today’s society might make young men even more pathetic.
I may be a Wallflower, I don’t know. I’m a sensitive introvert — an artist, no less. I’m not fond of guns, have never been in a fistfight in my life, and never had much of a competitive spirit when it came to playing sports. Perhaps I qualify.
But I do value the warrior ethic, and if I was pushed against a wall by dark forces I have no doubt that I would spring into action to defend myself, my wife, and my kids.
Generally speaking, though, I fight on different battlefields. I am constantly waging war in my daily life with mediocrity — one of the great perils of life in a democracy. With the realities of the Bell Curve, however, there is only so much one can do.
I, too, was misunderstood as a child growing up in my particular family. I just didn’t fit in — almost as if I had been switched at birth. I resent the Jew-worship I was taught by people who should’ve known better, as well as their obsession with some improbable “messianic age” or afterlife that was supposed to be the supremely important thing in life but which was about as appealing to me as life under the Taliban.
I guess I’m still trying to figure things out. I tend towards pessimism, so my hope is marginal, at best. I think there is room for all types, though. Diversity doesn’t have to be the bad word that the Leftists have made of it. They use it as a weapon against Western civilization, but I think of it in terms of the Apostle Paul’s analogy of the individual human members of the Church to the body of Christ (I am not a Christian, but this is a brilliant concept) — many different parts, but one organism. This is even more true for the traditional West than for the fantastical dystopia that the Left would artificially erect.
I concur with the author that parenting has to play a large roll in why many men develop a “wallflower” personality. If a boy grows up in a house where the father appears weak or submissive, or where the mother wears the pants, or where father is not even there, the boy has a greater chance of growing up to be a beta male or something close to it. This is exacerbated by him then going to school and having a train of finger-waving female school teachers reinforcing the idea of woman as authority figure for nearly 12 years straight. I believe in nature over nurture for the most part, but I think the issue of what makes a man be more dominant in life versus shy or submissive is largely the result of sociology. We are all born with personality types that gear us toward being workers, or warriors, or artists, etc., but how we develop to deal with direct interpersonal exchanges begins in the home. These are just my humble opinions drawn from personal experience, things I’ve read, and from a great deal of inspiration by Andrew Anglin and Jesse Lee Peterson. Say what you will about the latter, but when you get past his silly interviewing techniques you will find some great insights into why men are they way they are, why women are the way they are, among other things.
This is exacerbated by him then going to school and having a train of finger-waving female school teachers reinforcing the idea of woman as authority figure for nearly 12 years straight.
Is there some sort of quirk in the male brain that renders it incapable of comprehending the fact that authority figures can be either men or women?
Not sure. I don’t think that authority figures can be either men or women in any circumstances. This is because men and women are not interchangeable. Men and women are not just anatomically different, we have different brains. Perhaps you might find an answer here though, another great article at counter-currents: https://counter-currents.com/2020/04/tall-men-evolution-leadership/
Men need male authority figures growing up to develop into proper men. Period. Female teachers just tell them that if someone punches or pushes you, you should not push back but instead “tell a teacher.” You put women in charge of the youth, you end up with an entire generation of men that can’t take care of itself but instead expects some higher power, I.e. government, to make all the hard decisions for them. Women can have authority over infants and toddlers, but even then, it should only be to enforce rules that the father has established. It isn’t a “quirk” to recognize this reality.
Women can have authority over infants and toddlers,
Right. As I thought, you want to take away my right to homeschool my sons.
What you’re really saying here, of course, is that women can’t have any authority at all, because infants and toddlers don’t understand authority.
People like you say that women should be mothers, but you are so ignorant of what motherhood entails that you don’t appreciate that the job cannot be done without authority.
Female teachers just tell them that if someone punches or pushes you, you should not push back but instead “tell a teacher.”
I don’t know if that’s true or not, and I suspect you don’t either. I do know that they do as they are told by their superiors. If you were really concerned about this, you might say that women shouldn’t be principals, but that isn’t really the point so much as marginalizing women altogether.
In any event, standing up to bullies may solve the problem for that one child, but the bully remains to menace others. I have come to the conclusion that there is really no course of action that women can take that couldn’t somehow be turned into a reason to attack us. If women teachers took a hands-off approach to bullying, reactionaries would argue that we’re too nonconfrontational and weak to keep order or something.
You put women in charge of the youth, you end up with an entire generation of men that can’t take care of itself but instead expects some higher power, I.e. government, to make all the hard decisions for them.
Literally noone wants government to make decisions for them. They do want government to protect them from assault, battery, larceny, robbery, etc. (the grown up versions of bullying).
Hey Greg, I would like you to talk more about your college graduate school experience. Have you ever tied this in with your road to dissident politics? Why were you interested in swedenborgianism, or whatever?
I was interested in Kant, and I got into Swedenborg due to my Kant research. Swedenborg also, of course, fit in with my interest in Traditionalist or Perennialist thought.
This article is really insightful.
When in a new social situation, (looking introspectively) I flat-out refuse to brag about my not obvious achievements which would lead people to think I am an “interesting/worthwhile person”. I do this because I was raised on a steady diet of british and anglo-american literature that eschewed this sort of self-promoting behavior. But maybe I also have this block where I expect unconditional acceptance first, and only then will I share the things about me that would give me social value. Whatever it is, this strategy works out terribly, because people just then think I have no interests, and thus have no interest in me, and it leads to terribly awkward conversation and condescending behavior by people who would be, by their own standards, “inferior” to myself, which, if I’m being honest, is extremely difficult for me to bear. After a particularly excruciating dinner party recently, I literally wrote a document to myself making sure that in the future, I lead with the interesting things about myself from the very beginning. It’s difficult because there is nothing that makes me cringe more than people bragging about themselves, but I don’t really know what else to do at this point but bring up my achievements and interests early in a conversation, if those are the new rules of engagement, especially since I don’t have anti-trump libtard talking points, let alone sports, to fall back on for making light conversation.
I also agree with Diligent Hebrew’s comment. In the past, I was a very open and enthusiastic person, but I do believe that constant negative feedback, from some toxic early environments, and a particularly toxic job, as well as a few negative experiences with people I can’t really get away from, have soured me to the point where I am self-censoring everything I say, to the point where it’s hard to even interact socially in new settings, unless I’m sensing some kind of subconscious connection with the person I’m talking to. To be honest, it’s difficult for me to even put all of the above in writing, but there it is.
I go with this high end tour group sometimes, and I’ve noticed if I hide what I do, I get zero respect and everybody assumes I’m a loser. If I say my profession, people tolerate and even like me. Doesn’t bother me a bit.
What’s interesting about you btw?
Also, I think you are too worried about ranking people. Only the nonexistent deity can truly do this, as the obsessions and passions of this age may be artificial. I imagine you are a fairly young person to whom the social hierarchy is very important. I couldn’t give a hoot about what literally anyone I know thinks of me. I only marginally care about my job performance because that’s $$$. Not that you have to be a mammonite, but only to do well by those around you, support yourself and family and don’t be a burden to anyone. Find and do what you love and be at nirvana with the world.
You sound exactly like me. I was going to say something to the effect that Johnson’s point about self-promotion, while undoubtedly true, is far more Jewish than Anglo-Occidental (which is as much a reason for Jewish professional superiority as higher verbal IQ or even ethnic nepotism). It is not something that comes naturally to many of us raised in what used to be considered behaviorally proper (white, Christian) homes.
In my younger days I was quite ‘social’, but now I hate meeting new people, unless they are both intelligent and nationalist. I am polite, but usually bored around people. I would rather be reading.
For a long time I was an accidental male wallflower. I came of age in the 50s and early 60s, before the adolescent hippie counter-revolution took hold. When I finally made it to college in the late 60s, early 70s I spent over 5 years in a university setting without going out on even one date with a woman. Basically, it was culture shock. I was looking to meet women with the values and world view of my mother and of most of the women in the pre-hippie days. All the women I met at university were basically left-wing or liberal skanks without a shred of moral decency in them. Not only did they possess bad values, but it was obvious to me they lacked any parenting and home skills. No thank you! I had to wait till my late 30s to shed my male wallflower image – and this outside of the university insane asylum system.
All the women I met at university were basically left-wing or liberal skanks without a shred of moral decency in them. Not only did they possess bad values, but it was obvious to me they lacked any parenting and home skills.
In other words, they were young, immature, and contrarian. Adolescents (under 25s) are like that. Then they grow up.
I didn’t know how to boil an egg when I went to college. I also fully embraced the moral and metaphysical skepticism typical of university experience. Now I’m a Christian homeschooling mother of a large family who loves the domestic arts, especially cooking.
There is a tendency to see women as static. There are good women and bad women and they’re born that way, never growing or changing. This is a very pernicious view that has serious negative consequences for society.
To be fair, women are sometimes guilty of erring to the opposite extreme, believing that a sincere, determined, and loving woman can tame the wild beast in any man and make him a good husband, and I’m just the girl to do it! This can also lead to disaster.
We have to make women grow up faster then. And men too of course but it’s more important for women since their period of fertility is much shorter. By 25, they’re old maids from the pov of traditional cultures.
Greg: you should profile wallflowers by ethnicity. To be a wallflower requires that a person be susceptible to being shamed, which requires degrees of introspection and self-awareness. Below a certain level of intelligence self-awareness and introspection become as rare as water in the desert. Given their low IQ’s I conjecture that there are few black wallflowers and, also, that many (most?) of us would be made giddy by the sight of more black wallflowers.
“Under-parenting” may be the right idea, but not for the reasons the author says.
“Male wallflowers” are almost always boys without sisters and perhaps even without brothers either.
A side-effect of the restriction of family size. Boys are not growing up with older sisters their idealize, nor younger sisters they can tease. Women are “mysterious” to them. But boys with sisters do not find women mysterious at all.
Camille Paglia said much the same about girls who are attracted to fringe “Social Justice Warrior” type culture and “Tumblr feminism.” Girls who have brothers get used to male behavior and while they may be quite annoyed by it, they certainly are not mystified, offended, nor frightened by male behavior.
A very insightful set of comments. I’d like someone knowledgeable to elaborate these ideas into an entire essay.
I disagree, I think we actually have the most babied and coddled generation who are unwilling to put work in IRL to make themselves successful or attractive to women. A huge amount of men will put 40 hours a week into a games console but will they work full time, study part time and go to the gym instead? If it’s all too hard then the electronic creche has done it’s job and robbed another white man of having a real life. Once these guys hit their mid 30s it’s too late, they can’t change. I’ve watched all of this with my younger brother and it’s deeply depressing.
I disagree, I think we actually have the most babied and coddled generation who are unwilling to put work in IRL to make themselves successful or attractive to women.
Whenever I read a comment like this I assume that it was written by someone who was caught either before or in the middle of the Sexual Revolution. It’s like the incentives to pursue a family haven’t changed since the outdated time frame the author is writing from. Millennials and zoomers are living with the fallout effects of feminism and the Sexual Revolution rather than being plagued by a mysterious inertia.
Boomer and gen x fathers sent their daughters off to university, then into the workforce. That increased the average incomes of women, pricing more men out of the dating market than ever before. Women still earn less than men because there is greater variation in income levels among men than women – 90% of billionaires are men – but women are wealthier than at any time in history. There is a greater % of women outearning men than there was previously. Women are no longer financially dependent on men but they still expect a man to earn more than them. That means there are fewer eligible men (by women’s standards) than there were when boomers and gen xers came of age.
On top of that, social media has boosted the egos of average-looking women. They can get attention on social media and dating sites from men all over the world. An average looking guy, making an average income won’t appeal to most women.
Women have higher expectations for men than they ever have, but offer less than they ever have. Women are more obese and promiscuous than they were 50 years ago. Why would that incentivize men to become go-getters? They get less for more effort. You can’t ignore this and chalk it up to laziness.
Your comment articulates the cultural divide between boomers/gen x and Millennials/Zoomers. Among those 35 and younger, the so-called American dream is dead.
The general feeling of alienation which is no small part fueled by overpopulation and mass society should not be disregarded. A lot of people, young or old, are discouraged from making contributions and instead turn to DIY lifestyle and subsistence economy, because they feel that not much more can be contributed to the world numbering 8 billion people. How much place is there for another product, another political party, another work of art, another romance and another family, and how many more growing millions have to be penetrated in order to get the message out there, and to what avail?
The same factor that drives Black and Latino resentment towards Whites is the same factor that causes the Wallflower Psychology: Merit, or lackthereof
In the economy and higher education, affirmative action is grotesquely unfair to Whites because it props up applicants of color who are usually less qualified for the job or for the limited spot in a prestigious university. In every state that repealed affirmative action back in the 90s, White admissions naturally increased, and non-white admissions naturally decreased, as the state was no longer using social engineering techniques to prop up non-whites. This being an intellectually based, Pro-White site, you all know what I’m talking about.
I believe the same rules apply to attraction between men and women. The men that develop a wallflower psychology, like the nerdy looking boy in the lead photo, tend not to be physically attractive to pretty girls. There is a social hierarchy that develops very early on in grade school. Among groups of boys and groups of girls, they all tend to group together based on similar attractiveness, and not necessarily shared interests or even shared personality. On reddit, this is called “Looks-Match.”
As kids grow and go through highschool and college, the process of Looks-Match only intensifies. Hot men match up with beautiful women, average guys may or may not get together with plain girls, etc, and the ugly ones on both sides are left to find another avenue for fulfillment and happiness. Such is natural selection.
Just like how non-whites must learn to accept their natural place in the economy if there is to be mutual peace between the races within a multicultural society, so to must average looking and ugly looking men accept their place in the sexual hierarchy. The wallflower psychology develops because these poor men are still holding out hope in their hearts that they will get a girl they desire. What they really need to do, for their own mental well-being and happiness, is to drop it altogether and move on.
I disagree with the commenter who complained about his younger brother turning to video games. In all liklihood, his brother has simply found a lifestyle that makes him content and gives him something interesting to do, and as long as he’s not lashing out at society like a bitter incel from 4chan, there’s nothing wrong with him choosing to opt out of “Normie” society.
Besides, he doesn’t have some sort of moral obligation to get a wife and have kids. For that matter, neither does anyone in the Pro-White Movement. To be perfectly blunt, its up to bluepilled normies to repopulate the White Race, not its intellectual champions. Madison Grant and Uncle Addie never had kids. I do not agree with the Traditionalist impulse in this movement that bullies and shames young men who are childless and single. We have the right as sovereign individuals to choose to NOT get in the dating game, especially when it will save us a world of hurt and pain from the rejection that stems from being physically unattractive and thus undesirable to women.
Bottom line: The wallflower psychology is not a result of lack of assertiveness or not trying hard enough. Its a result of not being worthy of selection to begin with, while still holding out false hope that things will change.
Your honesty in regards to this issue is most welcome.
As kids grow and go through highschool and college, the process of Looks-Match only intensifies. Hot men match up with beautiful women, average guys may or may not get together with plain girls, etc, and the ugly ones on both sides are left to find another avenue for fulfillment and happiness. Such is natural selection.
Indeed, and the overwhelming majority are still able to find a partner. As of 2012, only 17% of women had never been married, as opposed to 8% in 1960, on their 25th birthday. This is the supposed catastrophe that “incels” offer to justify their hate and animosity towards women. We’re talking about an increase of 9%, and of these, we have no idea how many are cohabiting with their partner, sincerely unable to find a partner (because of unreasonable expectations engendered by pornography?), or holding out for “the Alpha they deserve” (or maybe just a guy with a steady job in this hollowed-out shell of an economy).
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/
Its a result of not being worthy of selection to begin with, while still holding out false hope that things will change.
That’s because women make the selection and not their fathers. Under the current set-up men have to serve the preferences of women, which are different than the preferences of their male relatives. A girl’s father doesn’t care if his son in law has a really cool personality, a made-up background story, a wide jawline and a fast car. He wants a son who will treat his daughter and their children with care. He wants his daughter to marry a man of sound financial and moral character.
Under a system where fathers can veto the girl’s choices, family legacies are preserved and stable households are maintained.
Calling the men young women reject “unworthy” is falling into gynocentrism. Why are the standards of young women superior to the standards of men, particularly the standards of fathers?
OMC,
I’ll address some of your points, but know this: We are coming at this issue from two completely different sets of values and ideals. You are clearly a Traditionalist when it comes to female sexuality, whereas I’m a Social Darwinist. I don’t want to get into detail as to why I take that approach to female sexuality, but suffice to say, its a matter of philosophical consistency and a fealty to the Truth.
I unironically have no problem with this. Whites created cultures that value individuality and personal freedom, and I like it that way. Think about it: When a woman’s father or her brothers decide what she can and cannot do, who she can and cannot marry, they are taking away her personal autonomy. Imagine if your siblings or your mother forced you as a man to marry a certain woman you weren’t attracted to, or used the power of the law to block you from marrying a woman that you ARE attracted to. That’s basically what White women were subjected to for a long time. But, things changed for the better, and we as a race collectively decided that it was unfair and unjust for our own women to be constricted like that.
Understandably so, but do you seem not to trust White women to find such a man. Admittedly, yes, there are certain White women who go off and race mix with various mystery meat, but as has been discussed all over the internet, it’s NOT the norm for White women to race mix and consequentially become single mothers. Most White women inevitably choose a White man of sound financial and moral character even without their father’s influence. They don’t need patriarchy, or worse yet, the iron fist of the government, to tell them who they can and cannot marry.
It’s not necessary to take away the personal autonomy of sovereign individuals in order to maintain stable households or the nuclear family. Individual men and women simply need to make good personal decisions when they become adults. Society can facilitate this by giving them proper education in school as they grow up, and by making sure the divorce law is not rigged to collectively punish an entire gender. But ultimately, it’s not up to the bride’s father to make this happen, it’s up to the bride and groom themselves. Once they get married and start their own family, they are responsible for keeping it together. I don’t agree at all that the woman’s father should have any legal say over this.
I view it as submitting to the inevitable laws of nature, in which the male of a species chases a female, and the female chooses from her options who she will mate with. To me, rigging the laws of society to going against female instinct like that is as futile and stupid as trying to “educate” non-whites into becoming as successful as Whites. Not only is it not possible to legislate this away, but it also breeds fantastic levels of resentment, and rightly so: It’s unfair to non-whites to tell them they are equal to us, and it’s unfair to women to force them to ignore their biological instinct to mate with the best man she can get.
I do think that men and women alike have an obligation to control their instincts and not let them run wild, but again, it’s up to them as individuals to make that happen. I do not agree at all that the government or the patriarch of a family should basically mandate monogamous relationships and family structures. Those relationships and structures should form organically from the bottom up and not be mandated on an unwilling people from the top down. This, to me, is clearly the best way to manage people without them burning society down out of spite.
Because she is making a decision over her own body and her own life, whereas the father is making intimate decisions for her. Think if it like this: Does a community of people have the right to say “no” when when outsiders want to move in? Somebody is not going to get their way in this situation. Either the outsiders, who wants in, will not be allowed in, or the community, which wants them out, will be forced to accept them. If one party say “yes” and the other party says “no,” by the default, the party who says “no” should get their way, because no one has the right to force themselves on another without the other’s consent.
The standards of young women are superior to the standards of men because the standards of men are “I want to get laid, I need to get laid, I’m forcing myself on you. Oh and also, this is for the family.” It’s the woman who wants the right to say “No” to those situations. She should have the right to say “No” and choose which man will have her. Besides, if you want to view it from a collective standpoint, there’s a Darwinian reason why woman have the hypergamous instinct to begin with: Because it promotes the betterment of the species and is thus inherently eugenic. To me, that overrides any objections you can make based on family values or the urges of thirsty men.
You are clearly a Traditionalist when it comes to female sexuality, whereas I’m a Social Darwinist. I don’t want to get into detail as to why I take that approach to female sexuality, but suffice to say, its a matter of philosophical consistency and a fealty to the Truth.
That’s an entirely self-serving way of talking about your ideas. Nothing is “the truth” with a capital T until it is so demonstrated.
The current system of amplified hypergamy is no more “Darwinist” than one where the father can veto the girl’s choices. Either way, genes are being selected in and out by someone. Just because you prefer one form of controlled selection doesn’t make it Darwinist or “the Truth.”
The question is which system poses the fewest costs vs benefits to society. The only benefits you identify are “personal freedom,” which depends on men to grant and sustain, since men can take it away at any time, and the assumption that women’s mating preferences are eugenic. The first benefit is obviously false and the second is an assumption that you don’t explore.
Whites created cultures that value individuality and personal freedom, and I like it that way. Think about it: When a woman’s father or her brothers decide what she can and cannot do, who she can and cannot marry, they are taking away her personal autonomy. Imagine if your siblings or your mother forced you as a man to marry a certain woman you weren’t attracted to, or used the power of the law to block you from marrying a woman that you ARE attracted to. That’s basically what White women were subjected to for a long time. But, things changed for the better, and we as a race collectively decided that it was unfair and unjust for our own women to be constricted like that.
The men who created our laws in America didn’t believe in a universal “freedom.” People earned their freedom through self-governance. Liberty was about governing the passions which women are manifestly incapable of doing. Women cannot regulate their emotions so they can never be “free” no matter what their legal status is. Saying that women are free is like saying Sudanese children are free.
Women are not free for the same reason children are not free: they are dependent on another class of beings (men/parents) for their freedom. Did women legally emancipate themselves? No, it was men who stripped away the coverture laws and other regulations on women. Why didn’t women control the political systems in the colonies and Europe +200 years ago? Did somebody flip the dice and decide that men would rule and that women would have a legally and socially subservient status?
Understandably so, but do you seem not to trust White women to find such a man. Admittedly, yes, there are certain White women who go off and race mix with various mystery meat, but as has been discussed all over the internet, it’s NOT the norm for White women to race mix and consequentially become single mothers. Most White women inevitably choose a White man of sound financial and moral character even without their father’s influence. They don’t need patriarchy, or worse yet, the iron fist of the government, to tell them who they can and cannot marry.
The norm is for women to put off marriage until their fertility has peaked or to put it off full stop. This is true of higher IQ women, who wait until their 30s to have kids. If the genes for intelligence are inherited from the mother, then it’s no wonder IQ scores have been falling. IQ scores have been dropping everywhere, even places where there is little immigration like Estonia.
It’s not necessary to take away the personal autonomy of sovereign individuals in order to maintain stable households or the nuclear family.
Women are not sovereign individuals or else they would not have petitioned men for their personal autonomy. Why were men sovereign before women? Why didn’t men petition women for their sovereignty?
Women are dependent on men for their privileges, which means they are not sovereign.
I view it as submitting to the inevitable laws of nature, in which the male of a species chases a female, and the female chooses from her options who she will mate with. To me, rigging the laws of society to going against female instinct like that is as futile and stupid as trying to “educate” non-whites into becoming as successful as Whites. Not only is it not possible to legislate this away, but it also breeds fantastic levels of resentment, and rightly so: It’s unfair to non-whites to tell them they are equal to us, and it’s unfair to women to force them to ignore their biological instinct to mate with the best man she can get.
We don’t stand outside of nature like supernatural beings. Anything that happens happens within the confines of nature. The laws are rigged in somebody’s favor; they’re not rigged as such only when men have the power to decide which genes are carried on.
Because she is making a decision over her own body and her own life, whereas the father is making intimate decisions for her.
Even if we grant that women are completely sovereign beings that does not answer my question. I’m asking why the woman’s standard for mate selection is better than a man’s, not why it should be allowed.
The standards of young women are superior to the standards of men because the standards of men are “I want to get laid, I need to get laid, I’m forcing myself on you. Oh and also, this is for the family.”
Those aren’t the standards of the men who would have the power to veto the girl’s decisions. Her father isn’t trying to get laid, but protect her from her fleeting fancies.
It’s the woman who wants the right to say “No” to those situations. She should have the right to say “No” and choose which man will have her.
Women do not have the “right” to do anything when the people who grant their rights have to pay for the costs. The costs are low birth rates, and therefore fewer white people, lower intelligence (from high IQ women foregoing reproduction), and fewer men without fathers. This is not a good deal for men or women and I don’t expect women to realize it.
Besides, if you want to view it from a collective standpoint, there’s a Darwinian reason why woman have the hypergamous instinct to begin with: Because it promotes the betterment of the species and is thus inherently eugenic. To me, that overrides any objections you can make based on family values or the urges of thirsty men.
The species is not in the same spot that it was when these instincts were programmed. That happened millions of years ago before humans existed. It could be that the biggest, toughest guys just took what they wanted. That’s what happens in chimpanzee tribes. The female chimp doesn’t choose which chimp she thinks will make the best mate; the biggest chimp fights the other chimps and then takes what he wants. From what we can tell, it was males that did the selecting throughout most of natural history. Even in recent history, that is the case – see Iceland.
What women are attracted to may be a byproduct of rape. So women are making choices today based on the choices men made millions of years ago.
We don’t completely understand why women are attracted to certain types of men and we definitely don’t know that what women (most likely men) found beneficial in 100000 BC when the environment was different is beneficial today. We have a different cost structure than premodern, pre-human tribes. They didn’t have welfare states, the pill and abortion on demand.
Out of all these arguments you made as to why the women of our own race should be subjugated and subordinated, it was the one you never made that reveals your hostile motives: You never once said, “we should do this for the sake of the children. We need to give them a loving, nurturing environment growing up, and patriarchy is the best way to do it.” That’s the one and only argument where most people would pause and consider what you have to say. There’s absolutely no moral or logical justification for anything you proposed otherwise, hence why unjust laws like coverture were swept away.
Except it is, for two reasons:
1. A woman’s nature is to find the most handsome, fit, physically attractive man she can get. Physical traits, and especially physiognomy, reflect genetic quality. When a woman follows her instincts, she won’t naturally pick a man of low genetic quality. And, in modern society, most White women don’t choose to sleep with or marry dead beat dads or losers. If you look at the kind of White couples that populate middle and upper class neighborhoods, they are generally good-looking, smart people with low levels of impulsiveness. The point is, there’s no reason why women shouldn’t be trusted to naturally select a high quality mate
2. As we witnessed in Medieval times, men who pick husbands for their daughters are only thinking in terms of one thing: How will this benefit the social status of my family? If White women were happy with the husbands their fathers were choosing for them, then in the last 400 years, there never would have been a transition over to choosing marriage partners based on romantic love, and moreover, there never would have been any sort of Feminist movement. One of the theories within the Pro-White sphere as to why first and second wave feminism arose is that women were being forced to marry mediocre beta males. That’s like men being forced to marry an obese woman with a butter face. Not only is it not fair, but it also is dysgenic.
tl;dr Women’s instinct is to select the best genes, whereas the father of the household chooses based on the arbitrary, fleeting status of his family
In addition to consideration of what impacts children, which you failed to mention, the standard I use for what’s good for society is this: “The greatest good for the greatest number of people.”
Everything you propose about women does not meet this standard, as it would subordinate half the White population so the mediocre individuals in the other half don’t get left behind when it comes to sex and relationships. I say its better for society to let women choose, and let the 10-20% of men who do get left out to figure out another avenue for happiness and fulfillment. What you are proposing, whether you’re willing to admit it or not, is sexual socialism. That’s big “NOPE.”
*wow, just wow*
This is the part where I point and stutter. You just compared our women to negroes. No man who is attractive to women and successful with women thinks like this. It’s only men who get rejected by women that lash out in bitterness, which is what you are doing here. Its the Andrew Anglin school of 4chan thought. It has no place in the Pro-White movement.
Also, you’re dead wrong about everything you said. If White women couldn’t govern their passions or regulate their emotions, then the Middle and Upper classes as we know them wouldn’t exist. Its only among lower class types that women act like this, and that’s a problem among both genders, not just women.
This should make you pause and think why White men did that. Could it be that White women in the early feminist movements had valid grievances?
The physically stronger sex tends to rule. That’s fine. But that doesn’t mean the stronger sex should lord it over the weaker one.
Everything you mentioned here can be fixed by a comprehensive eugenics program that uses the carrot to encourage high quality men and women to breed and uses the stick to discourage low quality men and women from breeding. There’s no need for patriarchy here.
If personal sovereignty is dependent on individual strength, then it’s not just women who are not sovereign, it’s entire classes of men as well. Are you prepared to deal with that implication? I suspect not. I suspect what you really believe is that all men are sovereign by virtue of being born male, whereas all women are not sovereign and must be subordinate to men.
My position is different: If White men are born sovereign, then White women should be as well. I wouldn’t want my gender being subordinate to women and at the mercy of the whims of women. Likewise, I don’t want them being subordinated either. In any case though, tying sovereignty to physical strength as opposed to morality and consistency is a dangerous road you don’t want to travel down.
No, that’s not how the law must work. In our own time, hostile groups like Jews have rigged the laws in their favor, but that doesn’t mean the law is inherently like that. For hundreds of years dating back to the Magna Carta in 1217, Anglo-Saxon law was based on legal principles that apply to everyone equally. Men and women can and should be treated the same under the law.
Because when she chooses, the man is more likely to be a successful, attractive, high quality man, and is also more likely to treat her well. Again, if the fathers were choosing these types of men for the daughters, women never would have rebelled in the first place
Not an argument. In a society that values individual freedom, its inevitable that the collective will be affected in ways it may not entirely approve of. Individuals do have an obligation to respect the sovereignty and freedom of other individuals, but there’s no philosophical basis for the argument that the individual freedom to choose a lover should be restricted because a certain percentage of the population doesn’t like it or doesn’t personally approve of it. The ONLY exception I’m willing make to this is anti-miscegenation laws. Everything else should be “live and let live.”
1. Low birth rates aren’t a major concern as long as the population is racially homogeneous.
2. There are more Whites alive right now than at any time in the history of the world.
3. Lower intelligence is a Class problem and a Eugenics Program problem, not a gender problem
4. White families in the Middle and Upper class have fathers. The working class and underclass is generally composed of low-quality whites anyway, hence the social ills.
Do you have statistical evidence that most people thousands of years ago are descended from rape cases? Cause if you don’t, then this is just baseless speculation premised on legends such as the Rape of the Sabine Women that helped found Rome. Its Weev-tier logic. (Andrew Aurenheimer, in case you’re not initiated)
We agree on one thing: Single mothers should be ineligible for welfare, and birth control and abortions should not be free. I believe women should be responsible for their actions. I DON’T believe they should be legally subordinated to men.
Out of all these arguments you made as to why the women of our own race should be subjugated and subordinated, it was the one you never made that reveals your hostile motives: You never once said, “we should do this for the sake of the children. We need to give them a loving, nurturing environment growing up, and patriarchy is the best way to do it.”
People who resort to scoring moral points against their opponents have lost faith in their arguments. No one else knows, or cares, what my motives are.
1. A woman’s nature is to find the most handsome, fit, physically attractive man she can get. Physical traits, and especially physiognomy, reflect genetic quality. When a woman follows her instincts, she won’t naturally pick a man of low genetic quality. And, in modern society, most White women don’t choose to sleep with or marry dead beat dads or losers.
What does it matter if women are not reproducing with these men? The white birth rate has fallen everywhere but the Amish community (which you’ll note has strictly demarcated, strictly enforced roles for women). If the best genes are indeed pairing up, the best genes are going to waste.
What is the reason birth rates have fallen? Is it because it’s too expensive to have more than 1 child?
Hmmm…then why do birth rates correlate inversely with income levels?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
It isn’t the case that women would like to have more children but can’t because it’s too expensive. If that were so the birth rate of upper income couples would be the highest of all. So if it’s not income that’s keeping birth rates low, what is it?
Are whites not reproducing because there aren’t enough handsome men to satisfy the ridiculous standards of women?
If you look at the kind of White couples that populate middle and upper class neighborhoods, they are generally good-looking, smart people with low levels of impulsiveness. The point is, there’s no reason why women shouldn’t be trusted to naturally select a high quality mate
Who cares how many beautiful, low time preference having white families there are if they don’t have any kids?
See again: households earning $200k or more have the lowest # of births per 1000 women.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
Is the point of marriage so everyone can marvel at how beautiful and well-behaved couples are?
2. As we witnessed in Medieval times, men who pick husbands for their daughters are only thinking in terms of one thing: How will this benefit the social status of my family?
We also witnessed high birth rates and a scientific and artistic renaissance. In contrast to the past 100 years of women’s rights, which has seen birth rates and IQs steadily decline, along with everything else.
At least women are happy, right?
https://www.webmd.com/depression/news/20170815/us-antidepressant-use-jumps-65-percent-in-15-years#1
If White women were happy with the husbands their fathers were choosing for them, then in the last 400 years, there never would have been a transition over to choosing marriage partners based on romantic love, and moreover, there never would have been any sort of Feminist movement.
The purpose of marriage is not to make women happy. It’s to produce and educate families. Have families become bigger since women’s liberation? No. Feminists from the very beginning pushed for divorce, birth control (including abortion), and the normalization of promiscuity. Bertrand Russell’s mother had an open affair with a live-in tutor because it was the “rational” thing to do.
Women don’t know what makes them happy. They need men to guide them.
One of the theories within the Pro-White sphere as to why first and second wave feminism arose is that women were being forced to marry mediocre beta males. That’s like men being forced to marry an obese woman with a butter face. Not only is it not fair, but it also is dysgenic.
Amazing how those beta males took over the planet and ushered in a scientific revolution.
It’s only after women gained personal independence that birth rates and IQ scores have fallen.
tl;dr Women’s instinct is to select the best genes, whereas the father of the household chooses based on the arbitrary, fleeting status of his family
There are no “best genes”; there are just genes women prefer.
Nothing is inherently valuable. People assign value to things. Just because women like something does not mean it is “the best”. That is arbitrary and gynocentric.
Women have been financially independent of their families for two generations. They choose whom they marry and have kids with.
If women truly choose the best genes, there should be some objective metric you can point to that certifies this. Have people improved in some way over the past 40 years? Are millennials and zoomers the most intelligent, beautiful, well adjusted generation of people that has graced the earth?
In addition to consideration of what impacts children, which you failed to mention, the standard I use for what’s good for society is this: “The greatest good for the greatest number of people.”
You can’t say what is “good for society” until you have analyzed what good is. You assume we already have an agreed upon understanding of what “good” is and we don’t. How would people ever reach a consensus on what that means?
What you are proposing, whether you’re willing to admit it or not, is sexual socialism. That’s big “NOPE.”
It’s always going to be somebody’s socialism. Women have socialized hypergamy by making the state pay for their abortions, child support, contraceptives and child care. There’s no pushback on any of that except for abortion, and even there it’s qualified for “when the woman’s life is in danger.” Women did not seek a sexual free marketplace, where they pick up the costs of their indiscretions.
The % of men not getting any is higher than 10-20%. It’s closer to 30% and climbing. I don’t care how many wind up married if they don’t reproduce. If men don’t reproduce they have less of a stake in the future of society than couples with children. Instead of telling them they’re “mediocre” society should encourage women to pair up with them.
https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2019-03/washington-post-its-all-young-peoples-fault-2.JPG
If White women couldn’t govern their passions or regulate their emotions, then the Middle and Upper classes as we know them wouldn’t exist. Its only among lower class types that women act like this, and that’s a problem among both genders, not just women.
Everybody knows its true. No one ever thinks to punish a woman for losing control of her emotions. But if a man bursts into tears, it’s pitiful. There’s a long tradition of shaming men who cry. Women are not expected to govern their emotions or else there would be penalties for their outbursts. There’s no set of shame-words for women who lose control of themselves.
Watch how people behave when women have fits of hysteria. They console or ignore the woman. If a man does it, the reaction is totally different.
This should make you pause and think why White men did that. Could it be that White women in the early feminist movements had valid grievances?
Brown v Board of Education should make you pause and consider why white men integrated the schools. Could it be that blacks had legitimate grievances?
The physically stronger sex tends to rule. That’s fine. But that doesn’t mean the stronger sex should lord it over the weaker one.
Why shouldn’t they “lord it over” women? Oh that’s right – it would make women unhappy.
But wait – they’re unhappy anyway! They’re hooked on prescription pills.
Everything you mentioned here can be fixed by a comprehensive eugenics program that uses the carrot to encourage high quality men and women to breed and uses the stick to discourage low quality men and women from breeding. There’s no need for patriarchy here.
The 80% of men women deem “mediocre” might have something to say about that.
If personal sovereignty is dependent on individual strength, then it’s not just women who are not sovereign, it’s entire classes of men as well. Are you prepared to deal with that implication? I suspect not. I suspect what you really believe is that all men are sovereign by virtue of being born male, whereas all women are not sovereign and must be subordinate to men.
I didn’t say anything about strength. Napoleon Bonaparte was one of the greatest military tacticians who ever lived, but it wasn’t because he was physically strong. An invalid could lead an army from an armchair.
Men seek leadership and people look to men for it. Men look at women as sex objects and nurturers. They don’t look at a woman the way men look at George Patton. That’s why men rule – because they seek it and people (women) seek it from them. A ruler can’t be a broken down crybaby. He has to regulate his emotions so he can be a source of support for others.
No, that’s not how the law must work. In our own time, hostile groups like Jews have rigged the laws in their favor, but that doesn’t mean the law is inherently like that.
There’s no such thing as inherent laws. All laws are conventions.
Because when she chooses, the man is more likely to be a successful, attractive, high quality man, and is also more likely to treat her well.
And likely not to have kids with the guy if he earns more than $200k. Is the purpose of success to get married and have big empty houses?
Again, if the fathers were choosing these types of men for the daughters, women never would have rebelled in the first place
The women who “rebelled” were mostly old spinsters and closet lesbians who were never married. Married women with children don’t have time to rebel.
In a society that values individual freedom, its inevitable that the collective will be affected in ways it may not entirely approve of. Individuals do have an obligation to respect the sovereignty and freedom of other individuals, but there’s no philosophical basis for the argument that the individual freedom to choose a lover should be restricted because a certain percentage of the population doesn’t like it or doesn’t personally approve of it.
Women are dependent on men for their freedom. If men don’t get anything out of it, they have an obligation to destroy it and replace it with the old system.
1. Low birth rates aren’t a major concern as long as the population is racially homogeneous.
Populations that are increasing always seek out nearby real estate. That’s why the British were a seafaring people. If there are dying populations, there’s going to be a lot of empty real estate and people making claims on it. Declining populations means there will be war and whites may be too old to fight it.
2. There are more Whites alive right now than at any time in the history of the world.
…and more non-whites, especially Africans, alive at any time in the history of the world. And their population is younger than ours.
3. Lower intelligence is a Class problem and a Eugenics Program problem, not a gender problem
High IQ women are likely to attend university and thus likely either not to have children or to have only 1. And for what? More debt, lower wages and lower intelligence?
…but at least women are happy…
4. White families in the Middle and Upper class have fathers. The working class and underclass is generally composed of low-quality whites anyway, hence the social ills.
It’s the foregone genes from sending girls to university that is the bigger social ill. That’s what is making our race less intelligent every generation.
Do you have statistical evidence that most people thousands of years ago are descended from rape cases? Cause if you don’t, then this is just baseless speculation premised on legends such as the Rape of the Sabine Women that helped found Rome. Its Weev-tier logic. (Andrew Aurenheimer, in case you’re not initiated)
We don’t know that what was advantageous in some earlier epoch, before we were even human, is advantageous now. And we don’t know who was driving selection. It may have been men through rape. I don’t know what happened and neither do you.
I’m not going to respond to most of your arguments about birth rates, because like I said before, I don’t care about birth rates. What I care about, and hence why I support Eugenics, is the proportion of intelligent people to dumb ones, and the proportion of people with good character – a heritable trait for the most part – to poor character.
Most of the artists and thinkers behind the Renaissance were sexual libertines by the standards of the times, and the Catholic Church, which was pro-natal, pro-marriage, and pro-family, tried to stop the distribution of the nude art that was in abundance during the Renaissance.
I suggest you try to defend Patriarchy using a different argument then “because it gives us Nice Things” when it objectively does not give the White Race nice things.
*insert Yes meme here*
We have radically different values and goals. The purpose of life as an individual is to be happy and content, not to “struggle” and be miserable. If you disagree, preach it to someone else, because I’m not interested. Your teachings are a recipe for more misery and despair.
Marriage always has been and always will be a legal procedure that binds together a man and a woman who have fallen in love and who wish to live together and share private property. When you take romantic love out of it, marriage is literally nothing more than a power arrangement between two families. Children can be produced with or without marriage. It is not necessary to keep marriage as an institution in order to have families. Families themselves should only ever be formed out of the free will and the mutual consent of both the man and the woman who wish to live together
No. Women need to figure out themselves what makes them happy. Any time you have social relationships where men “guide” women or where Whites “guide” Blacks, the result is always cruel exploitation of whoever is being subordinated. I’m against that. You may not be, but I’ll leave the readers of this thread to judge you for that.
You’ve got me in regards to the well-adjusted part. A well-adjusted generation would not complain all the time and wouldn’t support Socialism like the Millenials and Zoomers do. BUT, that said, while Millenials and Zoomers may not necessarily be an improvement on previous generations on the other two traits, my anecdotal observation is that they are just as good looking and just as smart as previous generations. In some ways, we are smarter, as evidenced by the Tech revolution, where Millenials and Zoomers tend to be whiz kids.
Obesity is obviously a problem among some young people, but if you observe the intelligent, college-educated city dwelling young people, they are usually fit and healthy. Its long been a trend among SWPL’s (inner city White liberals) to exercise and eat good. They look the part. Contrary to the right wing stereotype, your average inner city White liberal is not a soy boy or a blue haired SJW
Again, this is not unusual when you consider that young people tend to support socialism in general. Look at all the educated White men that shill for awful politicians like Bernie Sanders. All they want is free healthcare, free college bills, and UBI. They are just as materially greedy and selfish as women who want free abortions and free birth control.
That number has always been about 10%, so if it is 28% now, per your chart, then that means the 18% of men not getting laid anymore are men who used to get laid in the past. Lets put this in context: Am I willing to inflame and enrage 50% of the total White population to appease the 9% of the total White population (do the math) that isn’t getting laid anymore? Nope.
No. Those men should humbly accept their natural place in life and not put up a stink about it by becoming repulsive authoritarian control freaks. Or worse yet, by becoming Elliot Rodger
Fair retort, and while I ultimately believe that Brown vs. Board was the wrong decision, I do think Blacks had certain grievances that were valid. I won’t get into that here because its beyond the scope of our debate. Suffice to say, I get why Blacks would be upset when our institutions preach Equality but treat them differently as a matter of official policy, like was the case under Segregation.
I’ll spare you the moral grandstanding and get straight to the reason why: Because women will burn down society if we lord it over them, and they would be justified in doing so. Women have the capability of making our daily lives miserable. Sure, we can physically overpower them, but what man wants to do that day after day after day? Besides, she’ll eventually just grab a weapon and kill you, and her kids, and probably herself, if she is made to feel miserable. Patriarchy is misery, for men and women alike, hence why it was steadily abolished.
The 80% of men women deem “mediocre” might have something to say about that.
I’m assuming you are referring to the 80-20 rule here. I saw a study on some social conservative website that said it was more like 60-20, but in any case, the fact of the matter is that men have put up with Feminism for over 100 years, and while there is some grumblings from Normies about things like divorce court, there isnt any sort of widespread opposition among White men to Feminism.
Clearly you’ve never dealt with married couples with young children from conservative churches before. If you don’t think those types of women would rebel, my parents have got a marriage class full of struggling and/or broken couples that would suggest otherwise.
Maybe in 1848 it was just spinsters and lesbians, but in 2020, its all of them. They’ve had a taste of freedom. They rightfully aren’t putting it back
I’m someone who is interested in uniting the White Race. Thus, I will not support any mentality that divides us against ourselves. White men and White women should not be divided against each other, and neither should families be divided against each other. Individuals being divided is inevitable as a result of ideology and morals, and I’m also fine with racial thinking that says “better them then us,” but I don’t support this when it comes to men and women.
DP84, you say you don’t care about birth rates as such, only specific birth rates.
Take a look again at this chart and observe the relationship between income and birth rates:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
Observe that families at the highest income level have the fewest births of any level. Isn’t that cause for concern if the goal is for the most successful whites to have the most kids?
Giving couples tax incentives to have kids won’t work on whites at these income levels because the point of giving people tax breaks is to give them more disposable income. But the people making $200k or more have more disposable income than people at lower levels of income if they paid no taxes!
In other words, it’s not for lack of funds that top earning whites don’t have more kids. It’s something else. What do you think it is?
If you think about this deeply enough, you may find that there is a conflict between eugenics and “freedom”.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment