Childlesness and pathological altruism

Anyone who has ever taken a closer look at the people who support all the leftard lunacy has noticed that although they're preaching tolerance and diversity, they're actually very similar to each other. And one thing in which they're all pretty much identical is the fact that they're childless. Now, one may think that many such creatures don't really deserve children and that the lives of those children would likely be a living hell, and I tend to agree. However, biology is a powerful force, and caring for children is pretty high on our instinctual priority list, especially if you're a woman.

So, what do the women who don't have children do? Their instincts demand they take care and protect something, whatever that something may be. Often it's dogs or cats. A crazy cat lady is not a stereotype by accident, it's a stereotype because women who fail to have children compensate by having a dozen cats instead.

One curious piece of information we can gain from this revelation is the fact that our instincts and what is best for our genes to propagate are not perfectly aligned. Many women rationally don't want children, yet spend most of their time and resources caring for children-substitutes instead. While this misalignment worked fine enough in prehistoric times when birth control was a thing of science fiction and rape was a legitimate way of having sex, today it is ever more stronger in its manifestation. And ultimately it ends in a disaster. Instead of raising a couple of kids who will in time became functional adult members of society, these women spend their time on cute cuddly creatures whom I personally don't have anything against, but who will never become a society's asset.

These are the ones that, aside from their own private life being void of real meaning, don't do much harm. But there are others, way more sinister, who do the society terrible things.

You can guess who I'm talking about.

Yes, her. Mutti.

The name itself says enough. They call (or used to call her) mutti, meaning mother. Why? Well because obviously, lacking a child of her own, she focused her maternal instincts on the people of Germany. But the thing is, without any strong biological bond, those feelings are a sort of a loose cannon, and can shift much more easily than in case of a real parent-child bond. And they seemed to have shifted after that girl cried in front of her because she was to be returned back to Palestine.

So in that one moment of emotion, Angela Merkel realized that her surrogate offspring are not just Germans, but all the other people of the world as well. The only logical conclusion is to let them in and take care of them, like any mother would do if she discovered she had children in distress.

And this sort of irrational thinking is basically what's behind German lunacy. One childless woman who is now compensating for the fact that 30 years ago she chose career and parties over having a child. Practically destroying a nation because of her personal missed chances and consequential emotional instability.

Of course, she's not an anomaly in any sort of way, but a most prominent representative of a whole class of bitter childless women better known as social justice warriors. Instead of focusing on cats and dogs, these hags focus on people instead. Their powerful maternal instincts force them to seek any disadvantaged person or group to nurture, and even more importantly, force them to invent such people when none are around. That's why we see all that talk about oppressed and disadvantaged groups who are in reality living under the same rules as the rest of us and doing perfectly fine. It's also why we see obscure creatures and sexual deviants from fringes of society being forcefully included in the mainstream and respected for their beliefs.

The instinct in women to care for someone is simply so strong that it's not enough to just be happy if everyone else is. It is pushing them to invent trouble just in order to provide nurture to the weak. Munchausen by proxy and pathological altruism are simply a typical female brain in overdrive. And it's not just a human trait.

Realizing this makes us understand why demography is such a crucial matter. Having most women bear children is not just to keep our numbers. Perhaps even importantly, it gives women the focus for which they were biologically engineered in the first place, thereby keeping us from ruining ourselves by embracing suicidal pathological altruism and all the other post 1968 lunacies which came along with the birth rate drop.

Rape cutlure you say? With arranged marriages being a thing of the past, it may be the only thing that could save us. If it existed in the first place.

Abortion

Let's get one thing straight first. Abortion is an act of killing. I said killing intentionally, because there is a difference between killing and murdering. Killing is, in special occasions, socially permissible. Murder isn't. With that out of the way, what are really pros and cons of the whole ordeal?

Putting all morals aside, having an abortion can paradoxically in some situations be a good way to propagate one's own genes. Animals are known to kill their own offspring in dire situations, and they do it because not killing them would be even worse. For example, a starving animal whose children are about to die may prolong its own life by eating them. They would have died anyway, and by eating them, the mother has the chance to survive a while longer till a feeding opportunity arrives. Yes, it's cruel. Yes, it's sad. But nature and mathematics don't care about your feelings. If the numbers add up, they add up, whether you like it or not.

Could the same be said for humans? Yes, although it is often more subtle. But to understand the impulse, we must first understand that welfare state is an unnatural state of being. The safety net distorts natural balance, but humans have not yet fully adapted to its properties. However, judging by demographic trends, they will adapt in a few generations if it doesn't fall apart by then. Why is the impulse natural, why is the safety net unnatural, and how are we adapting?

The impulse is natural, because if it weren't for the safety net, having children in specific situations could bring doom both upon them and their parents as well. Imagine a world where being out of work automatically means being out of money, and therefore food. Also forget about the perfect world of abstinence, and imagine an average human instead, whose impulse control is barely higher than that of a bright chimpanzee. When you barely have food for yourself, having one more mouth to feed may mean not having food for either your mouth or the upcoming one. After all the effort and extra resources consumed for carrying the child, it may well die of malnourishment days after being born. You basically spent nine months worth of food for nothing. On the other hand, being sufficiently well fed during that period may help you get a chance at improving your situation. Your current husband finally finds a job, or your new husband is rich and you successfully courted him because you didn't have all the extra baggage children and malnourishment bring. Now you can fuck like bunnies, and have all the children in the world. So by sacrificing one, you got 10 instead. Is it morally wrong? Yes. But the dead child of the moral girl won't inherit the Earth, it will be your cruel and evil spawn instead.

Now, the social safety net basically distorts this situation, because it rushes in and helps you and your genes survive, even if you do all you can do to lower your chances. People are simply not adapted to the situation, and still act like it is not a factor at all. Take an example of a high school girl who decides to have an abortion because it will severely impact her career chances. Would it matter in a world without a social safety net? Yes, it actually would. Because her overall children-raising potential would be higher if she optimized for the finances and job position. But with a social safety net, she can simply drop out and keep popping out babies all she wants. With each additional baby, her financial situation will not just stay the same, it will actually improve. But with social safety net, people intuitively take decisions that are actually detrimental to their genes' survival. Add in birth control as well, and you basically have what we have now - poor breed like crazy, while rich decide they don't want children at all and die childless or with 1 child at best. Because, naturally, the desire is not really to have children, especially in the males (and nowadays in females, which are of late socially engineered to behave like men do). The desire is to have lots of money and lots of sex. Children follow.

People are adapting, and they are adapting fast. But do it in a somewhat peculiar way. Let's see some charts first. Here's the USA:

At least hippies are dying out

We see that after an initial surge, the rates are continuously dropping. This basically means there's a shift in people's behavior, and it's likely happening because abortion-inclined individuals are quickly becoming a minority. It is actually distorted by immigration, mostly of people who haven't been under such an evolutionary pressure yet. To understand that, let's see a country that is a net exporter of people, in this case Croatia:

Die hippie scum!

There's actually a 10-fold decrease! The people who were inclined to have an abortion basically bred themselves out of existence. So now, the people who are dominating the demographics are people who a) like children, and b) have poor impulse control, or religious fanatics who consider procreation to be their higher purpose. People who just like children will probably stop at 2-3 pieces, which will be just the right number for them to enjoy without dying of exhaustion. But those with poor impulse control will have dozens. They'll be reluctant to commit an abortion, and will therefore breed to maximum potential, unwillingly disregarding any desires for personal comfort. People with poor impulse control alone will just keep getting an abortion after abortion, till their uterus is ravaged enough that having another child will be a rather unlikely occurrence.

So what will the future world look like? Most likely, it will be populated primarily by easy going slackers and religious fanatics. The meek shall truly inherit the Earth. At least till the safety net breaks down, which is actually a serious concern in such a scenario. Responsibility is a continuum. Many responsible are actually too responsible. They see dangers where there aren't any, and those people will take extra measures not to breed, because they exaggerate the grievances of parenthood and chances of serious harmful events. But by their extinction, the overall level of social responsibility will surely drop, which means that the social safety net will ultimately run out of fuel and the baby pumpers will find themselves out of food. So we'll have a new era of chaos and anarchy, in which the few abortion-inclined individuals that are left may well find themselves to be in advantage again. That is, unless computers and robots manage to take control first.

Are times actaully changing?

For a while I was thinking that what inevitably expects us is a slow decades-long decline into multiculturalist hell. I can't say I was really happy about witnessing the death of our civilization, but the motion seemed to be overpowering.

And then came Donald Trump. And not just Donald Trump. It was Marine Le Pen in France, it was the comback of PEGIDA in Germany, and just a general feeling that the society we know and have known for the last 48 years is crumbling like a house of cards.

The Overton window seems to have shifted in less than a year. What have been unspeakable thoughts of racist and hate became qute legitimate and mainstream concerns. What has been a taboo subject became common knowledge. The thing about taboo subjects turning into common knowledge is, it happens without anyone expecting. As you can see from the link I provided, it's not mentioned at all (in a perfect world, of course) until every last person in the world becomes aware not just of its existence, but also becomes aware that everyone else is as well.

WTF is going on? Am I the only blue-eyed islander?

Would it have happened without Donald Trump? Most likely, but most probably not so fast. The charade may have even lasted for several more years - long enough for our countries to be overwhelmed by invaders beyond help. Therefore I believe I won't make an exaggeration when I say he may well have become the savior of western civilization, especially if he wins the election. Let's just hope it will be Hillary who will pit against him, because I'm afraid Sanders might actually do better than her, regardless of his program being more or less an economic lunacy.

Is this a turning point, or just a temporary halt in the overall decline? At this point, it's impossible to say. But either way, the lack of emperor's clothes has finally been publicly announced, and the movement is gaining strength. Once the pendulum starts swinging the other way, it becomes practically unstoppable. Which sounds great now, but leads me to a different concern...

I was just watching this video and it's becoming obvious people are starting to fight back. Now, the problem is, they're starting to fight back only after our countries have been invaded by hostile migrants, in some of which they make up near 50% of the youth population. If that's not a recipe for disaster I don't know what is.

In other words, what we have now, throughout the whole west, is the perfect setting for a religious or ethnic civil war. Two or more large populations crammed in one territory usually results in open hostility on the streets at best (what we're starting to see more and more of nowadays) and bloody wars, ethnic cleansing, and massacres at worst.

What would be the best solution? The best solution would be to cut welfare spending, break a few eggs and ban Islam, deport all migrants to where they came from, and ultimately, stop meddling in the affairs of their countries. Which was the primary reason why they all came here in the first place.

Will that solution be undertaken? If peope like Trump win popular support all over, maybe it will. More likely, we'll all just wait for their numbers to become a real and serious danger to the state, and then end up in a bloody civil war, with massacres, concentration camps, and all that fun stuff that follows. And with that, of course, comes a police state and pretty much end of all personal liberties.

This is a rare time where we still have the opportunity to choose a less painful way to solve all the mess our parents have left us piling up ever since the era of the hippies. Will we be up to the task? I hope.

Purpose

What is your purpose in life? It is such a simple question, yet practically impossible to understand. But if you ask the western elite, especially those on the left, they are absolutely certain of what the answer is supposed to be - our primary purpose in life is to maximize the production of dopamine and serotonin in our bodies.

The sad truth is, that is a direct result of democracy. Most people are hedonistic simpletons, and their primary interest is fulfilling their primitive animal desires. Who cares about the achievements of civilization or mankind, when one can simply get drunk and have fun with a cheap prostitute. And although manipulable with regards to complex situations and decisions making, simpletons are very hard to fool when it comes to the current status of their own physical well being.

That is the reason why every scientific, cultural, or any other achievement has to be explained in the terms of well being for the common Joe. Sure, we've discovered the miracles of the universe, but what do I get out of it? A food cooker that can cook 10% faster than the one I had before? Well, that kinda sucks, but get me one that can do 20% and I'm all sold for science. Yeah, moon landings, radio waves, that's all cool, but I just want 5 more minutes of slacking every day. Oh, and I'll also vote for the political option that will manage to take those extra 5 minutes of my time away as soon as they can.

There's basically two ways to convince those people to accept short-term suffering for greater long term goals. Logic is not one of them, because those people are often illogical and they usually care only about today. Those two ways are religion and violence, and they both boil down to same thing. You will suffer great physical pain if you do not comply. Whether it be eternity in the fires of hell, or two policemen in a dark room beating the life out of you, great physical pain is reason enough to comply. It works even if the pain is set in the far future, it's just that the further away that future is, the greater and longer lasting the pain has to be.

Now, a democratic state has neither the religion nor physical force at its disposal. And without those two levers, people ultimately become weak, decadent, and spoiled, caring only about their current well being. The morals decay, and hedonism takes over as the prime mover, ahead of valor and virtue that usually go with more repressive systems. The elite seems to have realized this, even though they may not have formulated it yet so concisely. That's basically why NGO's came to exist, in order to provide a replacement religion for the ones we have lost.

Unfortunately, the new religion has kinda missed the point, and is pushing the people in the wrong direction, as it basically explains that physical pleasure is the purpose of life. Here is what Solon from ancient Greece considered to be the happiest life a man could ever live, a quote that is basically incomprehensible for modern mind:

Tellus... had both beautiful and good children, and he saw all his grandchildren from birth and all remaining alive... And the end of his life was most brilliant: for when the Athenians had a war against their neighbours in Eleusis, coming to the rescue and making a rout of the enemy he died most beautifully, and the Athenians had buried him publicly right where he fell, and honoured him greatly.

and here's what the elite thinks is real happiness today:

Life full of purpose. as long as that purpose is on banned substances list.

I'll let you be the judge of which of those two lives you'd rather live.

The moral decay is everywhere. People in the west are barely breeding, they are full of self-loathing and disrespect, and most of them would be absolutely horrified if they'd have to end their life as happy Tellus did. Because death from overdose is just so much less painful than death from a sword. Little wonder it is then, that the west is losing ground to Islam. Islamists have a goal. They have faith. They have purpose. And they're most certainly not afraid to die for it.

What do we have to die for? Charlie Hebdo and champagne? Free sex and drug addiction? Hedonism and self-sacrifice are polar opposites, they are mutually exclusive. All those people who were singing Imagine in Paris would never die for their beliefs. Sure, they all want that, but they would never sacrifice themselves for the rest of the society to get it. And for what reason? Well, simply for the reason that death usually hurts. Their addiction to physical sense of happiness is just too strong. They'd rather die in bed of old age, even though that death may be very long and painful, than they would die on a battlefield for what they believe in. They'd rather be subdued and have the whole civilization fall apart than stand up against evil. It just doesn't cause as much physical inconvenience in the short term.

Respect

Imagine you live in a poor area of the world, and a great business opportunity opens for you in a newly thriving country with religion and culture totally different from yours. After some considerations, you decide to pack your bags and leave for a new life. Unsurprisingly, you realize thousands of your countrymen did just that same thing and came to the new lands at around the same time you did.

Now, imagine the country you moved to decided to stop publicly celebrate their most important national and religious events so that you wouldn't feel discriminated. Now, a normal person would feel pretty silly in that situation, because it's just plain awkward. Nobody in his right mind would demand or expect such a course of action, because nobody in his right mind would be offended by people celebrating whatever they used to celebrate before that person moved in.

Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, imagine the job you thought was so great turns out to be pretty crappy. But the people you moved to decide to give you pretty much the same amount of money you used to earn on your crappy job, and they give it to you for nothing. And to top it all off, they ask you to invite your family, friends, and relatives, and give them money for nothing as well. All the while cheering for you and saying you're the best thing that ever happened to them.

What would you think of those people?

I know what I would think. I would think they are self hating utter lunatics and complete idiots. And that's exactly what immigrants, Islamic or not, tend to think of us. Especially of the people on the left.

And that's the reason why all the stuff that is happening in the western world is happening today. The immigrants don't want to integrate and become one of us. And can you blame them? No sane person would want that. They see us as a decadent group of self-destructive imbeciles. Rich imbeciles, to be sure, who should be parted of their money as soon as possible before they squander it away on something stupid like rich imbeciles usually do.

We're not the ones on top

Those who are predisposed to be somewhat docile, or who are incapable of a complex organized action will just live among us as parasites. Those who have a higher purpose in life will strive to fulfill that purpose, whatever it may be. In case of Muslims, it's either the conversion of idiots to true faith, or their extermination. Either option is acceptable, because idiots such as those are not really that worth saving anyway.

It all basically boils down to respect. The immigrants don't respect us, because we ourselves don't respect us. By abandoning our culture, our history, our identity just so that someone who doesn't even care about that wouldn't feel excluded, we present ourselves as self-loathing weaklings. And how do you treat self-loathing weaklings? You most certainly don't listen and respect them. More likely than not, you will attempt to dominate them, because a hierarchy of sorts must exist and you most certainly won't let those degenerates dominate you.

Unorganized minorities dominate on small scale. Blacks get their freebies by repeating the mantra they learned about white privilege and racism. Organized minorities, like Muslims, attempt to dominate on a large scale, by subduing entire populations and forcing them into their frame of reference. Neither of them want to integrate, because they don't view us as superior, or even equals. They view us as inferior beings. And you just don't want to denigrate yourself by meddling with inferiors.

They have no respect for us, and they want to destroy us. But put yourself in their shoes. Really, can you blame them?

Materialism

What is most important in life? There are countless answers to this question, some more sensible than others, but generally there is no real consensus on the question. At least there wasn't until recently. Nowadays, at leas in the modern western world, a consensus has in fact been reached. And it basically states that the most important thing in life is to live as long as possible and avoid being hurt at all costs.

It is truly a sad state of modern society that such primitive, trivial, instincts are what really drives us. Even ancient tribes that barely mastered fire had more transcendent and idealistic view of life. Life that our mainstream considers worth living is not even human, their desires are basic animal desires that are barely fit for primates, let alone the Homo genus. Even elephants seem to have some feelings of transcendence as they mourn their dead, while attempting  to contemplate greater spiritual issues to a degree their brains will allow. Our hedonism is actually a level below that. No wonder "speciesism" has become a real term. When humans are no different from animals, it is only appropriate they all be given the same rights.

None of what we have today, and what makes us human, is here because of hedonism, or even materialism for that matter. It is here because some people deliberately sacrificed their spare time, their personal lives, and even themselves for that matter, so that the rest of the society could advance to a more complex state. Without that sacrifice, if everyone went out looking just for themselves, we'd have a thriving stone age trading community. Capitalism is fine as far as economic theory goes, because it's the natural order of things. Socialism, on the other hand, is not even an alternative. It is a herd of envious people who are just as materialist as capitalists are, but far less capable in their skills. It is not a real system, just a masqueraded robbery.

When socialism met with capitalism, it fell apart. It took 60 years to do so, but ultimately it just couldn't keep up. Although it started off fairly well, feeding on the imperial leftovers, in the end all their boastful propaganda just couldn't compensate for the intrinsic lacking of the system itself.

Nowadays, capitalism has slowly turned from "just the way things are" into a sort of an ideology. We no longer worship Gods, we worship GDP. And just as socialism, it is oblivious to the unraveling that is happening beneath the surface. Ruined families, white genocide, runaway welfare state, loss of social capital...all that is irrelevant. As long as our holy indicator is growing, and as long as we don't feel any physical pain or emotional discomfort, there is no need for concern.

But there are other forces in the society, and they are starting to rear their heads. As the baby boomers retire, their aborted children are not here to take up the torch. Those who are here are people who care about ideology more than they care about their well being. People who are aware that the world doesn't start and end with them, and who are willing to sacrifice themselves in order for the ideas they hold sacred to live another day. Who are those people? Sadly, it's these guys:

It hurts to admit it, but deep down you know it's true

While it is a tragic realization that such an underdeveloped civilization with disdain for science, knowledge, and liberty is rapidly conquering our own, denial will not make it any less true. Really, let's stop fooling ourselves. There is no more west. It is dead. What still lingers on are corrupt remains of what will soon be a minority population. Maybe a healthy seed will survive in some sort of gated communities such as Orania or Volkstaat, or it will meddle with the newcomers and end up as Neanderthals or Haitian French did, contributing to a smallish percentage of the overall genome. But the glory days are gone.

Saudi Arabia? No, Tower Hamlets, London

And the reason why they are gone is because of extreme materialism. It is because people value their new iPhone more than they value the survival of their race. It is because they value a 2 week vacation more than they value their culture and civilization. It is because they, ultimately, value their life more than that of their children.

Or to put it bluntly, we're on our way out because we've become pathetic wimps. Either we'll turn back around, become men again, and retake what is ours, or we will perish. And justly so. 

Generations

I believe we are all familiar with the story of Moses, and his 40 year long trip from Egyptian slavery into the new and promised land. There's one quite peculiar thing about that story, however, and it's the fact that the trip takes, well, 40 years. For anyone with any basic knowledge of geography, which sadly now mostly refers to people who went to school before 1968, the trip across the Sinai peninsula is something that could be done in well below 40 days, let alone 40 years. The land distance from Cairo to Jerusalem, via Gaza, is somewhere around 500km, meaning that even a slow moving group of people with women and children should have no problem making that trip in two weeks. Yet they traveled for 40 years. Why?

Well, the reason really has nothing to do with geography. The reason for the slow motion was basically that the old generation had to die for the new one to take their place. They were stale and ossified in their ways, and the only way to make a society that wasn't based on the ideas they left behind was to make a society which those people who harbored them won't be a part of. Reeducating old people is like beating a dead horse, if their ways are erroneous, we may only wait till they slowly die off.

And God told Moses: 

"Hurry before they build the fence. 

And don't turn right when you reach Nile."

I believe this is a crucial issue, and one that today's left is painfully aware of. The time of the 1968 generation is done, and they are slowly but surely on their way out. The mania of political correctness they created is all but defeated, and the mainstream media, be they "liberal" or cuckservative are in complete disarray. They don't know what's coming, but they do know they won't be a part of it.

So, what can a basically childless generation do, when they realize they didn't leave much of their followers behind? They can bring the scum of the Earth inside. One of the reasons they do that is that they hope those people will help support their losing agenda by turning the opposition into minority. But the real agenda is way more sinister than that. They're actually willing to destroy the world that they can't have. Just as Hitler ordered retreating German troops to destroy everything in their path, even his own Germany whom he held so dear, today's leftists are actively working on destroying the society and all that is good, beautiful, and true, simply because they themselves can't have it. It's like Moses' old generation poisoning the food of their children, simply for the fact that they won't be the ones who will create the new Jewish nation. It is a sickening amount of envy, even for the "me" generation, and it just shows the rot and sorrow that liberal policies and families create.

What is also important to note is the possibility of a backlash. Oppressive policies create strong opposing forces in the society, and today's quasiliberal oppression is basically creating a yet unorganized fairly radical right wing group. If the left still manages to win, the west will look like Brazil. If they lose, they won't lose to a classical liberal option. They'll lose to Nazism 2.0. Neither is a society most of us would really like to live in.

This is a battle of time, and the stakes are huge. The leftists, or progressives as they ironically like to call themselves are trying to destroy everything most people hold dear before they die out. What's worrying, and what they themselves most likely don't realize, is that they'll succeed even if they fail. Brazil or Nazism, the end result will not be pretty.