ticketyboo

I think the real challenge is that Western culture has so dominated the globe that everyone copies Westerners sufficiently well. They speak Western languages (English, mostly), wear Western clothes, use Western technology, and become part of Western institutions. This is from an American perspective, but everyone learning English has allowed foreigners to come in and get jobs (or welfare) and generally LARP as a Westerner. The elites love this, because it gives them access to more cheap labor, tax livestock, and cheap votes. The language barrier was the greatest barrier to just replacing the people. Immigration is becoming colonization. And so the alt-right rises. Here's another challenge: the "white" race and "white" culture don't exist. Anglo-Saxon culture exists. Italian culture exists. Irish culture exists. French culture exists. "White"? That's not even a thing. Do you think I want a bunch of corrupt Italians running my nice, high-trust, law-abiding Anglo-Saxon civilization? Hell, no. Or Russians? I shudder to think. But all are "white". "White" was a fiction created to support early immigration into the US. "White" does not exist in Europe. Americans are doubly screwed by their own propaganda. "What it means to be white"? The problem is that it doesn't mean anything.

This is r vs. K strategy. You are suggesting the r strategy, which works in an r-selected environment, but fails in a K-selected environment. The West is heavily r-selected right now.

Nice try at an insult. Big words coming from a guy who can't figure out if someone is actually replying to his posts. It wasn't a try at an insult. It was a statement of fact. I don't see why you needed to bullshit about your IQ. And if your main goal is to pass on your genes then sacrificing yourself is going to lower the chances of that happening, because the longer you stay alive and healthy the longer you can spread you precious seed. On top of that females tend to not mate with males who appear to value them. Tribe members carry copies of the same genes, and women possess the only means to pass those genes forward in time (see the 99 babies rule above). So, you should throw yourself under a bus so that copies of your genes that are inside the women of your tribe can be reproduced. And of course, your own children will have copies of your genes. This is why society is organized the way it is. This is why men throw themselves under that bus. This is what the original poster means by "doing your highest or first duty to humanity". I'm not saying I 100% agree with the sentiment expressed by the original poster, but I do understand it. I'm not even considering the moral aspect.

http://a.co/d/2J5Aq6g The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens by Vox Day I've linked to works both for and against atheism and Christianity. You need to at least address pre-established work in your topic of interest. Or you're not a serious player.

99 men and 1 woman means 1 baby. 99 women and 1 man means 99 babies. [In a single 9 month period.] Men will throw themselves under a bus to protect their women and their tribe in order to pass on some of their genes and their tribe's genes. Hence the argument that men and women are not equal, because they do not have equal value when it comes to survival of the tribe or the human species.

https://freedomainradio.com/free/#atg Against the Gods? A Concise Guide to Atheism and Agnosticism by Stefan Molyneux

This doesn’t fit my anectodal life experience. At all. So from my subjective standpoint it has no validity. But for the sake of argument let’s assume that he is correct. Why would I care? What’s in it for me? You get to pass your genes onto the next generation.

It's got some merits (the argument). From a purely Darwinian, biological perspective. https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/the-fundamental-premise/

No ... Why? ... What? Sorry, I couldn't determine what you were replying to.

Is this about the Martin van Creveld book?

Google search: [employment choices by gender nordic feminist countries]

What is your source on this? The number of small business should not be increasing in America from what I have seen. We may be in agreement. I said the number of small businesses "is decreasing", you said "should not be increasing". An increasing percentage of people work at large businesses:

We're likely to end up with global corporations as the feudal lords, with the employees as their serfs. One of the problems with globalism is that it detaches elites from dependence on the local populace. The elites have no need for loyalty to or from any particular nation's people. This is why they hate nationalism so much. The number of small businesses is decreasing. People are dependent on their big corp employer for income and health insurance. If you tweet something that the global corps disapprove of (they are strangely all politically aligned), you can be unpersoned (Roseanne, James Damore, Alex Jones). We're part way there.

Is this video meant to be an argument against female voting?

MGTOW?

Looks like we are in agreement. Not an argument.

It's not "low" so much as pretty much everything FDR and appealing to the type FDR attracts has been talked to death. I frankly wish we could import some Far Left Communists or something just to spice up the intellectual diversity of the boards since I'm pretty sure 99% of everyone here is a Stefanist AnCap, making this essentially just a matter of debating fine details rather than the broad scope. Maybe this is why Stef does current events. He has already won all the arguments on the big, abstract stuff.

What do you mean by "universalised", and why can't it be universalised?

They are not only tangentially related. If med school is expensive and has a high graduation barrier, then only the smartest will apply to and attend med school. If people with low scores can be admitted, and they don't have to pay for it, then there is no cost to their failure to perform in school. Even worse, if incompetents are graduated because we need a diversity quota of black doctors, then society has paid to educate a doctor, but doesn't have a doctor. The standards keep society from wasting its resources on incompetent doctors. The high cost of education forces individuals to be honest with themselves about their ability to be a doctor, and forces a high cost on them if they are wrong. Skin in the game.

Maybe so in general. I have serious doubts that a woman who gets a degree in women's studies, then works at startbucks for years and years is actually intelligent (or using her intelligence?). They can see patterns well when its on a piece of paper but they cannot see patterns well when its in real life. I think men are much better at this because high IQ men simply make more money. Women are more conflict-avoidant. The popular culture encourages them to do useless, self-destructive degrees, and so they do. The education-IQ correlation is weakening as the rate of college admissions increases. They used to take only the top people. Now, they take everyone, and invent fake subjects that low-IQ people can degree in, like women's studies. The education-IQ correlation is weakening.

I agree that many high IQ women are making unwise choices. Maybe IQ doesn't positively correlate with a desire to make the necessary sacrifices to sustain civilization?

It is a biological imperative when women are experiencing baby rabies in their 30s and 40s and are already too old to have replacement-rate numbers of births. Low-IQ women without the capacity to plan have children young. Intelligent women delay it to establish their careers first and end up barren. Not enough parents will have enough assets for their children to manage for the asset management model of child rearing to replace the farm laborer model. You need enough to pay for the kids and then enough left over for to manage. Boomers are planning to party it up and die broke in the rare case of them actually having assets. Look up data on savings rates and retirement savings. The money is not there. I agree about the lack of wisdom. Women are misled about basic information regarding their fertility. It's ridiculous that the West as devolved to the point where basic knowledge about "the birds and the bees" is withheld or misrepresented. Western culture is truly rotten. Educational achievement correlates well enough with IQ to be a useful proxy for IQ. Look this up if you doubt it.

Is this message board the best forum for discussing FDR shows and related issues? I've looked at others, but the traffic here is surprising low.

Ignore all the rationalizing gobbledygook and sentimentality about how much we love our children and look at it from a pure utilitarian perspective. The reason that nobody wants kids is that nobody today needs to give birth to their farm labor work force. Children are farm laborers. If you don't have a farm, they change from an asset to a useless expense. Actually, worse than useless, because there is enormous cost and risk with having them. Children are a retirement plan. If you have a stable society with 401k plans, then children change from being a retirement asset to a dangerous and costly expense. Pregnancy at 40 is much riskier than pregnancy at 20. Smarter women have fewer kids because they know to use birth control. Less smart women lack the planning capacity.