Political Incorrectness And Truth
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-04-24 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 933 references Ignore this thread
Political Incorrectness And Truth
[Comments enabled]

So now it's "Easter worshipers" in Sri Lanka who were blown up; not "Christians" eh?  And by the way, that's what Barack Obama and literal dozens of other "political people" called them.  

And while the media and everyone else was all agog about "white supremacists" after New Zealand they cannot bring themselves to use the words "Muslim terrorists" or "Islamic terror", or, quite-accurately, "Islamic state" in terms of the goals and desires of those committing these bombings.

The very words "Muslim" or "Islamic" are banned when it comes to anything negative, you see.

**** these people.  All of them.

But let's not stop here.  How about if I go at something more basic, and longer-running, and I'll drive a pike through a few more sacred cows this way too.

The so-called sexual revolution.

Let's first start with a basic fact of reality: There are approximately the same number of boys and girls born.  It is slightly biased toward males; about 105:100.  This assumes nobody deliberately tampers with it by, for example, aborting girls after determining their sexes, which has happened in China and thus driven the ratio higher.

By the time both sexes reach puberty, however, it's nearly equal.  The reasons are somewhat complex and all turn on the fact that boys tend to die very young more often than girls.  It's not a large number, but it's enough to "even the odds" -- at least "close enough."

So for each girl there is a boy, and vice-versa.

That's good, right, if you'd like humans to continue to be a species.

Well, wait a second.  That's too simple.  The assumption there is that one boy and one girl will get together and live happily ever-after, making some number of children between them if nobody interferes and everything works as originally intended.

That's pure nonsense and it's easy to see that.  Just look around you.

What happens in other primates -- which have reasonably-close sex ratios too, since sexual reproduction works pretty-much the same way ("X" and "Y" chromosomes)?

90% of the males don't get to mate at all; they're either exiled or killed.  10% or less of them screw all of the females.

This is true of most animals that form social groups; it is not limited to primates.  In a pride of lions one adult male winds up with all -- or nearly all -- of the pussy; any other adult male that wants to actually mate has to fight and either kill or drive from the pride (with the penalty for not leaving if you lose being death) the existing leader of same.  There are typically a couple of lesser adult males around, but they don't get any sex - except by extreme rare circumstance.  At a couple of years age young males, recognizing that they'll never get any where they are leave their pride and try to displace the male in another one.

A good number of them die trying, but a few succeed and kill or drive from that pride the male already there.

Why does this situation come up again and again?  Simply put it's physiological and inviolate -- which the Social Justice Warriors refuse to accept -- just like they refuse to accept so many other physical facts (such as there being exactly two sexes.)

Specifically, men are cursed with vastly more genetic material than they can ever use for reproduction at disgustingly high ratios.  Men produce more sperm every day than they could possibly use in a lifetime.  Women, on the other hand, are cursed with producing about 300 ova over their entire fertile life, one per month, and a significant percentage of them are defective.  They either fail to be fertilized, fail to implant or something is wrong with them and the woman miscarries.

Here's how those curses manifest: It is to the advantage of men from a reproductive perspective to use as much of that genetic material as possible.  For a woman, however, she can trivially use all of the ova she wishes to turn into children without any effort whatsoever.  In other words women are the "price makers" when it comes to sexual congress in all willing sexual contact and this is true in essentially all sexually-reproducing species.  It is why the males have all the "pretty stuff" in the animal kingdom; all that "pretty stuff" is there to seduce.  The two young bucks (deer) outside your window are locking antlers and fighting between each other to impress the doe and thus obtain sexual favors; they fight not to gain the ability to rape but rather to impress the price maker and get her to allow him to have sex.  Ditto for the peacock.

The "natural order" winds up with the huge majority of the males getting nothing or nearly-nothing while the females get all the sex they want -- that is, enough sex to reproduce.

Humans formed social constructs to address this problem -- and for damn good reason.  Having the men running around constantly trying to kill or exile one another and then murdering all the children of the previous male, which happens frequently among animals too, is considered immoral -- and that's being kind.  Genghis Khan anyone?  He literally raped his way across continents and has more genetic material expressed in humans today than anyone else to have ever walked upright on two legs.

That social construct humans put together took into account that women are wired to want "one man" but there is no physiological reason for it to be the same one at any given time (e.g. they have every physiological incentive to "trade up" at every opportunity) while men are wired to want to screw as many women as possible.  Both of these natural physiological facts are immutable but you can design incentives to make them unattractive to follow through on.

The media and information revolution, starting with radio and onward, is hugely responsible for appealing to these base physiological instincts and claim that both sexes can have what their base instinct wants.  Why not?  Make men always seek no less than a "9 of 10" and make women always seek the Arnold Schwarzenegger (physically) or Jeff Bezos (wealth) -- preferably both!  Stuff that in both men and women's faces 24x7 to sell all sorts of "stuff" from fast cars to glamorous make-up.  Make the pitch that "buying this car" will get you the fabulous 5'10"' tall, 26" waist gal with 38DD*****. If you're a woman you can have the bronzed 6-pack abs dude with a billion dollars, a 10" all-night cock and 100' yacht.  He'll fly you to Paris for lunch on his private jet too -- if you just buy Chanel #5.

The so-called "sexual revolution" intentionally destroyed all of the social constructs that had been put together over thousands of years of human history.  It was sold to women as "freeing them" from their half of the bargain which was seen as "unjust" and many men foolishly thought it would work out well for them too.

What both women and men were sold was a knowing lie.

Then social media and the Internet came along and made it 100x worse.  Not only is the brag factor out there but a huge part of it isn't even true because anyone can post anything.  Then add to that Tinder, Bumble, Match and the rest.  There was billions of dollars to be made selling both men and women lies and so Zucker****er, Spoogle, Twatter and IAC all went to work on your head -- and no, not the big one.  The one between your legs.

Study after study has shown that women rate 90% of the men as "less than average" in attractiveness and wouldn't consider going on a single date with more than 10% of the men they meet.  That sounds pigheaded but it's nothing more than expression of how women are physiologically wired.  The same studies show that men are much less selective in terms of who they'd be willing to go out with but in terms of how they see attractiveness, not so much.  Indeed irrespective of a man's age within the "breeding band" or his own appearance and wealth virtually all prefer the extremely-cute 20 year old!  Again, they're not pigs; this expression of preference is nothing more than how men are physiologically wired.

So are we surprised at what has happened when all of the social constructs that bound women to men and vice-versa were intentionally destroyed in the name of "feminism" and the "sexual revolution"?

A 20 year old attractive woman gets all the men; she has more cock available to her than she knows what to do with.  She feels great -- for the moment.

The somewhat-attractive 20 year old woman also gets a large number of men; she too has many choices one for each day if she'd like.  She too feels great -- for the moment.

The 6-pack abs dude gets more pussy than he knows what to do with.  Great for him, right?

And the 1%er with money gets all the pussy he knows what to do with no matter what he looks like.  The evidence for that is easy to find too; go anywhere there are nice expensive boats and see all the fat, balding 50 year-olds with a 20-something 36DD chick in a bikini sunning herself -- and that's not his daughter either.  Great for him too, right?

But what about the bottom 50% of guys?  Hell, how about the bottom 80 or even 90 percent?  You know, the dude with a regular old job and a Chevy -- no Lambo, no boat, and no six-pack abs.

They get none; exactly zero of the above women will go out with them.  Such a man is allegedly too "boring."  There are plenty of dudes that have one or both of the six-pack or lots of money so..... all the rest of the dudes wind up going to whack off to porn on the Internet.

What about the bottom 50 -- or 80% of women?

Well, at 20 they might get some, probably all they want is on-offer, but remember -- men are being told they can have it all too, and so they'll get laid but they too have been told they're a princess and can have the six-pack stud, so they have no particular reason to be loyal.  As soon as the somewhat better looking or richer guy comes along they're suddenly "unhappy" and.... well there you go.

Then time goes on a bit.

The 20 year old woman who used to have a lot of dating (read: sexual) options is now 30, and then 40.  She has had lots of sex but she's never happy because there's always richer and better-toned available.  Why should she settle?  She hasn't, in short; there's always a better one right around the corner, in the bar, at work, whatever.  Well, she turns 40 and..... oops.  Mr. SixPack now screws the 20 year old!  Why wouldn't he -- remember, he is supposed to be "sexually liberated" too!  Why take less -- as he sees it -- than he can get?

Women have a few years of very high sexual market value as "price makers" and then it starts declining, and that market value declines fast.  If she wants kids that problem gets serious around the 30ish year mark if she wants 2 or more, and in the mid-30s even if she only wants one.  Maybe one of the dudes who was "boring" but has a nice, steady job runs into her 20 years later.  She turned him down 20 years before; he was neither cute or rich enough and he remembers her choosing to screw the burly dude with the six-pack -- or the guy in the $5,000 suit with the Lambo buying $200 shots -- that night in the bar.  Why would he believe how she truly feels has changed now?  Her desire is transparent and he has no reason to believe she won't **** the Amazon delivery dude next year if he's cuter as soon as she has her kid(s) -- and leave him.

Worse, he'll never see HIS kids again but he'll get the bill to raise them while the Amazon delivery dude goes to Disney with them on his dime.

As for men what do they have on offer when they're 40?  Half or more of men at that point have a nice beer belly and the six-pack is long gone.  If by then he's got a yacht (in other words he's in the 1%) well, that's plenty good enough and he'll keep getting some -- from younger women at that.  But why would he want more than a bang-and-done from any of them?  She's transparent in what she wants, so why wouldn't he be?  Of course he is and will be -- it's only rational and there's nothing unfair about that exchange.

What happens to the now 90%+ of both women and men who are neither stupid-rich or stupid pretty/cute/sexy at 40?

They keep Hustler and the dildo store in business.

Is that such a great deal for nearly everyone out of the so-called "sexual revolution"?  Wouldn't nearly everyone have been better off if most people pair-bonded at 20 and there was a strong disincentive to screw the Amazon delivery dude -- or the 20 year old beach blonde bubble-head?

Heh, if you all like the way things are now then so be it.  You're odd's off to benefit from it, but there's no limit to human stupidity.

Remember, the ****heads who pushed this **** on people were all high-paid academics, media ****heads and politicians, all of whom have a lot of money and power and thus are never in the "common person" category nor will they ever be.  They get all the sex they want all of the time from the day they reach puberty until the day they die and they can and will change the person they sleep with as often as they like -- maybe as often as they change their underwear.  Have either power or money and sexual partners are never in short supply.  Have both and, well, the world's your oyster.

Oh by the way the people who pulled that crap originally are still running their pack of lies too -- the evil bitches named Pelosi and Harris (who literally admits she blew her way into political office!) among them, never mind Trump and  Clinton.  Of course those two could and did "grab 'em by the pussy" (or stuff their dick in an intern's mouth) because they have either a billion dollars or are the most-powerful man in the world.  McKenzie Bezos did just fine after Jeff decided to dick someone else but gee, Jeff got all the pussy he wanted, including while married and still does, right?  McKenzie will get all the dick she wants because she too has a billion dollars.  Ain't that special?

But neither you or I have a billion dollars nor do we have the ability to ram our bull**** down other people's throat at gunpoint because we're just ordinary people instead of being billionaires, Senators, Congress-sluts or Presidents.

In short they don't care about you when it comes to any of this.

If that was all it was then it wouldn't be worth this article.  Frankly, I don't care any more.  Not all that long ago I had a nice big boat.  It was amazing what happened in terms of what was on offer to me literally the day I sold it.  If you think I didn't recognize that immediately you don't have much respect for my level of intelligence.

The bigger problem for society however, and why this is worth the digital ink is that without a solid pair-bonding paradigm the human race is in big trouble and so is our nation.

If only the top 10, 20 or 30% of women have kids and they have no support for same they will only have 1 or 2 because that's all they can have.  The few who are so wealthy they don't care about support, either emotional or monetary can have eight or ten but they won't choose to -- they're too busy making money to have all those kids and besides, it gets in the way of the trips to the Louvre or Alps.

The only people today having a lot of kids are those who could give a wet crap about them in any respect; they simply crank them out as a meal ticket to get freebie government benefits and could care less what happens to them beyond that point.  Those are the kids who turn into teens that go on wilding screeds down on the MagMile of Chicago and, in short order, wind up as gang-bangers shooting, raping and robbing people -- or replicating what their momma did and making eight more for the next turn of the crank.  Our cities are full of these people but up until the so-called "sexual revolution" and "feminism" that subgroup of society for all intents and purposes DID NOT EXIST.  Feminists and the "sexual revolution" CREATED this segment of society AND IT IS NOW EATING THE NATION FROM WITHIN -- LITERALLY.

All-in, statistically, there isn't a fair distribution of children across socio-economic lines and worse even if you don't care about that there aren't enough kids being made in total to keep the human species going in our country -- or any other Western nation.

So the "wise asses" in Government have panicked and threw open the door to illegal immigration, turning same quasi-legal because those people will screw like rabbits and the Ponzi finance system they devised to give away all that money to women cranking out babies without regard to whether Remy, Jose or Harold is the father this time makes it possible to -- for a while -- cut the checks.  Incidentally this includes Trump.

Unfortunately the mathematical reality is that the percentage of children being born who can and will go on to be in the 1% in earnings power (that is, pay disgusting amounts in taxes) and invent things (that is, improve productivity by leaps and bounds) -- or to be more precise, move society forward -- is collapsing and on present trends we will soon see the effective extinction of same.

That people like Ilhan Omar or Maxine Waters can and have been elected to Congress is proof of thisa majority of the people voting in those districts, which is necessary for them to be elected, are in the group that will never produce an Einstein or Henry Ford simply because they don't give a crap about anything except gaining a larger government check for emitting another spawn and the 50-IQ male they bang in order to do it doesn't care either; for him it's nothing more than intermission between shooting at other gang-bangers on the nearest street corner.

The necessary social construct which must be restored has to provide good incentives for men and women to "pair off" early and permanently in life.  Like around 20 years of age.  At the same time the incentive to crank out babies you don't give a crap about and who turn into gang-bangers and worse on a wildly disparate basis must be ended entirely or we will be swallowed by those individuals.  The reform needed must come at both sides of the sex aisle -- not just one.

This is not a trivial issue nor is a simple-minded (and there are lots of those folks out there -- beware the banhammer in the comment section here if you're one of them) answer going to work.

This much is certain, however -- any such solution involves getting rid of those in power who have promoted the lie of both "sexual revolution" and "feminism" to both sexes for decades and deposing them to somewhere at least as remote in terms of their access to the levers of power as is Mars.

This must happen -- and soon.

Like now.

2024 is coming, which is a knee point in federal finances.  The math is what it is and there's nothing anyone can do to change it at this point in time.  While we cannot possibly reverse the demographic damage in that amount of time -- it simply can't be done, as it will take a full generation or more to make a serious dent in it -- we had better be well on our way by then or people in the markets and society are both likely to put not just middle fingers up in the air when government finance collapses but things that expel items from their business ends that are much more-forceful.

The gang-bangers already have plenty of them and they've demonstrated they'll use them with no hint of restraint.

Your move, fools.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last
User Info Political Incorrectness And Truth in forum [Market-Ticker]
Flappingeagle
Posts: 3071
Incept: 2011-04-14

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
The bigger problem for society however, and why this is worth the digital ink is that without a solid pair-bonding paradigm the human race is in big trouble and so is our nation.

If only the top 10, 20 or 30% of women have kids and they have no support for same they will only have 1 or 2 because that's all they can have. The few who are so wealthy they don't care about support, either emotional or monetary can have eight or ten but they won't choose to -- they're too busy making money to have all those kids and besides, it gets in the way of the trips to the Louvre or Alps.


About six months ago I started saying both in public and on facebook that we should encourage the smart women to have more babies. I said it could be as easy as an extra payment or a tax break to any woman who has a bachelor's degree and could start with the third (or maybe even second) child. (Could be implemented many other ways.)

Surprisingly, I have gotten ZERO PUSHBACK. Not from the liberals, the conservatives, the whites, or the minorities. I will admit that my sample is probably biased toward people with college degrees but still, no pushback at all is surprising. The conclusion I am reaching from this is that the top half of the country realizes what is happening and that genetics does matter. YMMV.

Flap

----------
Here are my predictions for everyone to see:
S&P 500 at 320, DOW at 2200, Gold $300/oz, and Corn $2/bu.
No sign that housing, equities, or farmland are in a bubble- Yellen 11/14/13
Trying to leave the Rat Race to the rats...
Juspooped
Posts: 1
Incept: 2019-04-24

Dallas
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
read this article and watch Idiocracy. It tells you where we are going
Greenrebellion
Posts: 534
Incept: 2009-01-03

Los Angeles
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
One of your best articles ever.
Thomasblair
Posts: 120
Incept: 2009-04-03

NC
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Lowering birthrates for the **** heels isn't possible without some combination of 1) sterilization, forced or voluntary 2) letting their kids just die of poor parenting 3) killing them, directly or indirectly.

Every functional solution is one of these three. End welfare? #2. Condition welfare on birth control? #1. Reconquista 2.0? #3.

The citizens of the American nation don't have the stomach or nerve for that and if they ever get it, it will probably be too late.
Click
Posts: 522
Incept: 2017-06-26

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It used to be common knowledge that the family unit was the building block of a great civilization. So, logically, in order to "make America great again" American family life would have to be great. Frankly, I just can't see that happening, because of the many reasons Karl outlined above.

People on longer respect the Law of Moses --- or Abraham. What do I mean? Stop and think about how 3,400 years ago the Law of Circumcision must have totally changed an early collection of tribes into, now, one of the oldest races currently in existence. That was no accident. Taking men's penis and making the penis a focal point surrounded by laws which strictly guided where, when, why, how and with whom the penis was to be used was a turning point for all of the succeeding generations --- including ours.

The Law of the Penis was a significant law, indeed. No other moral law was even close. The Law of the Penis was instituted during a time in which "men of other national groups" were sticking their penis in just about everything that walked, crawled or had a hole... dead or alive, animate or inimate, male or female. Does any of that depraved sex sound familiar, today?

History repeats. Tens os millions of men and women are so far removed from the Law of Moses which Jesus later improved by adding that a man should only have sex with one wife. One.

What is the result of breaking the higher moral Law? Well, for one thing, God doesn't have to lift a finger to punish anybody who already punishes himself by turning his sex drive into something in which acute unhappiness results. People are actually punishing themselves.

Take a good look around. Are people really happy? Are the 1% really happy?In my opinion, human intercourse was designed by God to go far deeper than a penis in a vagina. And I'm not preaching that fact as someone who has lived all of his life being morally correct and upright. No, I was once young and sexually active, but long-term it got me no real satisfaction until I settled down with one woman and obeyed the Law of Moses and the Law of the Christ.

My only moral problem now is I cuss like a sailor's parrot.

As far as advice to any young man who wants to have a monogamous relationship which lasts a lifetime: it's still possible, but unlikely. The odds are heavily stacked against you. Go ahead and give it your best shot, but don't expect to live "happily ever after".

Tolonaro
Posts: 3
Incept: 2010-06-10

St Louis, MO
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
You are of course correct in your logic. However, there are associated realities. Because we have 10 biochildren, I keep an eye out for other larger families and, lo, they are out there. Check, for example, the Ford Transit page on Facebook. You find many larger families there. Or check on the adoption sites - there are many larger families etting there with adoption. One point is that there are many of us who love children. The picture of "sex" being the only drive in one's life is, in itself, part of the feminist falsehoods!

Christianity teaches that men and women have a built in desire to share a life, for a man and a woman to live together as complements to each other. This shows up in the fact that, in spite of the hinderances to marriage which you point out properly, men and women keep getting married. Thus the future is not quite as grim as you paint it. Still the contradictions between what is obvious policy and reality that you point out should be corrected.

A related problem is the drug question. Without considering the equity or the desirableness of the drug laws - the fact is that drugs are destroying Americans. In this context, the result is that parents are unable to raise their children. The search for foster parents for children is desparate, not because the state is seizing children randomly, but because drugs are destroying the parents will/ability to raise the children they have. The problem of how to reproduce the country's population is made worse by this destruction of the parenting of the children that do get born.
Thelazer
Posts: 245
Incept: 2009-05-11

Davenport, Fl
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Add in those who they threw open the boarders, don't seem to care about you or your kids either (and in fact want to kill them, since that is what there god says) and you've got a right mess on your hands.
Asimov
Posts: 111162
Incept: 2007-08-26

East Tennessee Eastern Time
Online
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Remove the consequences for people's actions and this (among many other things) is what you get.

When consequences are reinstated (and they most certainly will be) future generations will have something to look back at and laugh about, like we do what used to pass for medical treatments.

At least they will if we manage to survive and carry our history forward.

----------
It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity.

Festina lente.
Nadavegan
Posts: 163
Incept: 2017-05-03

The South
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
A tour de force, Karl. Much like an Old Testament passage for the digital age.

@Click touches on this in his note above. Another thought, since you have laid bare the very reasons for the Mosaic Law. Most people find the Old Testament God to be brutal and archaic. But if you go back and read it again, holding to the context of a God trying to set up a moral, stable society in the midst of peoples who were themselves brutal and archaic, you might find it makes a lot more sense. Just like Karl has written here.
Sancho
Posts: 56
Incept: 2013-12-06

Way, way south of Rio Grande
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
This is a post-truth age were the only certainty is that everything Western is bad.

You are male, white, wealthy, catholic, western, heterosexual trying to find truth?

This is insulting. Please respect my feelings.

/sarc

PD: It is really,really sarcasm. I re-read what I wrote and I now feel that Poe's law may apply here.

----------
Face a bear robbed of her cubs,
but never a fool in his folly!
Proverbs 17:12
Vernonb
Posts: 2397
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Hedonism has become the basis of the Western society. Most people look to be entertained in some fashion music, drunkenness, movies, sex, tv, porn, toys, clothes, sports, etc. to keep their minds occupied withthings that have no long term benefit. Wonder why the suicide rate seems to be so high in this country especially white males? I think it all has to do with treating life as a game of trivial pursuits. I could also go into a dissertation about the 7 deadly sins and how they are manifested and become core values in the culture of today. A society that promotes psychological and moral poisons will always eventually kill itself off.

It used to be the Church was instrumental in instilling values that would help people to counter such evils. Now the core foundation of Christendom itself has succumbed to the evils it once railed against. Where is the true standard banner of virtue? True virtue has become an obsolete term that has become the object of scorn and ridicule. The burning of the Notre Dame was perhaps a symbol. Many talk about rebuilding the structure. It will be nothing more than an empty symbol unless hearts and minds change in Western society.

Yet the actual rational mind of most adults really havent fully formed till about the age of 25 (if you actually believe academics). Yet we send our kids to these damned indoctrination centers called schools and universities. I can honestly say my core fundamental beliefs in right and wrong were formed by the time I was 6.

Lets start with women....

Girls just want to have fun right? Talk about shirking any responsibility and the expectation of being entertained. Shheessh...

I think one of the biggest issues is that most women simply do not know what they want. A fundamental lack of understanding between healthy and unhealthy behaviors exist. Many cant distinguish a true and healthy need from some wanton desire.

The wanton desires promoted by academics, politicians, and advertisers are always fleeting. Any wonder why most adverts are directed toward women to making some decision? Then they have to look for the next big thing to get that dopamine hit at some price to be that girl. Oft times it is the husband/boyfriend providing those funds for appeasement. They must keep up with the Jones to avoid the wrath of the wife/girlfriend.

In the end it is little more than short lived bragging rights but the financial consequences and debt slavery are always there. Greed and covetousness is what drives this mindset. Decisions based on emotions especially envy - seldom are a good thing especially when the basis of that emotion is to simply feel better by buying happiness. Such happiness is fleeting and watch out for the buyers remorse.

So what is it that she needs to trade up for happiness the car, the kitchen, the house, the boyfriend, the husband? No distinction is made between objects and persons for the harm caused. The programming has created a generation of cultural narcissists with the ever screaming mantra of ME! and SERVE ME!
Then we have big daddy government now serving as the proxy husband for many of these single women especially those with kids. Sugar daddy government simply gives and these women have no true accountability for their bad decisions. These women become a voting block for politicians that use them.

Empowerment is taking responsibility for your own decisions and living up to the consequences of those decisions on your own. This is the primary flaw in the lie called feminism that always expect special treatment especially single moms.

Words used to mean things and we label things for a reason. The term ***** had real meaning and once branded with such a word by actions no decent man would come near such a woman. Now these women wish to pretend they are liberated. They are too stupid to see the chains they have forged for themselves.

About the men....

Then we have generations of men that seem to lack any type of rational impulse control for violence or sex. Men of quality are missing from their lives. Most are surrounded by the estrogen sea and the majority of their interactions are primarily with women. Put this lack of control and place it later with money or power then you are almost assuredly going to witness a truly dispicable human being. I see a sociopath in the making.

Fathers it seems are generally the ones that set boundaries. Yet with this servile generation of man simps that have come along due to lack of decent male role models they become totally clueless how to govern or interact with kids in setting boundaries.

Academics have used their position to destroy the basis of the nuclear family and consequently extended family which in the end brings an end to a highly functional society. If parents can produce at least 2 kids they cant replace themselves.
With all the debt slavery going on since the 60s both parents are out of the house and the kids get dumped into some day care center. Now the bankers and politicians want to import more debt slaves through illegal immigrants. This has nothing to do with the welfare of the country as a whole only finding other people to enslave that will breed like rabbits to expand such debt slavery.

I find this expansion in human population quite contridictory considering most leftist already believe the world is overpopulated. What they are really saying is that it is overpopulated with WHITE people.

Then we have this BS about romantic love where a man must somehow indenture himself to a woman in order to gain her affections. The fool will soon find himself penniless as his fickle lady decides to trade up.

Perhaps the worse is the American court system that seems to ALWAYS assume the worst about fathers while treating women as some paragon of virtue. Honestly in todays world with such imbalances in the laws why should any man get married or even want to have kids? Kids that can alter be used as a weapon. Marriage was suppossed to be a contract between two people. Without fair laws and consequences women get to abandon their side of the contract.

Its time to stop interferring with the consquences of stupid and let nature takes its course.



----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Captainkidd
Posts: 1344
Incept: 2010-05-25

Houston, Texas
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
There is a reason, I believe, that every dystopian future that is represented in movies, books, or any other type of literary effort, always has a very elite, Rich, privileged class, and a downtrodden, low class, starving populace that supports them. That's where we're heading.
Life truly does imitate art.

----------
A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a thousand men with guns. --Mario Puzo

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. -- Henry Ford
Drifter
Posts: 271
Incept: 2016-02-11

Pacific Northwest
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It's sad that speaking what is really common sense and established science is a revolutionary act. As I've said to many libs: biology and hypergamy don't give a crap about your ****lib cause du jour.

At no time in human history has there been so few limits on female hypergamy, brought to you by the pill, easy divorce rape, and female economic independence.

Men in the eyes of the law and our culture are just beasts of burden with no rights, only obligations. Therefore, the key to happiness in our current mileau is to never marry and if you want kids hire a surrogate.
Bodhi
Posts: 1102
Incept: 2008-02-23

Georgia
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
As soon as the somewhat better looking or richer guy comes along they're suddenly "unhappy" and.... well there you go.


I quickly learned what a quagmire you can step into when hear the words "I'm not happy" from a woman. It pretty much implies that your sex life will soon resemble that of a cloistered monk if you don't fix the situation. Then you can run yourself ragged and drain your bank account trying to guess what will make them happy again. The last time I heard these words from my former wife I responded, "It's not my job to make you happy. Besides, happiness is a subjective state of mind. You're as happy as you decide to be." Instead of the expected outburst she just quietly slunk away stunned that her ploy to extort goodies out of me wouldn't work anymore.
Mjsmith
Posts: 200
Incept: 2011-12-08

United States
Online
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Consider all the greatest literature from the entirety of human history. From the Iliad and the Odyssey, to the Bible, to Shakespeare, to Aesop, the stories of Ulysses, Gilgamesh, and Beowulf. Both fiction and historical nonfiction.

Am I the only one who has noticed that every single one these works which has endured the test of time, contains substantial warnings, both metaphorical and literally explicit, regarding the dangers of allowing women's hypergamy to go unchecked?

It's not a new thing.
Kareninca
Posts: 279
Incept: 2011-08-23

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"About six months ago I started saying both in public and on facebook that we should encourage the smart women to have more babies. I said it could be as easy as an extra payment or a tax break to any woman who has a bachelor's degree and could start with the third (or maybe even second) child. "

Are you serious? Decide to have a child because of a tax break???? A lifetime of worry and expense and concern, for a tax break???? Putting another human out into the world, to whom anything awful might happen, who might be unhappy or ill-treated, in a society that is going down the toilet, for a tax break????????

I would love to see the IQ data for those who would be inspired by a tax break, versus those who wouldn't.

Look around you. When I look around me, here in Silicon Valley, I see huge numbers of homeless people, including ones who worked all their lives, who aren't drug addicts. I also read about numerous people dying of drug overdoses, alone, in some alley. I am SO glad I didn't have kids; I have no reason to think they wouldn't fall into that; it is not a matter of intelligence. What is needed is a society that is not going to hell; where women think that their kids will be okay if they have problems. I have a neighbor whose sons both have mental issues; what will happen to them when she and her husband are gone? It is awful. A trivial amount of money via a tax break is not the answer.
Lenguado
Posts: 2656
Incept: 2010-01-12
A True American Patriot!
Orlando, FL
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Idiocracy is supposed to be a dystopian fictional comedy.

Turns out it is actually a 'Pre-Documentary'.

Nothing changes until 2024 rolls around. Just be ready - and keep your family (tribe) close.


----------
"War is when your government tells you who the enemy is. A revolution is when you figure it out yourself." --Unknown

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." - President John F. Kennedy

Reason: post video link
Tickerguy
Posts: 157211
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Flappingeagle --
Quote:
About six months ago I started saying both in public and on facebook that we should encourage the smart women to have more babies. I said it could be as easy as an extra payment or a tax break to any woman who has a bachelor's degree and could start with the third (or maybe even second) child. (Could be implemented many other ways.)

That's literally insane.

A "tax break" is nowhere near sufficient for anyone who is ACTUALLY intelligent. Getting a bachelors is trivially easy in "Wimmens studies" with 100k worth of debt you can take on, even if your IQ is 80 -- these days nobody fails, remember, so long as they can pay!

This **** was bad in the 1990s and now it's ridiculous.

YOU HAVE TO FIX THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS AND IF YOU DO YOU WON'T HAVE TO BRIBE ANYONE.

----------
Winding it down.
Kareninca
Posts: 279
Incept: 2011-08-23

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
There are actually women who want to have loads of sexual partners who are not doing it in order to trade up. My mother, for instance, had countless affairs, but was not interested in leaving my father, and he wasn't wildly handsome or successful (however he was extremely smart). Of course in the old days she would have been stoned to death. As it was, there were lots of happy guys (other than my father)(she was stunningly gorgeous). I wonder how much of female variety-seeking is just that - variety seeking - and how much is the desire to trade up. The thing is, you can look at the behavior of a particular woman and perhaps not be able to tell which is motivating her. I have an ex-friend who was also constantly in search of sexual variety - and she wasn't seeking to trade up; she just wanted variety; she told me that she took the epithet "slut" as a compliment. She slept with plenty of beta guys (and she was very attractive). I suppose that technically the shortage of sexual partners for beta males could be solved by encouraging this, rather than encouraging monogamy. There might be downsides to that, haha.

Well, just musing. I've managed to be faithful to my husband despite the ambiguous examples.
Gauntlet33
Posts: 109
Incept: 2009-03-30

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karl,

Fabulous topic! I was in my early 30s when I came to the same conclusion that 90+% of the women want their version of "Elvis Presley" (even if they themselves are fat and/or not attractive) and that therefore 90% of men don't get any, which further explains why the "free" online porn industry is everywhere.

Luckily, I was considered to be in the "better looking half" so I got mine from the ladies, but felt bad for friends who were nice and very decent looking, but who couldn't manage a second date and have gone without for a few years!

Anyway, the genetic lottery is not fair, but you're right that the bigger issue is that it is leading to the downfall of our society.

Last, it's not that those "on top" don't care...they actually want the system (marital, economic, political) to collapse and are actively promoting its downfall. Call me tinhat, but I heard that they are pushing the free porn websites on us in order to disintegrate the family, and I for one believe that the fact that these sites don't generate the money necessary is proof of that motive.
Tinman
Posts: 418
Incept: 2008-02-16

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Great ticker. For some reason I come away thinking of Samson and Delilah. The man surrendered to sin and became morally/spiritually blind even before his eyes were gouged. The ending of course is his act of pulling the walls down and killing everyone. Maybe that is our fate, the Samson option.
Mangymutt
Posts: 984
Incept: 2015-05-03

Vancouver WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Kareninca -
Quote:
Well, just musing. I've managed to be faithful to my husband despite the ambiguous examples.


That is because you are not your mother.

Thank you for sharing the above, human nature fascinates me and how we can all be so similar, but also completely different. Although your mother did not "trade up" she was obviously content with what she had, so trading up could have been devastating for that.

Nature is wonderful and inspiring, but imperfect at best. I have had the pleasure of meeting people with horrific birth defects, no one would have willing chosen some of these peoples situations, but nature deemed it so. I have met women that are built like NFL linebackers, but are as feminine as the day is long. I have met people who are born short, or dumb, or crazy. Nature spits these things out from time to time.

If nature (God) does these things physically, it (He) also has people be born with different sexual deviations. I am one that believes a small number of women are born with over active sex drives, like your mother as some men are born with no sex drive whatsoever. That means some people are also born homosexual, it is just the way it is. But those numbers are less than 1%.

The problem arises when people who see how willingly your mother had sex start to believe it is ok for them to also. Men and women who are born true homosexual are not normal, but when men (or women) start believing it is ok to be with the same sex for the sake of sex, bad things start happening. And that is one of the reasons why the homosexual community screams so fiercely, because they know they are wrong and they do not want to be called out and shamed, as they will have to face the guilt of their wrong doings. So it is easier for them to force the rest of the world to except their deviance.

People like your mother are few and far between and for good reason, society as a whole would not last long if women viewed sex the same way men do. Yet that is what the agenda of the lies being forced upon us dictates and most people are unable to cope with the guilt wanton sex brings. So they try and drag as many others down that path as they can.

I am glad things worked out for your mother and father, he too must of been getting something from the situation. I am sure despite your mothers willingness to drop her panties she was a wonderful woman. As it seems she did a wonderful job in raising you.

Again thanks for sharing your muses, I found it fascinating.
Mangymutt
Posts: 984
Incept: 2015-05-03

Vancouver WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
DAMN DUDE!!! You have written some wonderful Tickers, but for me this one ranks way up there and should be broadcast loudly and often. Most will chose to ignore it and fight the facts as you laid them out. But just like Tickers on eating properly, money management, health care and many other subjects you have written on they only scream to cover up their lies and guilt. While they drag as many unopened minds and souls with them into the pits of their despair.

So if I understood the premise of this Ticker correctly - You are saying there is no santa clause, easter bunny, tooth fairy, rainbow crapping unicorns or sex without a price....Damn who knew?

Just as stopping the flow of illegals, ending the current monetary thievery or dismantling the health care scam will not create a utopia, going back to the way nature intended sex will also not be 100% perfect. But it would be a damn site better than the path of destruction our future generations are heading.

And anybody using the "It's not perfect" argument has their heads full of rocks - IT IS NOT PERFECT!!! But so much better than the lies we are being sold.

As individual beings.
We should be able to eat all the crappy food we want. Take on as much debt as we can and and **** how we want. Meaning the state nor the church should be allowed to dictate what we do with our lives. At the same time if I want to eat as many jelly donuts on borrowed money while ****ing every thing willing to **** me back, I should pay the price of my actions. And that means being broke, miserable and hopefully dying of a heart attack before having my dick fall off as syphilis eats my brain. And YOU nor ANYBODY else should be responsible for my stupidity.

Men and women are human and will do stupid things, we cannot force anyone to be faithful, respectful or truthful, but when we have our government (And churches)setting agenda and policy that robs people of the truth and perpetuates lies we as a nation cannot last very long.

No two ways about it, there is no way to change human behavior, but this Ticker is spot on and I hope the message gets out to as many as will listen.
Annfan
Posts: 2
Incept: 2017-10-28

Jersey Shore
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Im a single mother. I was made so against my will and for no moral or just cause. Its a source of unending shame and suffering.
I was married for 20 years to a man I loved and was 100% loyal and faithful to. I bore him two precious, flawless, beautiful white daughters.
We both come from good families and were married in the Catholic Church.
I am estranged now from all friends and family and the Church has been LESS than help.
Im younger than my ex-husband by 11 years and considered very attractive. I have a college degree and an honorable discharge from the US Navy (from a 4-yr enlistment - no college debt.)
I was never a feminist, have always been a staunch conservative, and believed my ex to have been the same.
Porn? Mid-life crisis? Underlying personality disorder? I cant really say what happened, other than my utter decimation.
And dont give me the family court bias in the favor of women - I was positively flagellated, decimated, and our family assets obliterated despite my best efforts. Ive all but lost my eldest daughter to a third party in the melee and worse. I lost WAY MORE than half my assets.
Mr. Denninger brings solid points to the fore, as usual. But where are the paths to remedy?
Certainly 2000 years of Christianity's formation of civilization shant easily be taken down by a generation or two of ignorance and debauchery? But it seems to be the case.
What is ones recourse? The Church has proven an impotent end. Family structures are breaking down rapidly. I was very well fortified and prepared (more than most - of my own accord - the only reason I survived the horror) but I now find myself without a tribe - a woman alone with two white virgins to provide for and protect - an almost impossible situation. Its like a medieval nightmare.
Does not anyone see that this is the brutal cause of this conundrum? The breakdown of the family structure - most especially MARRIAGE - is reeking abject havoc upon us.
Most of you here are men. Ive read it here (and elsewhere) many times. Ive read of mens laments and suffering as a result.
The article speaks of the social constructs failing our rightly earned social order as a result thereof. This is not new information.
Its not the sexual revolution. Its the assault on MARRIAGE in every form they told us. Its the states imposition on it. Its no-fault divorce. Its the assault on the family by definition. Its everything predicted by the Church with the imposition of artificial birth control.
This is so obvious to some of us were incredulous. Which is why were apparently powerless to combat it, I guess.
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 1 of 2  First12Last