- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

The Singles Epidemic


Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Wedding Dance, 1566.

5,603 words

Die single and thine image dies with thee.

— William Shakespeare, Sonnet III

Half [2] of all millennials are single. They are the loneliest generation [3] ever. They also are on pace to be the most unsuccessful at forming families. According to Pew Research, 45% of US millennials do not live with a spouse or child (see figure 1). Only 24% of the Silent Generation (born 1928 to 1945) had this living arrangement when they were the same age in 1968. Ultimately, 10% [4] of women in the Silent Generation never had kids. It looks like 15% [5] of Gen X women never will. Alarmingly, it looks like about one out of three millennial women will never have a child.

The proportion of childless millennials will be five times the 6% of US whites who miscegenate, [6] meaning a white American millennial woman is five times more likely to be a childless cat lady than to have a frizzy-haired mulatto child.


Figure 1.

As figure 1 shows, 53% of people in North America aged 15 to 49 are married or cohabiting, which is close to the 49% prevailing among American millennials aged 25 to 39. Fewer people in the 15 to 49 demographic are single because it includes a decade’s worth of Generation X, who are much better than millennials at pairing up.

The singles epidemic will hasten white demographic decline. A century ago, Lothrop Stoddard predicted non-whites would multiply relative to whites. A century later, his prediction has come true: whites have gone from 30% of the world’s population to 13% [8]. The singles epidemic will reduce it more still.


Figure 2.

Sub-Saharan Africa and the New World are experiencing a less severe singles epidemic. Despite experiencing a dip in marriage/cohabitation since 1990, their population doubled in the past 28 years, and at the current rate they are reproducing [10], it will double again 28 years from now and go from 1.1 billion to 2.2 billion. This is disturbing — their predicted IQ based on their gene pools [11] is 82, assuming environmental parity with Western nations. The lower half of their population is mentally retarded by Western standards, and the other half is mostly on par with what psychologists consider to be “low average.” Jordan Peterson claims an IQ of 87 is necessary to perform jobs in modern economies, so it seems they will be forever dependent on lots of subsistence agriculture or aid from Eurasians and North Africans. Even now, African blacks can’t dig their own wells and fend for themselves in many places. The singles epidemic is good insofar as it slows down their rapid increase. The only problem is that it will affect the smartest Africans most, since they are more likely to adopt Western values.

South Asians seem to be doing comparatively well because of arranged marriage. Cohabitation is as high as 90% in India, which houses most of the region’s population. Slightly over half of the non-white world still arranges its marriages, which helps guard against a singles epidemic.

Latin America has a singles epidemic, but they are maintaining replacement level fertility, including in the US, where only 10% [12] of Hispanic women aged 40-44 are childless versus 17% of white women in the same age range.

Low white admixture South Americans are outbreeding high white admixture South Americans. Since 1950, two of the whitest countries in South America, Uruguay and Argentina, increased their population 2.5-fold. Other South American nations outpaced them, growing by a rate of 4.4-fold. White DNA in South America isn’t faring so well.


Figure 3: Average racial admixture in Central and South America taken from 23andme data.

Most East Asian nations aren’t experiencing a singles epidemic. Two-thirds of the region’s population is in China, and China has been rapidly developing since the mid-1980s, going from being a third-world country with income on par with Sub-Saharan Africa [14] to a first-world nation richer than many white nations (see figures 4 and 5). Young Chinese men are richer than the fathers of young women, and young women think they’re getting a status boost by pairing up with them.


Figure 4: from Roser’s “Global Income Inequality.” [16]


Figure 5: from Roser. [16]

Unlike most East Asian ethnic groups, the Japanese are experiencing a bad singles epidemic. About 43% of Japanese millennials [18] are not married. This figure is not as high as the 51% of US millennials who are single, but the demographic impact will be greater; only 2% of Japanese have kids out of wedlock versus 30% of whites in the US.

Unlike China, Japan has had income on par with developed nations since the mid-1980s. Japan has the same problem of underpaid millennials and overpaid gen Xers and boomers that most white nations have. For example, Japanese people in their 50s earn twice as much as Japanese in their 20s [19] on average, and Americans in their 50s earn twice as much as Americans in their 20s [20] on average. This is an obvious market failure — according to Quiñones [21], the correlation between job performance and experience is only 0.27. What’s more, according to McDaniel [22], “The highest correlations were obtained . . . for jobs that place low levels of cognitive demands on employees.” The higher the cognitive demand, the less experience matters — yet the biggest differences in income between starting and mid-career salaries tend to be in high cognitive demand jobs in finance, journalism, sales, and law. Moreover, jobs now are more cognitively demanding than when Quiñones did his study in 1995, so the correlation has likely fallen. Being old does not make one more competent, either, because fluid intelligence declines with age.


Figure 6.

Millennials get paid [24] 20% less than boomers did at the same age. Also, the median wage has flatlined [25] since the mid-1970s. Figure 6 shows a speculative lifetime income line for 1987. It is exact and meant only to illustrate the concept. The line for 2019 is based on data from DQYDJ [20].

The sort of age-based income differences shown in figure 6 are causing millennial women to reject millennial men in the US and Japan. I suspect similar income distributions are to be found in all developed nations and contribute heavily to their singles epidemics.

Figure 7 shows the correlation between a man’s income level and the percentile of messages he receives on the dating site OKCupid. I reverse-engineered the colors in figure 7 for parity with figures showing the actual income of men ages 25-37 [20][1] [26] I found that women’s interest in men on OKCupid doesn’t match the incomes of millennial men. Instead, it matches men ages 47-59 (see figure 8). This age range is within two years of the average ages of these women’s fathers [27]. Whether intuitively or deliberately, these women are comparing the income of their fathers with their prospective boyfriends and rejecting men who make less than their fathers. In other words, millennial women want a handsome young millennial man with the income of a Generation X man.


Figure 7: Responses men get on the dating site OKCupid, from Tinder Seduction. [29]


Figure 8: The top graph is adapted from OKCupid data. [29] The bottom two are from DQYDJ. [20]


Figure 9: The difference between subtracting corresponding cells in the middle table from the top table in figure 8.


Figure 10: The difference between subtracting corresponding cells in the bottom table from the top table in figure 8.

The column “Total Difference” in figure 10 shows how many percentiles millennial men’s income is behind where women direct their interest on OKCupid. For example, male income is 28 percentiles behind where women direct their attention on average. The difference incrementally decreases until it is only 4 points behind among 35-year-olds. This means a man must wait until he’s 35 before he makes enough to interest women. By that point, the average age of women who go with him will be 33, just two years away from the drop off in fertility that often occurs at 35 [33].

Some may argue that women who use OKCupid are somehow significantly more materialistic than the average woman, but until they can prove this theory, we can only assume the data reflects the attitudes of single American women generally. Older generations are paying young men so little that millennial women think young men are genetically inferior and are uninterested in them. Old men’s greed and young women’s hunger for high-status men are the main factors in the singles epidemic and ultimately white genocide. 

This may be part of some civilizational cycle where a society expands trade, outsources labor, impoverishes young men, enriches old men, makes young men look inferior to old men, and causes a singles epidemic that slowly collapses society.


Figure 11: Adapted from Rachael Comte, “The Population of Rome. [35]

Ancient Rome had a singles epidemic. Romans practiced arranged marriage, but at the start of the Pax Romana around 27 BC, some Roman men became very rich. They must have petitioned the government to permit them to marry slaves, because in 18 BC, Caesar Augustus legalized marriage [36] between freed slaves and citizens. By 9 AD, Rome had a singles epidemic. Caesar Augustus instituted a bachelor’s tax [37] to incentivize Roman men to marry. I suspect Roman men wanted to marry, but low-status women were taking high-status men, and high-status women refused to go with men from lower classes. It was at this time that Rome’s population stopped growing. It flatlined for a century until 100 AD, when it gradually declined until 300 AD, when people began to abandon the city for Constantinople (see figure 11).

There are two ways to avoid a singles epidemic. One is to have ever-expanding economic prospects in the form of new land, markets, technology, or basic economic development. It helps if the jobs are in industry and farming as many are now in China and as many had been in America in the early to mid-20th centuries. With continual growth, women feel as though they are getting a deal because their husband has more than their father had. It also helps if there is a lot of economic equality and a strong middle class.

The other way is to prevent women from marrying men whose income is significantly higher than that of their fathers. India has among the least equality of all nations in the world [38], but it doesn’t have a singles epidemic because 90% of their marriages are arranged, and people marry only within their caste. There is less inequality within castes than across the whole society, so it helps to prevent income-based hypergamy.

One reason the singles epidemic is hitting white nations hardest is that they don’t arrange marriages, and 61% of non-whites still do [39]

Arranged marriages have been the norm for a long time. Eurasians began having them at least 100,000 years ago, according to a genetic analysis [40] of their modern descendants. The practice of eugenics springs from the same thinking that inspired arranged marriages.

Hypothetically, a modern white country could use income percentiles as castes. This may not be eugenic, because income doesn’t always correlate with good things, but it would prevent women from practicing hypergamy. Hypergamy is incredibly destructive to any society, because for every Prince Charming and Cinderella who marry, there is a leftover rich woman and poor man. We know this because rich women are more likely to live alone [41], and men are 10% more likely to live with their parents [42]. A caste system based on percentile income relative to the specific age cohort in question (rather than nominal income, because millennials are paid less) would ensure this doesn’t happen.

Economic forces are the main cause of the singles epidemic, but other factors that didn’t exist in ancient Rome seem to explain why the current one is worse.

I want to use my personal life as an example. I know doing this is unconventional, but it will help us to understand what is going on at the ground level, which, in turn, will help us understand the big picture.


Figure 12

In the columns in figure 12, I list all of the women I can remember whom I rejected or turned me down. I define women whom I “rejected” as women with whom I cut off communication or with whom I ended a relationship. I define women who “turned me down” as women who cut off communication with me. Those who rejected me were more likely to be single most of the time (10/19) than those whom I rejected (5/13). And when I say single “most of the time,” I mean most of them never had a boyfriend, and the few who did didn’t give him much time. They were prettier than those whom I rejected, and I imagine most guys would agree with me on this. If they had gone with someone like me, then 27 of 32 would be in a relationship. That would mean only 5/32, or 16% overall would be single, which is similar to the 18% of the Silent Generation who were unmarried when they were as old as millennials are now. I know this is a small sample and subject to my own memory errors and unique behaviors, but I propose that the problem of the singles epidemic isn’t so much that men are insisting that women be beauty queens but that women are rejecting men.


Women often complain there are no good men. Usually, they are no more specific than that, but sometimes they complain men are not manly enough. 

Single women aren’t the only ones fed up with men. Married women are nagging their husbands more about cleaning in the home even though studies show men do more housework than they ever have. The subject need not be housework. It can be his diet, religious habits, or video game playing, etc. Women seem to be minding things men do more because they dislike the men themselves.


Figure 13: From Kanta Mishra et al. [45]

It is no secret that women treat high-testosterone men better. Maybe they aren’t being as nice to men because men’s testosterone levels are falling. From 1987 to 2004, they fell 17% among 60-year-olds [46], and according to the American Urological Association, from 1999 to 2016 they fell in adolescent and adult men, leaving up to 40% with a deficiency [47]. Among the causes they list are “environmental contagions.” The most notorious of these is Bisphenol A, a compound found in many plastic items such as water bottles that acts as estrogen in the body. Interestingly, as can be seen in figure 13, Japan consumes plastic at a rate on par with the US and Western Europe while China consumes far less. The gradual increase in the use of plastics has coincided with the gradual decline in serum testosterone. However, one problem with pinning most of the blame on plastics is that Eastern Europe has had low plastic use rates compared with Japan and other white regions, and as figure 3 shows, Eastern Europeans have experienced among the most severe declines in marriage and cohabitation. Plastics are not solely responsible for most of the singles epidemic, but they probably play some role.

One can see the effects of plastics on testosterone when comparing photos of college-age boomers/gen Xers with millennials/zoomers who are that age now. The boomers and gen X men have thicker eyebrows, heavier beards, darker skin (independent of race), and generally an older look. Unsurprisingly, 65% of boomer men rate themselves as “completely masculine” versus 30% of millennial and zoomer men [46].

Testosterone not only makes men look more attractive to women. Women need a small amount of the hormone to feel attracted to men. Reducing it would presumably make them like men less — especially the pretty women who would presumably have less of the hormone to begin with. This may explain why the pretty women who turned me down were more likely to be single than the plain women whom I turned down.

Birth control 

Birth control makes women like less masculine men, so they may mitigate the effects of men losing testosterone. However, long-term use of the pill shrinks the hypothalamus, a part of the brain that regulates sex hormones. The hypothalamus also regulates mood, and some research shows a smaller one causes episodes of depression and rage [48]. The Karen phenomenon of middle-aged women flipping out at people for no reason may be partly caused by this.

Digital Technology

Around 2008, women stopped being as nice to me. I noticed another decline around 2014. Men peak in attractiveness at age 23, but they stopped liking me before I turned that age. As we saw in figure 2, when the Silent Generation was the same age as millennials, only 18% were single, whereas 50% of millennials are currently single [2]. What could be responsible for 32% more people being single? And why did I experience a decline in attention from women starting in 2008?

It may have something to do with recent technology’s effects on women’s brains — specifically high-speed Internet and smartphones, which became popular from 2005 to 2012. Of course, I’m not a woman, but I can relate to how using that technology feels. I remember when I first got a smartphone. Using it felt like drinking alcohol or watching a sports game. I also remember first getting high-speed Internet and fiendishly opening a million browser windows. So how does this relate to the singles epidemic?

Jim Goad gives us some clues in “The Uncanny Digital Valley [49]”:

A meta-analysis of 41 studies concluded that “engaging in [online] multi‐tasking was associated with significantly poorer overall cognitive performance [50], with a moderate‐to‐large effect size.”

“High levels of internet usage” are “associated with decreased grey matter [51] in prefrontal regions associated with maintaining goals in face of distraction.”

Among children, “higher frequency of internet use over 3 years is linked with decreased verbal intelligence at follow‐up, along with impeded maturation of both grey and white matter regions [52].”

White people, women, homosexuals, and young people have more cerebral gray matter on average, whereas non-whites, men, lesbians, and old people have less of it. Reducing it would seem to make people act less white, feminine, and youthful. There is evidence of this. The number of lesbians increased at three times the rate of male homosexuals [53] from 2012 to 2017. Lesbianism may be increasing more because women’s brains are losing gray matter.

Women’s brains are becoming more masculine, yet presumably, plastics are making their bodies lose testosterone, and lowered testosterone levels are hurting their sex drive. The overall effect seems to be women who look more feminine but like men less. This explains why the most attractive women I met were more likely to be single. They had low testosterone, were active on social media, and were most likely to be representative of the singles epidemic.

Some of the negative impacts of Internet use are more psychological than physical. Monthly, 63% of men watch porn versus only 13% of women [54], so it affects men more. It absorbs their sexual energy and dissuades them from doing the necessary things to attract a woman in real life.

Social media is to women what pornography is to men, wrapping them up in a fantasy world in which they are the star. It is not uncommon to see average-looking girls dialing up the makeup and airbrushing their photos to get likes. They often put profiles on Tinder, never intending to date anyone on there, but just to advertise their Instagram accounts. Not all women who are responsible for the singles epidemic are social media mavens, but it seems like such women are more likely to be single.

Women say posting photos of themselves on social media gives them a sort of high. Men use social media too, but women do it more often and seem to get a bigger rise out of it. They get more “likes” on photos than men because they have an unofficial “like cartel” of friends who develop an informal system of reciprocity in exchanging likes, with the most tending to go to the most sociable ones.

Men orbit women on social media. The Internet calls such men “simps,” the opposite of a “pimp,” who gets all the women. I know one simp who is Facebook friends with every woman in my area who is a 9/10 or higher. For the past decade, he has given them tens of thousands of likes. He recently (and rather uncharacteristically) posted a photo of himself attempting to look like a “Chad.” Of the hundreds of women he orbits, only one liked it. That is a piteous return on investment, but sadly enough, guys like him are willing to take it. Ideally, we could get Facebook to ban likes, but the Jew who runs the company is more interested in banning white nationalists.

There is another layer of connectedness that the Internet has enabled. According to Ed Dutton, it’s normal for younger people to be friends with people of the opposite sex. These relationships usually break down by the time they reach their 30s and have paired up with someone. These relationships are normal. However, some women keep men as text buddies and refuse to meet up with them in real life. They go to such men for attention when they feel depressed or when Chad breaks up with them. These men are caught in a trap. Just one woman can make dozens of them waste time they’ll never get back.


Figure 14: From Flowing Data. [56] Because of overlap, the percentages add up to more than 100.

Social media is an anti-social activity so far as relationships are concerned. According to one study, 16-24-year-olds spend a median of 3 hours a day on social media [57]. Women probably spend 4-5 hours on it. This is frightening when one considers that it is an entirely fruitless endeavor. Despite devoting over half of their free time to it, the Internet is responsible for only 10% of relationships forming. It has a much poorer return on investment than meetings with friends at eateries, workplaces, or school, as can be seen from figure 14.

The more time someone spends online, the less likely he is to form a relationship with someone, and the more time he spends socializing offline, the more likely he is to form one.


Figure 15: From Flowing Data. [56] Because of overlap, the percentages add up to more than 100.

One reason why the Internet does so poorly in uniting men and women is that women are the final arbiters of whether relationships happen, and their brains are not equipped to handle the massive variety of men available on the Internet. This reminds me of a passage from Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species in which he discusses how peacocks use their feathers to attract peahens. He tells of an account of peahens flocking to the edge of their pen to look at a peacock in another pen. They refused to mate the peacock in their pen because his tail feathers didn’t look as good as those of the male in the nearby pen. Something like this is happening as millennial women ignore men who could be their boyfriends and orbit Chads on social media.

Online dating is a rigged game, which women ensure most men can’t win. There are four times more men on Tinder than women [59], and 80% of women only swipe right for the top 20% of men. One might argue that on some level, the market is clearing, at least for the top 20% of men. This would be the case if women received four times the matches, which is what one would expect per their smaller population on there, but instead, women receive 20 times more [60], so even the top 20% of men receive a fifth as many matches as 80% of women. Clearly, the female sex drive cannot handle online dating. Dating apps eliminate natural peer groups and unleash the full effects of women’s choosiness. In any case, online dating makes it obvious that women are far less willing to end the singles epidemic than men.

One may suppose that online subcultures create environments more hospitable to young people getting together. The trouble is that these groups are often skewed toward one gender. What’s more, the more intellectual and narrow the group’s interests, the fewer people will show up. This means only people with basic tastes or who get caught up in mainstream fads will succeed in finding someone.

Digital technology, the pill, and plastics undoubtedly play important roles in the singles epidemic, but they only seem to have a strong effect if something much more fundamental to it is in place.


Feminists say hunter-gatherers had a more equal division of labor than agriculturalists. This is not true. Men have always been more physically active. A recent study [61] showed that Hadza hunter-gatherer men covered three times more ground than women. Evolutionarily, this makes sense, because if there were a drought, women would be less likely to starve if they moved around less than men. Women are much more important to passing on genes in hunter-gatherer societies, because one man can impregnate multiple women, but women can only bear one child at a time.

The shift from subsistence agriculture to an economy driven by machines has eliminated most of the male advantage in physical labor. Some jobs are still too physical for most women — at least in the American economy. These include jobs in agriculture (unsurprisingly), law enforcement, transportation, installation, maintenance, mechanical repairs, construction, and raw materials extraction. These jobs are on average 88% male, and the men who do them constitute 14% of all workers in the economy. They pay an average of $40,000 per year.

A select number of non-physical jobs are too difficult for most women to do. They are in tech and engineering, which are collectively 78% male. The men who do these jobs are 4% of all workers in the economy. Their median salary is $84,000 per year, which is enough to make most women satisfied (see figure 8).

Altogether, women won’t do about 18% of jobs in the economy, but they are willing to do the rest. A society made up entirely of women would need to import a quarter to a third of their female population size worth of men in order to survive, but that’s it.

According to the BLS, women are 88% of nurses, 80% of human resources workers, 79% of grade school teachers, 66% of social service workers, 63% of customer service reps, 60% of accountants, 49% of college professors, 44% of financial and business workers, 40% of doctors, 37% of lawyers, 25% of tech workers, and 15% of engineers. Millennial women are likely a higher percentage of these fields since more boomer and Gen X women opted to become stay-at-home moms or higher percentage female jobs and the latter two generations factor into the overall numbers. The threshold for women in some fields is lower too. Women show no signs of stopping their advancement through the professions.

There is a -0.25 correlation [62] between how narrow the pay gap is between men and women and GDP per capita. I can only guess why, but there seems to be causation. Studies show men are more intellectual and less neurotic [63] than women, which would seem to make them more willing to endure adversity and become an expert in something.

Despite this, women stick together more and generally displace men from jobs and recruit their friends to work with them. Men like to be chivalrous (so long as they can have a job), but the number of men and particularly white men who get upper-middle-class jobs in the zoomer generation is dwindling to well below what would be their per capita representation.

Tech and finance companies like to recruit women from India and China who get their bachelor’s degree in their home country and a two-year graduate degree in America. They help compensate for white women choosing non-STEM jobs — at least on paper. And corporations only really care about looking good on paper.

There may be a backlash to affirmative action’s excesses. Events like the purchasing of GameStop stock frighten elites because they show young white men are willing to coordinate activities that can undermine their control. In the near future, however, the equation is simple. By permitting women to marry men richer than they are while promoting equal pay with men, there will be leftover rich women and poor men, and the singles epidemic will persist.


You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here. [65]


A woman is more likely to divorce her husband after she receives a promotion [66]. Women seem to view jobs like they are another man in a polyandrous union and decide to cut one of them loose if he is markedly inferior to the other. For example, if a woman is a cashier who works for minimum wage and marries a surgeon who makes $300,000 per year, she may decide to be a housewife. Similarly, if she is promoted to financial manager and starts earning six figures while her husband is stuck making $50,000 per year as a teacher, she may decide to cut him loose to devote her time to her high-status job.

Such divorces are a problem because they hurt children. According to Marripedia: [67]

Parental divorce horrifies young adults’ heterosexual relationship experiences though the connection is more evident for women than for men, according to one study. These effects carry into adulthood. When compared with women from intact families, women from divorced families also reported less trust and satisfaction in romantic relationships. Children of divorced parents fear being rejected, and a lack of trust frequently hinders a deepening of their relationship. One study showed that individuals whose parents divorced were more likely than individuals whose parents remained married to believe that . . . relationships should be approached with caution.

Some single women have emotional trauma from family instability. Ed Dutton [68] cites studies showing this may impair their ability to form lasting relationships. He also notes that they inherit genes associated with being uncooperative, which in turn make them a lot more likely to divorce.

Delayed Childbearing

Women delaying getting married or dating for careers has several outcomes. One is that men and women must date when they are older and less physically and behaviorally attractive than the traditional ages of marriage which were 20 and 23 for women and men respectively. The second outcome is passing on more genetic mutations to children, especially via the father, since his genome undergoes more mutations on average than a woman’s eggs. This may result in more widespread genetically induced problems in the population such as autism which greatly impede social function necessary to courtship behaviors.

Modern Medicine and Improved Nutrition

Modern medicine has reduced child mortality from being 46.2% [69] to virtually nil. Some hypothesize that this permits people with genetic mutations that would have killed them in the past to pass them on and increase the burden of bad genes in the white gene pool. People believing this may view the singles epidemic as a good thing, because it is rendering nearly that percentage of people unable to procreate. In the long run, they may be right, as the buildup of harmful genes may cripple a population, but as Lothrop Stoddard has said, the loss of high IQ heredity is more of a threat to the future of whites and humanity than illnesses building up. Though the two are correlated, they are not perfectly so, and many intelligent people have mutations that cause health issues, like allergies. The character Piggy in Lord of the Flies is an example of such a person, and his death represents the loss of intellectuals crucial to civilization.


The final thing is to remember that it is normal for 10% of people to be single in any generation. The reasons include not being attracted to the opposite sex, having very high or very low IQ that doesn’t fit in with society, and having a religious devotion to celibacy. This article is not aimed at such people, and we need to respect their decision to refrain from relationships with the opposite sex.

This article is aimed at people who wouldn’t have been single in previous generations. It’s worth noting that they are not exactly perfect people. They exhibit more dark triad traits on average, are harder to talk to, and seem more likely to suffer from mental illness. However, a lot of them are creative, intelligent, and altruistic. Some of them are the sorts of people who are right about things when everyone else is wrong. Genetic mutations make people stand out, but good mutations make people stand out for a good reason.

Writing about this subject feels like staring into the abyss into which half of whites and Western civilization are falling. It is liberating to confront it, though, because the only way to solve such a problem is to confront it. I vote yes on the people who are losing out in the singles epidemic — especially those who care about their race. They should know that we aren’t living in normal times and exhaust all moral and lawful ideas in solving their own personal singles epidemic.

Passing on genes is like voting. No individual vote matters, but collections of them do. Hopefully, whites will win the genetic election for existence. It would help if older men could help younger ones make more money and better attract women. It is a big responsibility to direct the life of a young man. One has the power to either make him part of the race’s story or not, and decent pay — as shallow as it seems — is a crucial step.

If you want to support Counter-Currents, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page [70] and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every weekend on DLive [71].

Don’t forget to sign up [72] for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.


[1] [73] I started the range at 25 because men in the US tend to date and marry women who are 2-3 years younger than they are, and women who are 22 or 23 are often still in college and not thinking as much about status and money. I ended the range at 37 because corresponding women at age 35 would be in the last year before most experience a precipitous drop off in fertility [33], and for those concerned with perpetuating the white race, marriages after this age are not of as much interest.