Post: #1

Has this been posted?

https://www.amren.com/news/2017/05/europ...-disaster/

Europe’s Childless Leaders Sleepwalking Us to Disaster

"There have never been so many childless politicians leading Europe as today. They are modern, open minded and multicultural and they know that “everything finishes with them”. In the short term, being childless is a relief since it means no spending for families, no sacrifices and that no one complains about the future consequences. As in a research report financed by the European Union: “No kids, no problem!“.

Being a mother or a father, however, means that you have a very real stake in the future of the country you lead. Europe’s most important leaders leave no children behind.

Europe’s most important leaders are all childless: German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte and the French presidential hopeful Emmanuel Macron."

“Europe is committing suicide. Or at least its leaders have decided to commit suicide”, wrote Douglas Murray in The Times. “Europe today has little desire to reproduce itself, fight for itself or even take its own side in an argument”.

Post: #2

Europe's top leaders are globalist puppets, bending over for their masters. Promoting less children, welcoming invaders and degeneracy in general is all part of their plan. People that rely on the government are easier to manipulate and control.

It will take a lot more effort to fuck with the Anglosphere and Eastern Europe. Can't stump the Trump, and can't barrage the Farage. Canada and Australia need to step it up though. Their cuck levels are rapidly increasing.

Post: #3

they don't have any skin in the game, that's a recipe for disaster like Nassim Taleb points out.

Post: #4

I speculate that European style parliamentary democracies likely self-select these sorts of defacto sterile leaders.

Children consume a parents time, resources and energy. Even if you can afford to send them to boarding school, hire domestic servants or have a stay at home spouse, you still can't reduce these demands to zero. A childless, semi-sociopathic vicuous political ladder-climber has nothing else to do but focus on their career, politic and maybe sleep 5 or so hours a night. They can bend their entire life to political maneuvering. They never have to leave the office early for a sick child or a school play. It's all about them, all the time. I'd be suprised if someone like Angela Merkel did have kids.

Americans like their politicians to be "family" people. If we didn't directly elect our heads of state, but instead they had to internally maneuver within their political party to a leadership position, Chelsea Clinton wouldn't exist.

Post: #5

Interesting.

I also read that this is the first time in history when very few of Western politicians have actually been in war or served in the military, which is why they're so quick to warmonger - they simply don't understand the horrors of it.

Post: #6

(05-15-2017 12:02 PM)Mikan Wrote:  I speculate that European style parliamentary democracies likely self-select these sorts of defacto sterile leaders.

Children consume a parents time, resources and energy. Even if you can afford to send them to boarding school, hire domestic servants or have a stay at home spouse, you still can't reduce these demands to zero. A childless, semi-sociopathic vicious political ladder-climber has nothing else to do but focus on their career, politic and maybe sleep 5 or so hours a night. They can bend their entire life to political maneuvering. They never have to leave the office early for a sick child or a school play. It's all about them, all the time. I'd be surprised if someone like Angela Merkel did have kids.

Americans like their politicians to be "family" people. If we didn't directly elect our heads of state, but instead they had to internally maneuver within their political party to a leadership position, Chelsea Clinton wouldn't exist.

I totally agree with your post. And of course, I'll add that another (unavoidable) problem with childless politicians is, they don't really care about demographic projections, which point to Europe being overwhelmed by Africans within the next 30 years. I mean, they'll be dead, and, having no children...

Post: #7

I don't know if childless politicians are as big of a disaster as is being made. To use an example from American history, neither George Washington nor James K. Polk had any offspring, and they're seen as the father of the country and the conqueror of Mexico, respectively. And even though Andrew Jackson only had adopted children, he is remembered as the champion of the common man. But these men had balls, and that's the real difference between the current generation of European leaders. If in office now, Jackson would have led a second trail of tears to remove the refugees from Europe.

So childlessness is just a symptom of a larger problem in Europe.

Post: #8

I've been thinking about this whole topic.
Women, childlessness and the cult of homosexualism.

I never knew these leaders were childless. It does suggest something rather abnormal about them.
For many young people, I felt the reason is simple - poverty/lack of money. For these elite goons in politics, it must be some other reason.

Likewise, most political parties in England and many countries round the world now have a female leader. Thats strange because many/most men tend to see career as pivotal to their identity. Women always say "work to live, not live to work" from a MUCH younger age. Surveys have said that women tend to prefer a male boss. And men DEFINITELY prefer a male boss. Men are simply more likely to strive for the extremes of being a tycoon or political leader. So the whole female leader thing (to the level it is) is just... unnatural. We have far more male Nobel prize winners because men are career and achievement obsessive. It doesn't mean "men are better", because we have more male serial killers too. Its just saying "how the fuck has politics become so fucked up".

Another example. Scotland has 6 political parties. 4 of those parties have a confirmed homosexual as leader. The Scottish first minister is strongly believed to be a dyke, but set up gagging orders against the British media. Oh.. alleged dyke has no kids!

Brainwashing and trauma only go so far to explain all this.

My view is that we need to look at the science of endocrine disruptors much more. These pollutants actually get more harmful over generations. Thats why we are seeing so much sterility, homo-ism, butch women, faggy males and outright homosexuality. All of the World's main environmental and governmental bodies accept this (WHO, EU, Greenpeace etc). But can you see much on this crisis in the media? Can we fuck!

Put simply, the human population is becoming more and more diseased.
We hear alot about the risk of bees becoming extinct. What about the future for humans?

Europe's demographics are being (LMAO) "propped up" by fanatical imbeciles who think nothing of raping women or boys, or blowing people up. Or in come the most uneducated immigrants from the 3rd world.

I can't for the life of me understand why so many people just stand by and do/say nothing.

Post: #9

(05-15-2017 01:17 PM)Bacchus Wrote:  I don't know if childless politicians are as big of a disaster as is being made. To use an example from American history, neither George Washington nor James K. Polk had any offspring, and they're seen as the father of the country and the conqueror of Mexico, respectively....

George Washington was believed to be sterile. He also adopted two children his wife had from previous marriage(she was a rich widow not like the welfare single moms of today). I don't think you will find many examples in going back in our history where men could of had children and didn't. People were tied more to the Christian principle of family.

Which leads me to believing the child problem in Europe is a secular side effect. The degenerates, unopposed narcissists and borderline sociopaths thrive in a secular society, they also don't breed. Europe's secular attitudes and relativist mindsets have created all their social problems.

Post: #10

Theresa May is childless too.

I can kind of understand female politicians being childless, the time commitment is big, but that's no excuse for Rutte and Macron.

All else being equal, I'd vote for a parent over a non-parent. I know some politicians exploit this though. (Evidence: Chelsea Clinton)

Post: #11

(05-15-2017 04:22 PM)Transsimian Wrote:  Theresa May is childless too.

I can kind of understand female politicians being childless, the time commitment is big, but that's no excuse for Rutte and Macron.

All else being equal, I'd vote for a parent over a non-parent. I know some politicians exploit this though. (Evidence: Chelsea Clinton)

wtf you mean? macron's wife was going through menopause while he was learning to drive. perfect excuse.

Post: #12

I'm pretty sure May isn't childless out of choice, which is worth noting, given that she's less cucked than the other three.

Post: #13

Prime Minister of Sweden and Italy, as well as Jaroslaw Kaczynski (head of PiS who is the party in charge of Poland) are all also childless.

It's absolutely absurd !

Post: #14

Many of you guys are looking at this as if this was some kind
of meritocracy, when in fact those leaders are carefully groomed
and picked to rule their countries. Consider the recent French
election: globalists went out of their way to sink this
conservative candidate, a family man and devout Catholic:



...in favor of this satanist* climber social deviant who was the boy toy of
French Soros figure Hermand (see my Post: #414 RE: French Presidential Election Thread ]post #414 on the French Elections thread here).


*one interview I've come across last week was particularly revealing about his religious beliefs.

Post: #15

Amren? Really?

I shouldn't be surprised, but well, here we are I guess.

In any case, I find the irony here to be interesting and totally glossed over by general discussions in this corner of the web.
I wrote this 6 months ago, and I find it applicable now so here is a quote:

(12-11-2016 08:09 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  In most surviving cultures today (and even in this society prior to the modern era), a child was viewed as a blessing, the propagation of life and progeny a worthwhile endeavour.

In modern western society, women increasingly view children as pieces of leverage to garner more financial, emotional, or other form of support. Men, meanwhile, increasingly view children as such a great hindrance and burden that they're willing to throw great sums of money at their mothers in order to have them destroyed before they are born.

The child is not a blessing or a gift whose upbringing is a worthwhile pursuit; the child, in our society, is a tool to be used as a means to a superficial end (usually more money) or a curse to be exterminated at all costs. Individuals in our society probably spend as much or more of their collective energy trying to exterminate their children or leverage the few they have for superficial gain than they do actually valuing, treasuring, and nurturing them. We fear the birth of children more than we look forward to loving and raising them. In many parts of this country it seems that people genuinely love and value dogs more than they do human children generally and even their own potential progeny specifically (such that said dogs outnumber children in many areas).

Can we honestly say that a society in which the dynamics I've illustrated above have increasingly become mainstream reality is fit for long-term survival?

Say whatever you want about Islam and its adherents, but know this: they do not, on the whole, have the problems I outlined above. They still understand the importance and value of children even as western society increasingly becomes unable to see them as more than an accessory, luxury item, paycheck, or necessary evil/burden. They still understand the rules and implications of basic demography (read: that fertility is important in determining future population composition and that a society that cannot even maintain a fertility rate high enough to sustain itself is not a society that can last for long). They still understand the importance of family, the value of their own culture and the need to honor it, etc, etc.

Modern western society has forsaken all of this.
I can't think of a predominantly muslim part of the world in which a dog has as much or more value than a human child, but I find it hard to locate a corner of western society in which that is NOT the case.

It's ironic, really, because this forum exists largely because of the fact that this society has forsaken all of those things and created consequences that necessitated the organization of communities like this. Yet here we are, almost a decade after the birth of said community, and it seems that there persists a total inability to really understand where the roots of those consequences really come from.

All of this is not a reality because of some insidious conspiracy to pick and choose a handful of insidious "agents" (as described above by 911) and somehow mislead the masses. This constant effort to shove blame over to one group or the other is just a weak effort to move attention away from the heart of the issue: the westerners embrace this. They want this. They fight tooth and nail to propagate this because it is what they desire. They don't like their history. They do not like their culture. They do not want children, nor do they believe children are valuable or that family is particularly worthwhile to pursue. Even those few who do believe in those things often don't appear to believe in them strongly enough to encourage others to live accordingly and even when they do, must confront the challenges imposed by a society around them that is openly hostile to all of those things and seeks to prevent their promotion.

People like Macron and Merkel are continuously winning elections not because of some insidious conspiracy to hoodwink the masses but because, deep down, the bulk of the populace they govern genuinely aspires to, sympathizes with, or is highly tolerant and supportive of the lifestyles and perspectives they promote. This is what they want. This is who they are.

People are having a very hard time facing this because they want other visions to be true, but the reality is there whether they like it or not. All of the negative trends and traits bitched incessantly about in this part of the web today with regard to western society are the product of the general attitudes, desires, and inclinations of western people, and were in turn molded by thousands of years of history (between the inherent k-selection, history of out-group altruism, expansive conquests that effectively imposed and laid the foundation for modern globalization, socially imposed monogamy, preference for close-in-age relationships, and emphasis on nuclear family connections to the exclusion of more distant familial ties, it really isn't difficult for me to see, as a student of history, how things got here - it was a matter of time).

Western society has come where it was destined to come. It has become what it was inevitably going to become. It's easy to point to the outsiders and rally against them. But how do you fight the forces that come from within? How do you conquer the driving factors that, for the most part, are sourced from thousands of years of one's internal history and evolution, factors fundamental to the nature and existence of the society itself? At some point, its modern day crusaders (who now seem to have become the majority in this particular community and others elsewhere in this part of the web) are going to have to reckon with that.

Post: #16

(05-15-2017 08:34 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  Say whatever you want about Islam and its adherents, but know this: they do not, on the whole, have the problems I outlined above. They still understand the importance and value of children even as western society increasingly becomes unable to see them as more than an accessory, luxury item, paycheck, or necessary evil/burden. They still understand the rules and implications of basic demography (read: that fertility is important in determining future population composition and that a society that cannot even maintain a fertility rate high enough to sustain itself is not a society that can last for long). They still understand the importance of family, the value of their own culture and the need to honor it, etc, etc.

I wonder if it's going to stay that way, though? I was reading this article that pointed out that "Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, despite being a Muslim fundamentalist, revived Iran's national family planning program in December 1989, ruling that contraception was not un-Islamic. He encouraged people to have smaller families, citing this goal as a social responsibility in his weekly sermons." Currently, the Iranian fertility rate is 1.71.

The Muslim countries where the fertility rate remains high seem to be the ones that are war-torn, like Yemen. Maybe the U.S. would have a high fertility rate too if we had a lot of armed conflict here.

Post: #17

I think Viktor Orban of Hungary has four or more children.

Post: #18

Even if Merkel & co. did have kids.
They'd probably sacrifice the infants to moloch if they could...

Post: #19

(05-15-2017 08:34 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  Amren? Really?

I shouldn't be surprised, but well, here we are I guess.

In any case, I find the irony here to be interesting and totally glossed over by general discussions in this corner of the web.
I wrote this 6 months ago, and I find it applicable now so here is a quote:

(12-11-2016 08:09 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  In most surviving cultures today (and even in this society prior to the modern era), a child was viewed as a blessing, the propagation of life and progeny a worthwhile endeavour.

In modern western society, women increasingly view children as pieces of leverage to garner more financial, emotional, or other form of support. Men, meanwhile, increasingly view children as such a great hindrance and burden that they're willing to throw great sums of money at their mothers in order to have them destroyed before they are born.

The child is not a blessing or a gift whose upbringing is a worthwhile pursuit; the child, in our society, is a tool to be used as a means to a superficial end (usually more money) or a curse to be exterminated at all costs. Individuals in our society probably spend as much or more of their collective energy trying to exterminate their children or leverage the few they have for superficial gain than they do actually valuing, treasuring, and nurturing them. We fear the birth of children more than we look forward to loving and raising them. In many parts of this country it seems that people genuinely love and value dogs more than they do human children generally and even their own potential progeny specifically (such that said dogs outnumber children in many areas).

Can we honestly say that a society in which the dynamics I've illustrated above have increasingly become mainstream reality is fit for long-term survival?

Say whatever you want about Islam and its adherents, but know this: they do not, on the whole, have the problems I outlined above. They still understand the importance and value of children even as western society increasingly becomes unable to see them as more than an accessory, luxury item, paycheck, or necessary evil/burden. They still understand the rules and implications of basic demography (read: that fertility is important in determining future population composition and that a society that cannot even maintain a fertility rate high enough to sustain itself is not a society that can last for long). They still understand the importance of family, the value of their own culture and the need to honor it, etc, etc.

Modern western society has forsaken all of this.
I can't think of a predominantly muslim part of the world in which a dog has as much or more value than a human child, but I find it hard to locate a corner of western society in which that is NOT the case.

It's ironic, really, because this forum exists largely because of the fact that this society has forsaken all of those things and created consequences that necessitated the organization of communities like this. Yet here we are, almost a decade after the birth of said community, and it seems that there persists a total inability to really understand where the roots of those consequences really come from.

All of this is not a reality because of some insidious conspiracy to pick and choose a handful of insidious "agents" (as described above by 911) and somehow mislead the masses. This constant effort to shove blame over to one group or the other is just a weak effort to move attention away from the heart of the issue: the westerners embrace this. They want this. They fight tooth and nail to propagate this because it is what they desire. They don't like their history. They do not like their culture. They do not want children, nor do they believe children are valuable or that family is particularly worthwhile to pursue. Even those few who do believe in those things often don't appear to believe in them strongly enough to encourage others to live accordingly and even when they do, must confront the challenges imposed by a society around them that is openly hostile to all of those things and seeks to prevent their promotion.

People like Macron and Merkel are continuously winning elections not because of some insidious conspiracy to hoodwink the masses but because, deep down, the bulk of the populace they govern genuinely aspires to, sympathizes with, or is highly tolerant and supportive of the lifestyles and perspectives they promote. This is what they want. This is who they are.

People are having a very hard time facing this because they want other visions to be true, but the reality is there whether they like it or not. All of the negative trends and traits bitched incessantly about in this part of the web today with regard to western society are the product of the general attitudes, desires, and inclinations of western people, and were in turn molded by thousands of years of history (between the inherent k-selection, history of out-group altruism, expansive conquests that effectively imposed and laid the foundation for modern globalization, socially imposed monogamy, preference for close-in-age relationships, and emphasis on nuclear family connections to the exclusion of more distant familial ties, it really isn't difficult for me to see, as a student of history, how things got here - it was a matter of time).

Western society has come where it was destined to come. It has become what it was inevitably going to become. It's easy to point to the outsiders and rally against them. But how do you fight the forces that come from within? How do you conquer the driving factors that, for the most part, are sourced from thousands of years of one's internal history and evolution, factors fundamental to the nature and existence of the society itself? At some point, its modern day crusaders (who now seem to have become the majority in this particular community and others elsewhere in this part of the web) are going to have to reckon with that.

I liked your post because it was a well stated post on a fundamental issue and you've put a lot of effort into it, but I disagree with the premise that the current social decline manifested through the abandonment of child rearing and that of other traditional values was an inevitable outcome of modern western societies. This perspective ignores the sustained and highly sophisticated social engineering effort carried over several generations to shape people's preferences and values.

Most people don't understand this, because basically, it is far more difficult to tell people they've been duped than it is to deceive them. They will rationalize about how problems are inevitable, how you can't stop modernity and how things were really worse before, internalizing the narratives they've been relentlessly hammered with from K through retirement.

Whether the theme is for women to go against their nature and be "strong independent women" devoted to their careers or the Russian Hacking narrative, people's beliefs and perceptions can be shaped through a well-honed, omnipresent indoctrination system that is so efficient that it is nearly invisible to its victims, who will fully internalize its teachings.

Macron didn't win because French people really like him, he won because he's received the equivalent of millions in positive wall to wall media coverage with his main opponents getting relentlessly hammered. Only 24% of the electorate actually voted for him, 43% having voted against le Pen. The masses did get hoodwinked. You're partially right though about those 24% getting on board with his "modern" program, but this was also done through a very slick campaign using 21st century persuasion techniques.

I was listening to E. Michael Jones latest interview (on his book Barren Metal which examines the contrast between British Empiricism and German Idealism, how the Anglo system of state-sponsored usury contrasted with German idea of labor and why this conflict of visions culminated in the two world wars of the 20th century). He also did point out that nearly all of Europe's leaders were childless. He's identified weaponized sexuality as driving this, also saying that those leaders are put up as models to be emulated.

Jones is one of the most brilliant modern thinkers I've come across, he's really nailed the complexities of modern issues, linking them with history, philosophy and theology (his academic backgrounds), exploring social developments and geopolitics from angles I haven't seen covered on here.

This interview with Red Ice explores the themes in this thread:





Jones talks about the steady normalization of degeneracy and corruption occurring in the mainstream and the political and social control achieved through the manipulation of people’s desires. Further, we consider the manifestation of socialist central planning that drives cultures away from their true identities, and this capitalist form of warfare that feeds on exploiting illicit passions. We continue in the second half with Jones’ take on the power and effects of globalism in subverting ancient cultures like India. We discuss how India managed to suppress pornography to satisfy the moral standards of its people until recently and how the shift to sexualization resulted in a reorienting of consumption patterns, the upsetting of relationships between men and women, and alignment with the argument that subversive activity is a democratic right.

Post: #20

(05-16-2017 12:27 AM)911 Wrote:  I was listening to E. Michael Jones latest interview (on his book Barren Metal which examines the contrast between British Empiricism and German Idealism, how the Anglo system of state-sponsored usury contrasted with German idea of labor and why this conflict of visions culminated in the two world wars of the 20th century). He also did point out that nearly all of Europe's leaders were childless. He's identified weaponized sexuality as driving this, also saying that those leaders are put up as models to be emulated.

Jones is one of the most brilliant modern thinkers I've come across, he's really nailed the complexities of modern issues, linking them with history, philosophy and theology (his academic backgrounds), exploring social developments and geopolitics from angles I haven't seen covered on here.

This interview with Red Ice explores the themes in this thread:





Jones talks about the steady normalization of degeneracy and corruption occurring in the mainstream and the political and social control achieved through the manipulation of people’s desires. Further, we consider the manifestation of socialist central planning that drives cultures away from their true identities, and this capitalist form of warfare that feeds on exploiting illicit passions. We continue in the second half with Jones’ take on the power and effects of globalism in subverting ancient cultures like India. We discuss how India managed to suppress pornography to satisfy the moral standards of its people until recently and how the shift to sexualization resulted in a reorienting of consumption patterns, the upsetting of relationships between men and women, and alignment with the argument that subversive activity is a democratic right.

I’ve been ranting about this on ROK for years.

Anglosaxon Protestantism has been the cancer of the West. A cancer that now is metastasis.
England/US: An empire based on hypocrisy and usury.

Post: #21

(05-16-2017 12:27 AM)911 Wrote:  I liked your post because it was a well stated post on a fundamental issue and you've put a lot of effort into it, but I disagree with the premise that the current social decline manifested through the abandonment of child rearing and that of other traditional values was an inevitable outcome of modern western societies. This perspective ignores the sustained and highly sophisticated social engineering effort carried over several generations to shape people's preferences and values.

There are two possibilities here:

1. There is an insidious conspiracy. Said conspiracy has been successful.

2. There is no real conspiracy (or, at least, no successful one) and what we see is merely the product of western nature (as I theorize in my post above).

Possibility 1 does not speak well of the alleged "victims". What it tells us is that some tiny group of planners was able to singlehandedly "hoodwink" a whole mass of humanity into completely giving up on replacing itself or honoring its own culture. If we are to take your assertion that the outcome of said hoodwinking was not inevitable and really was just the result of the conspirators, then we must conclude that said conspirators were able to get members of western society to act completely against their interests (producing an outcome that otherwise would not have been even somewhat likely to manifest) and were able to accomplish this rather monumental feat with absolutely no significant assistance from members of the hoodwinked group.

If said "hoodwinked group" is so malleable as to be completely, and utterly forced (100% against their will and intent and with no assistance given on their part) into self-flagellating auto-elimination by some miniscule little group of planners working almost entirely on their own (again, no assistance), what is it that makes us believe said group should rightfully persist? That hoodwinked group sounds too weak and easily manipulated to really expect much of them. If they can be brought to such depths by just a few conspirators in less than a century, then clearly they weren't particularly formidable to begin with.

The second possibility is that the conspiracy either doesn't exist or actually does exist but hasn't really been the primary driving factor in any of this. If this possibility is real, then we are open to everything I suggested in my original post.

My argument is that possibility #1 is implausible and utterly unconvincing. It overestimates the capacity of any would-be "conspirators" and it overestimates the malleability of members of western society (a society which, I would contend, was indeed too formidable for such an outcome). If any such conspiracy took place and succeeded (and I highly doubt it did), then it did so only with the assistance of members of said hoodwinked group and (primarily) by plugging into natural trends that were inherent to hoodwinked group's nature (ex: the Germanic tendency toward K-selected close-in-age relationships, socially imposed monogamy, and nuclear family focus - all paths that lead to where we are). Western society was too formidable a construct to come down the path it has come without substantially consenting to do so (via direct/implied acquiescence, or the passive manifestation of trends stemming from western history that naturally led to the current state of affairs). That leaves us in a middle ground that combines both possibilities 1 and 2 and, effectively, forms a possibility 3: an easily malleable group that was inevitably heading in this direction as a result of everything I mentioned in my original post (which contributed to the ease of said malleability) and largely did so of its own free will.

We can keep going on and on about this narrative and that conspiracy and that manipulation and etc, etc, etc. At the end of the day, all paths lead to the same place, and that place puts a lot more responsibility on western society than White Nationalists at Amren or Red Ice Radio (and, indeed, here at RvF) will ever admit.

Quote:Macron didn't win because French people really like him, he won because he's received the equivalent of millions in positive wall to wall media coverage with his main opponents getting relentlessly hammered. Only 24% of the electorate actually voted for him, 43% having voted against Le Pen. The masses did get hoodwinked. You're partially right though about those 24% getting on board with his "modern" program, but this was also done through a very slick campaign using 21st century persuasion techniques.

The fact that a man like Macron with the views and lifestyle Macron has can even exist as a leading political figure in modern western society makes my point. A man like Macron (with his particular set of traits and views toward the future of his own culture/society) would have no chance in a place like Pakistan, Nigeria, Jamaica, Honduras, or Qatar. He'd be mince meat in Russia, China, or Belarus as well. The fact that he got only 24% of the vote directly is irrelevant - that he was able to get 2/3rds of a western electorate to put him in office is living proof of their having a substantial degree of comfort, empathy, and sympathy for who he is and what he stands for (note that it is possible to have those things even without "really liking" someone - for the purpose of the topic we're discussing here, the mere ability to "tolerate" someone is good enough). That's because, at the core of it, the bulk of the electorate simply isn't that bothered or discomforted by him. That is what made it easy for them to back him against Le Pen. Le Pen would have won if there were any other rational conclusion.

Quote:I was listening to E. Michael Jones latest interview (on his book Barren Metal which examines the contrast between British Empiricism and German Idealism, how the Anglo system of state-sponsored usury contrasted with German idea of labor and why this conflict of visions culminated in the two world wars of the 20th century).

In short: A problem of western society created by westerners, for westerners. Basically, my point. And look, I even have a member who agrees with me:

(05-16-2017 02:33 AM)McCarthy Wrote:  I’ve been ranting about this on ROK for years.

Anglosaxon Protestantism has been the cancer of the West. A cancer that now is metastasis.
England/US: An empire based on hypocrisy and usury.

Post: #22

It pleases me to see that as fertility rates collapse globally, the captains are going down with the ship.

I get a sense of satisfaction at seeing how that even the elites are not producing enough kids to prevent their family lines from dying out. Let's see, Chelsea Clinton is 37 years old and has only had two kids? Yeah, that's not gonna be enough to save the Clintons from extinction. But there are many other examples.*

These days, I think of all the people I've dealt with in life who have fucked me over in one way or another, and I consider how many children they've had. Usually it's fewer than three, so I know they're part of that trend toward depopulation. They think they've won, because they were able to defeat me in some way or another, and lead lives that seemed prosperous according to some measures.

But what does it all amount to in the end? These "successful people's" sons will probably perish in the barren wasteland that is our modern mate market, while more and more of their daughters' eggs quietly go stale as they push papers at their corporate jobs before going home to feed the cats. They'll sit in front of the flickering television eating a microwave dinner while idly swiping right on Tinder, but the load that gets shot up in them during their one-night stand will never form a viable zygote.

All the people who wouldn't listen to us, and who demonized us, when we warned that feminism would destroy the family unit and cause sterility? Their family trees are going to wither and die. Meanwhile, I sit here and savor the schadenfreude as I look through the country-by-country statistics and reflect on how those nations and races that led the way to feminism will be the first to go. I know that I'm on that same train that's headed over a cliff, but maybe I realized that too late and now the opportunity to jump free is gone. I shrug and say, "Oh well!"

I like the title of Roosh's essay, "The Barbarians Will Solve Your Sterile Existence". It suggests that this existence has become a problem in need of a solution. There's this sense of, "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Population Implosion". At times, it feels like we're in a Stephen King novel such as The Stand where mass death is coming, leaving only a remnant to fight against the odds for survival.

Well, I didn't go quietly; I stood up and sounded the warning when I had the chance, even at the cost of personal sacrifice. I was not able to get any women past their quota of 2.10, but I made some attempt to before I said "Fuck it." It doesn't matter anyway; when you're swimming against the powerful tide of your society's culture, a few token kicks is only going to slightly delay your being swept over the waterfall.

What will survive the collapse? Maybe a few writings here and there, for the next species that rises to intelligence to examine. Maybe they will investigate in search of clues, the same way we looked into the cause of the dinosaurs' extinction.

* Even Trump's three wives had only five kids, for an average fertility rate of only 1.67, which is below the 2.10 replacement rate, so in that sense The Donald has not actually done his part to stave off a population collapse.

Post: #23

(05-16-2017 04:27 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  What will survive the collapse?

Whoever procreates. We already know who they are. The numbers with regard to fertility rates around the world tell the story. The future belongs to them.

Quote:* Even Trump's three wives had only five kids, for an average fertility rate of only 1.67, which is below the 2.10 replacement rate, so in that sense The Donald has not actually done his part to stave off a population collapse.

This is another grand irony among many recent trends I've seen.

Trump is idolized and darn near worshiped as a god-emperor around here. Why? There are many reasons (some better than others), but among the biggest is the hope he supposedly represents as a potential savior of western civilization and traditionalism. He's the one who'll bring back the old values, stave off the browning of America (read: kick out as many non-whites as possible and limit the number coming in), and make everything alright again (read: as close as possible to what things were 50-60 years ago).

Yet any cursory examination of Trump makes it pretty clear that he's really not the prophet that many of the nationalists/traditionalists at places like Amren, Red Ice, DS, RVF, ROK, and elsewhere in the manosphere are looking for.
A quick glance at his life shows that he's really not even remotely traditional. In fact, most of what he's done with his life just highlights some of the same issues we outlined generally with western society's abandonment of traditional values.

Ex: Procreation. As Jean has noted here, Trump's 5 children offer a pretty deceptive view of his actual fertility. Average that number out across the 3 women he has impregnated and you get a fertility rate of 1.67 - well below replacement level. Most of the women Trump has been with have effectively just been the same kind of not-particularly-fertile western woman being complained about in this thread. Marla Maples got knocked up at 30 by Trump and has just one child. Melania is a career model who had here lone child at nearly 36 years old. Ivana is the only one who came close to the traditionalist way of wifedom everyone is so keen to promote (married before 30, had 3 kids), and that ended in divorce.

If every man carried themselves like Trump has in his personal life, western society would be no closer to rescuing its values than it is today. Trump is not their savior.

Also, we have quite a few folks talking about "conspirators" in western civilization who have supposedly manipulated/hoodwinked all of western society. The supposed identity of these alleged "conspirators" is well known. I don't buy into the theory (I've gone on record with my view that the idea is absurd, and I maintain that) so I'm not going to drop any names, but most of you know what I'm talking about, especially if you frequent Amren (among other WN online centers) and listen to Red Ice Radio all the time.

I would suggest that those who are so deeply concerned with this supposed "conspiracy" and its alleged actors take a good hard look at all of Trump's adult children and the background of their spouses.

Just saying.

Post: #24

(05-16-2017 07:14 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 04:27 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  What will survive the collapse?

Whoever procreates. We already know who they are. The numbers with regard to fertility rates around the world tell the story. The future belongs to them.

Quote:* Even Trump's three wives had only five kids, for an average fertility rate of only 1.67, which is below the 2.10 replacement rate, so in that sense The Donald has not actually done his part to stave off a population collapse.

This is another grand irony among many recent trends I've seen.

Trump is idolized and darn near worshiped as a god-emperor around here. Why? There are many reasons (some better than others), but among the biggest is the hope he supposedly represents as a potential savior of western civilization and traditionalism. He's the one who'll bring back the old values, stave off the browning of America (read: kick out as many non-whites as possible and limit the number coming in), and make everything alright again (read: as close as possible to what things were 50-60 years ago).

Yet any cursory examination of Trump makes it pretty clear that he's really not the prophet that many of the nationalists/traditionalists at places like Amren, Red Ice, DS, RVF, ROK, and elsewhere in the manosphere are looking for.
A quick glance at his life shows that he's really not even remotely traditional. In fact, most of what he's done with his life just highlights some of the same issues we outlined generally with western society's abandonment of traditional values.

Ex: Procreation. As Jean has noted here, Trump's 5 children offer a pretty deceptive view of his actual fertility. Average that number out across the 3 women he has impregnated and you get a fertility rate of 1.67 - well below replacement level. Most of the women Trump has been with have effectively just been the same kind of not-particularly-fertile western woman being complained about in this thread. Marla Maples got knocked up at 30 by Trump and has just one child. Melania is a career model who had here lone child at nearly 36 years old. Ivana is the only one who came close to the traditionalist way of wifedom everyone is so keen to promote (married before 30, had 3 kids), and that ended in divorce.

If every man carried themselves like Trump has in his personal life, western society would be no closer to rescuing its values than it is today. Trump is not their savior.

Also, we have quite a few folks talking about "conspirators" in western civilization who have supposedly manipulated/hoodwinked all of western society. The supposed identity of these alleged "conspirators" is well known. I don't buy into the theory (I've gone on record with my view that the idea is absurd, and I maintain that) so I'm not going to drop any names, but most of you know what I'm talking about, especially if you frequent Amren (among other WN online centers) and listen to Red Ice Radio all the time.

I would suggest that those who are so deeply concerned with this supposed "conspiracy" and its alleged actors take a good hard look at all of Trump's adult children and the background of their spouses.

Just saying.

After reading your posts and wholly, albeit with the heaviest of hearts, agreeing with them I had to venture deep within myself only to find the same miasma you are describing above.

I wish to have children. Many in fact. Three or more with my future to be wife.

But at the same I time I am afraid. Afraid that I will not be able to provide for them in this madhouse we call 'civilized society' today. Afraid they'll be corrupted by batshit insane public indoctrinators (because this is what they are).

Simply put... I am afraid.

And ashamed of myself.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

It's easy to fight against someone on the outside and blame him for all of society ills... until you realize that you're looking at a mirror and seeing yourself within the reflection.

This is true unabated horror.

Western Society only has itself to blame for what it has become.

Pretending to be the beacon of hope for all those downtrodden masses from far away it but simply a rotten corpse with its shiny skin, bolt-on-boobs, botox filled lips... yet to start showing signs of decay.

And, in the end, who am I to say it does not feel good to indulge in hedonistic desires. There's not been a time where the holiest of men have been the most perverse and wicked at the same time...

But when everybody does, at the same time, then it is a sign of change, off one society collapsing and another taking its role.

Excellent post Excelsior and thank you.

You've cleared a lot of things which have been bugging me for a long time.

Post: #25

(05-16-2017 07:14 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

Quote:* Even Trump's three wives had only five kids, for an average fertility rate of only 1.67, which is below the 2.10 replacement rate, so in that sense The Donald has not actually done his part to stave off a population collapse.

Ex: Procreation. As Jean has noted here, Trump's 5 children offer a pretty deceptive view of his actual fertility. Average that number out across the 3 women he has impregnated and you get a fertility rate of 1.67 - well below replacement level.

I have some issues with this point specifically.

In my (admittedly amateurish) understanding, the replacement rate is roughly 2.0 (can be a bit higher if mortality rate is taken into account), i.e a couple needs to have 2 children to replace themselves, precisely because the couple is comprised of 2 people. But instead of saying 2 children per couple, we say 2 children per woman, so it can be confusing. In Trump's case, Trump and his 3 wives make up a total of 4 people. So he would need a total of 4 children to replace himself and his 3 wives. He has 5 children, so he has done more than his duty. Ivana has also done more than her duty to replace herself and Trump with 3 kids; Marla and Melania each did sufficient duty to replace themselves by having 1 kid each (since Trump has already replaced himself with Ivana). If Marla remarries and her new husband has no kid previously, then it's her new husband's duty to replace himself by having 1 more kid with her.

Did I miss something?