[Atlanta Man]

(12-08-2016 03:35 PM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

[quote='Atlanta Man' pid='1460173' dateline='1481228665

My parents left a home they loved to get out of a bad public school system (my sister was being beaten and robbed daily for the crime of being white).

I think my dad spent 1/4 of his life commuting to his job so we could have good school (in reality, they weren't that good). I actually didn't see my Dad that much because he had to leave home so early and got home so late. It was draining on him and he did it for over two decades.

I am in a similar situation as you. Moving to Idaho is not an option. My career requires me to be in a major metro area. I just don't want to end up spending my life getting to and from my job like my dad did.

I understand your issues. My sister and her husband paid 1.1 million for their house in Maryland and the public schools in that neighborhood are fucking amazing. Small classes , pristine campus, dedicated teachers, zero violence, and sky high test scores.

My cousin and his wife live in Southwest Atlanta, their house was $60,000. Schools are a fucking war zone. The neighborhood is near many open air drug markets, and gang activity is high.

My suggestion to you is to do what I was planning to do if my income does not pan out the way I want it to. Move your family to the country where a Mansion is $150,000-200,000 in a small city , and rent a cheap studio as close as possible (walking distance if you can) to your job. You can deduct the rent from your taxable income. You will not see your children as much, but they will understand when they are older. Remember, children require sacrifice and patience.

[DamienCasanova]

This reminds me of the "beautiful ones" mouse utopia experiment

What happens when you give society unlimited food, and pack them into little condos like sardines? How does population density affect reproduction? How does social media turn reproductive females into vain selfie taking tinderellas?

http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-rats-turned-t...1687584457

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news...180954423/

"The few secluded spaces housed a population Calhoun called, "the beautiful ones." Generally guarded by one male, the females—- and few males — inside the space didn't breed or fight or do anything but eat and groom and sleep. When the population started declining the beautiful ones were spared from violence and death, but had completely lost touch with social behaviors, including having sex or caring for their young."

Sort of sounds like the sexual marketplace/political landscape today, eh?

[Repo]

But what is your argument for not trying to give your kids the best chance? Not trying to put words in your mouth but it seems you are implying people should suck it up and have more kids for the greater good.

[Atlanta Man]

(12-08-2016 03:45 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:24 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

You didn't actually disagree with any off the points I made though and you didn't refute any of my claims.

You stated exactly what I explained is endemic to middle-class America.

You stated you want to raise your kids in a nicer, higher-value area, in an expensive home near a major city, and offer them lots of luxuries that only a family with a higher bracket of income can afford. There is nothing wrong with that but it is not necessary.

Inferring that raising your kids anywhere but in a 3/4mio dollar home in the nicest part of town, paying out of pocket for all of their higher education and covering all of their living costs until they are in their mid-to-late 20's so they can join your firm is the only alternative to them being criminal statistics is absurd.

I do not want my kids to be ok, I want them to thrive. People here talk a lot about Trump, I see his family and think that seems like a plan. Providing your children with a safe neighborhood full of possible professional connections, an above average education, debt free life, and professional head start is what my personal plan is. It is not the only alternative, it is my plan based on what I have seen and experienced. Romney, Trump, and other well off people seem to be positioning their children for legacy wealth and success-I intend to do as much as I can to put my children in a good position long term.

[General Stalin]

(12-08-2016 03:51 PM)Repo Wrote:  

But what is your argument for not trying to give your kids the best chance? Not trying to put words in your mouth but it seems you are implying people should suck it up and have more kids for the greater good.

I'm not trying to imply what people should/should-not do at all. I'm simply explaining the phenomenon that is endemic to educated, well-paid, middle-class white Americans who rationalize why they won't/can't have children.

You don't need to be rich to breed and raise your offspring well. Shit, I'm willing to bet a large portion of us Red Pill well-educated financially, professionally, and socially savvy men came from families of modest means. I know I certainly did and a few members I have met did as well.

[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

(12-08-2016 03:47 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

My suggestion to you is to do what I was planning to do if my income does not pan out the way I want it to. Move your family to the country where a Mansion is $150,000-200,000 in a small city , and rent a cheap studio as close as possible (walking distance if you can) to your job. You can deduct the rent from your taxable income. You will not see your children as much, but they will understand when they are older. Remember, children require sacrifice and patience.

My career mainly involves large hospitals and office buildings. Leaving the NYC metro area (or an area like it) means a career change for me. Not really an option for me now that I am no longer young. $200k won't even get you a home in the ghetto now. The homes actually get more expensive the farther from the city you get.

My area is rapidly gentrifying. I bought here 20 years ago (when property was dirt cheap) because I saw what was going to happen. My kid(s) will have access to lots of activities (martial arts, pool, a really good public park) without being exposed to a violent ghetto (not much "ghetto" left around here). I bought a 4 family building so I have rent income covering most of my building expenses.

The one major issue as I stated earlier is the schools. There is a really good magnet high school here.. but the choices are limited for grades K - 8. We have charter schools... but the teaching is steeply SJW - Cultural Marxist crap that I don't want my kids poisoned with.

[Serious Sam]

(12-08-2016 03:24 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

A decent house in Atlanta in Buckhead is $750,000. That is so your Public School is not a prison pipeline, and your neighborhood is full of professionals.

Off topic, but just curious. Have you considered any of the northern suburbs like Gwinnett County or the Buford area? The commute may be too much for you (especially if working downtown), but you can find good homes/neighborhoods for half that price or less. I grew up in Gwinnett, and as long as you avoid certain well-known shitty areas (as with anywhere near Atlanta), your kids can live a good life there.

[Atlanta Man]

(12-08-2016 03:50 PM)DamienCasanova Wrote:  

This reminds me of the "beautiful ones" mouse utopia experiment

What happens when you give society unlimited food, and pack them into little condos like sardines? How does population density affect reproduction? How does social media turn reproductive females into vain selfie taking tinderellas?

http://io9.gizmodo.com/how-rats-turned-t...1687584457

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news...180954423/

"The few secluded spaces housed a population Calhoun called, "the beautiful ones." Generally guarded by one male, the females—- and few males — inside the space didn't breed or fight or do anything but eat and groom and sleep. When the population started declining the beautiful ones were spared from violence and death, but had completely lost touch with social behaviors, including having sex or caring for their young."

Sort of sounds like the sexual marketplace/political landscape today, eh?

Instead of not having sex, I have plenty of sex- I just pull out of the vagina and put my semen her mouth. Declining birthrates are a swallowing issue.

[General Stalin]

(12-08-2016 04:01 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

I do not want my kids to be ok, I want them to thrive. People here talk a lot about Trump, I see his family and think that seems like a plan. Providing your children with a safe neighborhood full of possible professional connections, an above average education, debt free life, and professional head start is what my personal plan is. It is not the only alternative, it is my plan based on what I have seen and experienced. Romney, Trump, and other well off people seem to be positioning their children for legacy wealth and success-I intend to do as much as I can to put my children in a good position long term.

I agree with that and good on you man. I think every man should do the best he can to provide the best life and opportunity for his family. Whatever his means can afford. I like your outlook.

All I'm getting at is just because someone can't afford all the same things that you can doesn't mean they should shy away from starting a family.

I want to have children someday and I highly doubt I am going to be Trump or Romney status to be able to offer them every opportunity in the world on a silver platter, but that is not going to stop me from raising some great kids who can grow up to be great people and do some great things and give me grandchildren some day. If my kids wind up being railworkers and ditch diggers I'll love them the same and I'll be proud that they are earning an honest living, and providing for their families the same way I provided for them.

[Atlanta Man]

(12-08-2016 04:03 PM)Hell_Is_Like_Newark Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:47 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

My suggestion to you is to do what I was planning to do if my income does not pan out the way I want it to. Move your family to the country where a Mansion is $150,000-200,000 in a small city , and rent a cheap studio as close as possible (walking distance if you can) to your job. You can deduct the rent from your taxable income. You will not see your children as much, but they will understand when they are older. Remember, children require sacrifice and patience.

My career mainly involves large hospitals and office buildings. Leaving the NYC metro area (or an area like it) means a career change for me. Not really an option for me now that I am no longer young. $200k won't even get you a home in the ghetto now. The homes actually get more expensive the farther from the city you get.

My area is rapidly gentrifying. I bought here 20 years ago (when property was dirt cheap) because I saw what was going to happen. My kid(s) will have access to lots of activities (martial arts, pool, a really good public park) without being exposed to a violent ghetto (not much "ghetto" left around here). I bought a 4 family building so I have rent income covering most of my building expenses.

The one major issue as I stated earlier is the schools. There is a really good magnet high school here.. but the choices are limited for grades K - 8. We have charter schools... but the teaching is steeply SJW - Cultural Marxist crap that I don't want my kids poisoned with.

Schooling is my be all end all problem as well in terms of quality and cost, I really empathize with your dilemma. I just don't have the answers if you live in NYC. I did not even know the Suburbs were more expensive than the cities, my knowledge of real estate and education is limited to the southeast and to a smaller extent the DC area.

[Disco_Volante]

I wonder how small the white population has to get before they realize they can't tax them anymore to subsidize their ridiculous birthrates.

Like in 2100, when whites are 15% of the population, will there still be politicians running on the platform of 'bigotry' towards dark people and how the solution is for government to take more from productive producers.

Maybe I'm an extreme right wing racist, but, given the lack of success in latino countries I have a hard time imagining they will make America any better.

Maybe by then everything will be automated anyways, and it will be overlords directing subsidies for a largely non-white population.

[Hell_Is_Like_Newark]

(12-08-2016 04:21 PM)Disco_Volante Wrote:  

I wonder how small the white population has to get before they realize they can't tax them anymore to subsidize their ridiculous birthrates.

We already passed that point with $0.40 of every dollar the federal government spends being borrowed. At some point there won't be people willing to buy our debt at near zero interest rates and this little party will come to an abrupt end.

The day the EBT cards stop working will be the modern version of when the free bread stopped showing up for the mobs in Rome.

[Atlanta Man]

(12-08-2016 04:04 PM)Serious Sam Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:24 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

A decent house in Atlanta in Buckhead is $750,000. That is so your Public School is not a prison pipeline, and your neighborhood is full of professionals.

Off topic, but just curious. Have you considered any of the northern suburbs like Gwinnett County or the Buford area? The commute may be too much for you (especially if working downtown), but you can find good homes/neighborhoods for half that price or less. I grew up in Gwinnett, and as long as you avoid certain well-known shitty areas (as with anywhere near Atlanta), your kids can live a good life there.

OTP will not have as many connections Buckhead. My kids will likely go to Pace, Westminster, Galloway, or a Montessori School. Those connections are priceless and those schools are a pipeline to the best colleges. On another note Gwinett, and Cobb county law enforcement are not amenable to overt displays of affluence by my kind (let's leave it at that, no race thread). I don't want my kids to make a dumb mistake and have to deal with the courts OTP, Fulton county courts jurisdiction is where any mistakes should be made for my kids, especially my son.

[Atlanta Man]

(12-08-2016 04:07 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:01 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

I do not want my kids to be ok, I want them to thrive. People here talk a lot about Trump, I see his family and think that seems like a plan. Providing your children with a safe neighborhood full of possible professional connections, an above average education, debt free life, and professional head start is what my personal plan is. It is not the only alternative, it is my plan based on what I have seen and experienced. Romney, Trump, and other well off people seem to be positioning their children for legacy wealth and success-I intend to do as much as I can to put my children in a good position long term.

I agree with that and good on you man. I think every man should do the best he can to provide the best life and opportunity for his family. Whatever his means can afford. I like your outlook.

All I'm getting at is just because someone can't afford all the same things that you can doesn't mean they should shy away from starting a family.

I want to have children someday and I highly doubt I am going to be Trump or Romney status to be able to offer them every opportunity in the world on a silver platter, but that is not going to stop me from raising some great kids who can grow up to be great people and do some great things and give me grandchildren some day. If my kids wind up being railworkers and ditch diggers I'll love them the same and I'll be proud that they are earning an honest living, and providing for their families the same way I provided for them.

I understand. I agree not everyone can do the whole upper middle class plan , and that should not prevent them from moving forward with a family. We are in agreement on that point 100 percent.

[MANic]

except the traditional middle classes of even just 5+ years ago don't exist anymore. Whilst I'm not American this is a natural trend.
The traditional middle classes public schools (previously filled by the children of a respectable middle class - parents in middle management and some tradies) are now ravaged by low class immigrants.
Whilst not inherently bad, the vast majority of these immigrants are unsavory.
You either move up the ladder economically and send you kid to an elite school or become a casualty - I've seen it over and over again.
This trend is common in all urban centres, just replace immigrant with low class and it's applicable from India to the UK.

I can not even contemplate a possible reversal of this devolution - except a severe cutback of welfare, aid and some government intervention.
The average upper middle class or traditional middle firmly places quality over quantity with a the bottom-tier subscribing to the opposite paradigm.

[Serious Sam]

(12-08-2016 04:27 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 04:04 PM)Serious Sam Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:24 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

A decent house in Atlanta in Buckhead is $750,000. That is so your Public School is not a prison pipeline, and your neighborhood is full of professionals.

Off topic, but just curious. Have you considered any of the northern suburbs like Gwinnett County or the Buford area? The commute may be too much for you (especially if working downtown), but you can find good homes/neighborhoods for half that price or less. I grew up in Gwinnett, and as long as you avoid certain well-known shitty areas (as with anywhere near Atlanta), your kids can live a good life there.

OTP will not have as many connections Buckhead. My kids will likely to Pace, Westminster, Galloway, or a Montessori School. Those connections are priceless and those schools are a pipeline to the best colleges. On another note Gwinett, and Cobb county law enforcement are not amenable to overt displays of affluence by my kind (let's leave it at that, no race thread). I don't want my kids to make a dumb mistake and have to deal with the courts OTP, Fulton county courts jurisdiction is where any mistakes should be made for my kids, especially my son.

Totally understand. I have a few friends who went to Westminster and they're all very connected and successful. Sounds like you've got a good plan going.

[iknowexactly]

(12-08-2016 04:01 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:45 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:24 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

You didn't actually disagree with any off the points I made though and you didn't refute any of my claims.

You stated exactly what I explained is endemic to middle-class America.

You stated you want to raise your kids in a nicer, higher-value area, in an expensive home near a major city, and offer them lots of luxuries that only a family with a higher bracket of income can afford. There is nothing wrong with that but it is not necessary.

Inferring that raising your kids anywhere but in a 3/4mio dollar home in the nicest part of town, paying out of pocket for all of their higher education and covering all of their living costs until they are in their mid-to-late 20's so they can join your firm is the only alternative to them being criminal statistics is absurd.

I do not want my kids to be ok, I want them to thrive. People here talk a lot about Trump, I see his family and think that seems like a plan.

Trump inherited something on the order of ten millions*, you can't plan that.

There's nothing wrong with aspiring to the upper middle class, however many people want to do other things with their time than focus 90-95% of their time on very high earnings. What is wrong is the upper middle class belief their pursuit of a lot of money ( by world and historical standards) makes them morally superior to those like me that value free time more.

Demographic history tends to indicate that if a population accepts the value system where only people above a certain economic level can responsibly have children, they'll fall below replacement rate. Then people more focused on reproduction and less on QOL will crowd them out except for elite enclaves.

The demographics isn't conjecture really, it's not an "appeal to the future" , it's what's happened so far in reality.


*"The New York Times recently found documents in Queens Surrogate Court that show that Fred Trump, in his will, divided $20 million among his four surviving children, among other distributions after estate taxes. (The will was contested by the children of his oldest son, Fred C. Trump Jr., who had passed away.)

Trump’s father, like most wealthy individuals, also set up trusts before he died. Donald Trump admitted in a 2007 deposition that he borrowed at least $9 million from his future inheritance when he encountered financial difficulties. The documents (appended at the end of this article) suggest some property—worth, after expenses, about $30 million–was kept in trust after Fred Trump’s death to provide income to his wife, who died in 2000. So that also was presumably divided by the children after her death."

[Menace]

This is the fundamental problem of American life that never gets spoken about in plain terms: that the value of real estate in major metro areas is in large part determined by people (usually white) that want to live in places that have "good schools," which means 70-80% white or asian, and significantly without disruptive low-income people (which is usually black or hispanic).

Atlanta I totally sympathize with you. A lot of "good liberals" in the DC area will make a bee line for Bethesda/Kensington/North Bethesda after they have kids, if they can afford it. Maybe Rockville if they're not as well off. According to their thinking, their motivation is flat our racist, but they will never admit it. I know people who moved from a nice part of Silver Spring to a million dollar home in Bethesda just for this reason, and they are absolutely of this type.

I think the whole school funding system is absurd. Why is there no middle ground between a public school and home school? How come we can't have micro schools or nano schools, where you can have 20-100 kids (or whatever range), so they can have typical school social interactions, but with a much better curriculum and teachers. I would even support 100% taxpayer funded minischools for children with disadvantaged backgrounds provided that there was more flexibility in the way children are educated. I suspect the only way do this is to force liberals to eat their own cooking by making the "good schools" they have now a legal impossibility.

[realologist]

(12-08-2016 02:42 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 02:24 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

This has a more to do with economics than anything. I have mostly white friends that are professionals, either Doctors or Lawyers. Most of them only have one child, two at most because that is all they can reasonably provide for. However I went to a public high school and many of my lower socioeconomic classmates there were minorities, and they had multiple children before they were 25. Gone are the days of total financial independence and responsibility in your 20's and families with 4 or 5 children, it is just not economically feasible now days.

This is a fallacy. It's a very typical white-middle-class-Western trend to think raising children is a huge financial undertaking. Poor people can have a brood of kids and still afford to put food in their faces, clothes on their backs, and a roof on their heads. You trying to tell me a couple of middle class SWIPL's bringing in a combined income of $100k+ can't afford diapers and baby food?

The reason is because middle-class white Westerners are rampant consumers and are programmed to think that they need to buy all the latest and greatest high-tech expensive shit for their children. Tons of awesome expensive toys, fun family vacations, super premium high-priced diapers, gluten-free non-GMO locally sourced organic baby food, the super-mega-Titan-G3-twinturbo- all-terrain baby stroller with matching track suit so mom (dad) can jog with the baby and the dog in the morning. Private schools, a new car, etc.

You can raise a child for very little money. Lower income families who pump out kid after kid are proof of that. Hell even if you want to make the "American welfare family" argument, look at poor countries. Third world poverty stricken places have some of the highest birthrates on the planet with little to no government aid available. They feed their kids with breast milk rice and grain, and make their own reusable diapers and clothes.

All a kid needs to grow happy and healthy in this world is food, education, and love. Food is incredibly affordable in America if you stay away from overpriced marked up bullshit Wholefoods-type products, public education is already paid for by tax dollars, and love is free and inherent.

This is very true. The figure that kids cost "whatever ridiculous high number" dollars before they graduate college is total bullshit.

The first kid is understandable to buy more random shit you don't need but think you do. The following ones you learn you don't need to buy nearly as much stuff.

It's even easier for me since I have a two boys so all the clothes and toys that are still nice are passed down(which are most of them).

What I do with them doesn't really cost much. Visit family, go to the library, movie every once in a while. Bought my older son a spiderman fishing pole and a bike. Hes played t-ball and soccer so far(both were cheap for the season).Don't buy him toys too often but he still has too damn much if you ask me. I let him play video games with me some times. It's not expensive if you don't make it that way.

Kids will never remember the stuff you get them. They will remember what you do with them.

[Grodin]

I wonder how mixed race children are treated in this survey. I suspect they're treated as non-white because of the one drop rule

[YoungAngel1]

OK. And this matters, why? As long as Black, White, Hispanic, Asian Men get along, and compete we got this.

The fight has never been against the White, or even Black male. It has been the Male in general.

[Paracelsus]

(12-08-2016 02:26 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

I suspect humans have a built-in suicide switch. When life becomes too comfortable for groups of them, they stop reproducing, because they are too far out of the scope of nature that mostly dictates survival. Whites have been doomed by their own success, but if you track birth rates of immigrants to USA, you'll see they become less fertile in time too, suggesting that no race is immune to the "poison" of comfort. The West has become metaphoric birth control for human beings, which is why I don't have much confidence that it will be saved.

There is evidence (published in Nature) that risk aversion is an evolutionary adaptation. The observation is that when you have communities of less than about 1,000 people spread out over wide areas, or populations segmented into members of 150 or less, risk aversion develops in the species: women start accepting Mr Not-Quite-Right-But-Available-Now rather than waiting for Mr Right-With-Ten-Inch-Dick-And-Less-Then-Five-Percent-Body-Fat-And-House-In-Hampdens.

The West, being highly urbanised and highly technological, has essentially removed the circumstances for this risk aversion developing. Child mortality is at an all-time low, life expectancy is a shitload better than pretty much any other time in human history. There is no reason for risk aversion to arise, and thus, no need for women to pick the first moderately-acceptable partner out there. This is guaranteed to cause a decline in birth rates in heavily urbanised areas.

[greekgod]

(12-08-2016 05:01 PM)realologist Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 02:42 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 02:24 PM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

This has a more to do with economics than anything. I have mostly white friends that are professionals, either Doctors or Lawyers. Most of them only have one child, two at most because that is all they can reasonably provide for. However I went to a public high school and many of my lower socioeconomic classmates there were minorities, and they had multiple children before they were 25. Gone are the days of total financial independence and responsibility in your 20's and families with 4 or 5 children, it is just not economically feasible now days.

This is a fallacy. It's a very typical white-middle-class-Western trend to think raising children is a huge financial undertaking. Poor people can have a brood of kids and still afford to put food in their faces, clothes on their backs, and a roof on their heads. You trying to tell me a couple of middle class SWIPL's bringing in a combined income of $100k+ can't afford diapers and baby food?

The reason is because middle-class white Westerners are rampant consumers and are programmed to think that they need to buy all the latest and greatest high-tech expensive shit for their children. Tons of awesome expensive toys, fun family vacations, super premium high-priced diapers, gluten-free non-GMO locally sourced organic baby food, the super-mega-Titan-G3-twinturbo- all-terrain baby stroller with matching track suit so mom (dad) can jog with the baby and the dog in the morning. Private schools, a new car, etc.

You can raise a child for very little money. Lower income families who pump out kid after kid are proof of that. Hell even if you want to make the "American welfare family" argument, look at poor countries. Third world poverty stricken places have some of the highest birthrates on the planet with little to no government aid available. They feed their kids with breast milk rice and grain, and make their own reusable diapers and clothes.

All a kid needs to grow happy and healthy in this world is food, education, and love. Food is incredibly affordable in America if you stay away from overpriced marked up bullshit Wholefoods-type products, public education is already paid for by tax dollars, and love is free and inherent.

This is very true. The figure that kids cost "whatever ridiculous high number" dollars before they graduate college is total bullshit.

The first kid is understandable to buy more random shit you don't need but think you do. The following ones you learn you don't need to buy nearly as much stuff.

It's even easier for me since I have a two boys so all the clothes and toys that are still nice are passed down(which are most of them).

What I do with them doesn't really cost much. Visit family, go to the library, movie every once in a while. Bought my older son a spiderman fishing pole and a bike. Hes played t-ball and soccer so far(both were cheap for the season).Don't buy him toys too often but he still has too damn much if you ask me. I let him play video games with me some times. It's not expensive if you don't make it that way.

Kids will never remember the stuff you get them. They will remember what you do with them.

DING DING DING DING DING-teach the kid to value you people over things and they'll acquire more social skills and as an extension, things.

I didn't realize you were a dad, thats cool!

Only 'thing' I ever needed as a kid was my mongoose bike and $3 bucks in my pocket for Yellow Mellow and Twinkies. Cruise town all day. Heck ya!

My parents are rampant consumers so I did ultimately brow beat the shit out of them for "things" but none of that ever delivered long term happiness.

Soccer team and my bike were the best money ever spent. Derived so much utility. That red power ranger or my JNCO jeans that I had to have, not so much.

[greekgod]

(12-08-2016 08:10 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 02:26 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

I suspect humans have a built-in suicide switch. When life becomes too comfortable for groups of them, they stop reproducing, because they are too far out of the scope of nature that mostly dictates survival. Whites have been doomed by their own success, but if you track birth rates of immigrants to USA, you'll see they become less fertile in time too, suggesting that no race is immune to the "poison" of comfort. The West has become metaphoric birth control for human beings, which is why I don't have much confidence that it will be saved.

There is evidence (published in Nature) that risk aversion is an evolutionary adaptation. The observation is that when you have communities of less than about 1,000 people spread out over wide areas, or populations segmented into members of 150 or less, risk aversion develops in the species: women start accepting Mr Not-Quite-Right-But-Available-Now rather than waiting for Mr Right-With-Ten-Inch-Dick-And-Less-Then-Five-Percent-Body-Fat-And-House-In-Hampdens.

The West, being highly urbanised and highly technological, has essentially removed the circumstances for this risk aversion developing. Child mortality is at an all-time low, life expectancy is a shitload better than pretty much any other time in human history. There is no reason for risk aversion to arise, and thus, no need for women to pick the first moderately-acceptable partner out there. This is guaranteed to cause a decline in birth rates in heavily urbanised areas.

Good points on urbanization and risk aversion.

Its all artificial though. Societies that are abundant and have a liberal surplus of resources can afford retardation. As the belt tightens, the focus narrows. As the belt tightens, social fabric becomes restored as to survive, you must rely on others, extensively and intimately.

It would be interesting to see urban white occupancy rates of cities over the past thirty years.

White women are the most susceptible to sex in the city marketing and eschewing whats worked for generations because their grandfathers and fathers earned plenty in the days of yesteryear. They don't know struggle and were targeted because of their inability to reconcile reality with marketing.

If you've read shadow men, a dark, troubling book, this all is clear as day. Psypops and all that jazz.

Agree with Roosh, a new iteration is on the horizon.

[Thersites]

Don't forget the age of women when they want to have a pregnancy plays a part in the decline. The older you are, the more difficult it is to have a kid without complications. Its easy to have multiple kids in your 20's as female since you body is optimized to creating a new life at that time. The degree status chasing exhibit by the 'white' girl population thanks to pop cultures and predatory college administers, lets a girl have a kid at later 20s or early 30's depending on the degree. Add in STDs, you can have girl with numerous infections become basically sterile due to scaring of Fallopian tubes. Once you hit 35 years old as a female, the increase chance of your child having Down Syndrome or another genetic condition increases.

Damn elite and leftist's manipulation.