Reverse evolution…?

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

I had this thought tonight and wanted to get some feedback on it, especially from the other physicians and biological scientists here.

The membership of mgtow.com may be small in the relative big picture of things. But the number of younger men who aren’t married, and have no plans to be, is no small thing at all. These men are the future of marriage, and they are becoming more and more well known for having none of it, without or without membership here.

So I was wondering about the extrapolation of this trend, and others that I’m seeing, and that brought me to this: everyone knows women like to marry good providers, but don’t necessarily like the responsibilities of being a wife. And everyone knows they like to have babies because they feel completed and can be certain that the state will either force the father to be responsible even after she discards him, or the state will step in and be financially responsible for the children. The state can do this because it has the power to forcibly extract resources from all men for the support of single women and their children, regardless of wether any of those other men have chosen to be fathers or not.

So if you are one individual man, you are expected to marry a financial parasite, (who will only agree to marry you if you can provide financially) but you get to pick which one. If you choose none of them, you pay higher taxes than that married man with his ‘deductions’ would pay, and those higher taxes go to fund the irresponsible reproductive decisions of all those women no one chose to marry, but whom someone chose to get pregnant.

But what if you’re not one individual man. What if you are an entire generation or two of men and the trend of refusing marriage has become so widespread that NONE of you are getting married. What is the reaction of women and the government to this? Women who do not wish to work, and aspire to get through life on the value of the uterus, have always needed to find some man somewhere to get them pregnant… much as they do now. But because in the future it seems no man will offer them the chance to marry anymore, they will all face this choice: compete with men directly for what resources and assets there are, or find a way to get pregnant out of wedlock by at least one man in order to get the state to seize the assets and resources from all men for you. Because of the crushing power of the state to devastate men financially who father a child with a woman, there may be another trend of not marrying, and also not agreeing to have a child with them either.

How will an entire generation of men react to being told that the state will force them to support women they have all chosen not to marry? When none of them are married, but all of them are paying to support women… will they watch where their money is going, and where women’s money is coming from?

There will of course always be the man who is tricked into fatherhood. But I think there will also be those irresponsible men who have nothing to lose and little to take who will then be able to father as many children as they wish, because like women, they know it will be someone else paying the taxes to support them.

So what happens next? The men who are the least responsible, and the least concerned about their own offspring end up having the most children, and those who are most responsible and most productive have either none, or a relatively fewer number of children. What children there are, are more likely to be raised by single mothers, who are at a disadvantage when it comes to raising the healthiest children (no matter how much assistance they get from the state).

So we create a selection process that favors those least capable of being parents and allows them to have the most options for having children, we select against those who are most capable, and we assign the raising of the kids to a process (no father present) already proven to produce unreliable results.

If the trend of younger men choosing not to marry continues, and the trend of women wanting babies wether they are married or not continues, then isn’t the result of the government’s trend of confiscating the resources of the most responsible/productive men in order to pay the support of the offspring of the least responsible/productive men… just going to be a recipe for reverse evolution?

In evolutionary biology, I always understood that when chimps or other primate ancestors lived in trees where food was essentially just found by the individual who needed it, the mating model was that the dominant ‘alpha’ male had exclusive mating rights to all the females, which he won by one on one combat. But then when, in the course of evolving to humans they moved down from trees onto the ground, food had to be secured by hunting, and on territory that had to be defended. Having no scales, fangs, claws or particularly great speed, these primates were at a disadvantage both for hunting, and for defending hunting territories. Either of these could be life risking. The only real advantages they had were the ability to use tools, and the ability to work in teams.

The ability to work in teams was effective for the males of the time, but required a sharing of the mating rights. Males were not going to risk their lives hunting and defending territory in order to provide for females to whom they had no access and offspring that were not their own. And there was no alpha male who could adequately provide for all the females while working alone. So teams of males working together to provide for females they each had access to on a one to one basis evolved into what was the family unit.

Now it seems that women wish to have it arranged such that many females can become pregnant by one or a few of the least productive males (selected by women, not by combat) and that women can simultaneously force all the other males who have had no mating access to still produce for those offspring that are not theirs.

In some schools, the number of children from single parent (single mother) households is already a majority. But there are probably no schools left where none of the children are from single mother households. Feminism gave women all the necessary power to make either bad reproductive choices with the least productive men, while having the state forcibly distributing the costs to all other men, or no fault divorces with the most productive men whereby a productive man can be discarded, but still be forced to turn over his production to a woman to whom he no longer has access, for children with whom he is no longer allowed a parental relationship.

If you are a productive man already mined for your resources by a woman who’s discarded you, but forced you to continue paying for her reproductive choices, or if you are a childless man, and you are paying income taxes to fund single mother assistance, or property taxes which go to support the education of the children in those schools… then you’re already there.

Reverse evolution.

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[sidecarParticipant 35860]

BrainPilot wrote:

The state can do this because it has the power to forcibly extract resources from all men for the support of single women and their children, regardless of wether any of those other men have chosen to be fathers or not.

Eighteen trillion dollars (and rising) of debt shows pretty conclusively that the state can’t even do that.  Single motherhood is utterly unsustainable.

If you choose none of them, you pay higher taxes than that married man with his ‘deductions’ would pay,

Expect those deductions to go away in the future as the debt eclipses the need to buy single mommy votes.

but whom someone chose to get pregnant.

Yeah.  Her.  She has the sole “right to choose”, so the pregnancy is her sole choice.  Don’t ever let anyone tell you differently.

How will an entire generation of men react to being told that the state will force them to support women they have all chosen not to marry?

We’re already seeing it.  Upwards of one in five men have left the official workforce.  Many have disappeared entirely.  And those numbers are growing, and growing significantly.  Those men are feeding themselves somehow, but they are NOT contributing to the support of some slore and her spawn, regardless of what the government might say about it.

just going to be a recipe for reverse evolution?

It’s certainly a recipe for total societal and economic collapse.  We’ve seen it before any time redistributionism in any form happens.  Eventually you run out of other people’s money.

But evolution?  Not really.  Even by the theories of punctuated equilibrium and fast evolution it’s still too fast to have any permanent evolutionary effect.  You would have to have sustained redistributionism for a few thousand years, but redistributionism cannot last that long.  If something as major as the agricultural revolution didn’t have any sustained, measurable evolutionary effect on humans that we can detect so far, greedy baby mommas don’t stand a chance.

Then again:

[RoyDalParticipant]

BrainPilot wrote:

How will an entire generation of men react to being told that the state will force them to support women they have all chosen not to marry?

There is a historical precedence for this. Emperor Augustus put a tax on unmarried men and childless couples. The targets could not wiggle off the hook by disappearing because they were of the noble class. There was a flurry of sham marriages and adoptions to get around the rules.

Our current situation brings to mind the famous “too many rats in a cage” experiment. One key difference is the rats did not have a tyrannical central government which could force them to breed.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[Ned TrentParticipant 4894]

@ Brainpilot: Maybe this one helps you. Only the other day by chance I did stumble upon this quite recent video by Turd Flinging Monkey, in which he describes the whole human and society evolution as a cycle and set me to follow the same kind of train of thought that you have in this very thread. Therfore I guess the video could possibly deliver some answers to you and might even fit in here. What the provider of the mentioned video theorizes about in a nutshell. He reckons that throughout human history the evolution as a whole goes through cycles as follows (the point of entering the cycle would be arbitrarily chosen):

Patriarchal Traditionalism (ie. straight after the ending of any significant war) –> women = “property of men”  | men have authority  | women submit to men  |  laws explicitly favor men

next stage:

Gynocentric Traditionalism (ie. during economic boom times after war)  –> women protected  |  men responsible for women  | male sacrifice = honor

next stage:

Matriarchal Feminism   —>  welfare replaces men’s provision  |  women are liberated from responsibility  |  men required to be responsible for women  |  laws explicitly favor women

and as for the final stage (where we currently seem to be heading towards) before the cycle repeats all over:

Economic Collapse  —> overburdened welfare state  |  marriage abandonment  |  demographic winter

 

And here is the full video explaining all the juicy details in depth:

 

Let’s see whatever happens next, gents with or without our awareness of the current situation.

 

Best

 

Ned T.

I'd rather die a natual death with a clear MGTOW conscience somewhere off the grid than one within "modern" civilisation with a big stress mark on my forehead and a couple of dozen tubes plugged into my body. Back to the plantation..? Me..? Hey, literally: I won't ever fucking kid myself...YZERLMNTSIC

[MaillesmithParticipant 64]

I believe something needs to be pointed out; evolution does not happen in reverse, although it is possible for evolution to lead to a regression.

 

Evolution is a singular term, no matter which direction it takes, it is still evolution. To append “reverse” to the term is pointless, as regressive evolution is still simply evolution, just in a direction that takes the organism to a biologicaly inferior result.

Good, bad, pointless. It’s just evolution.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

I’ve been noticing this for years.  All the married, middle class families I know with children under 18 all have 0 to 2 kids.  These couples are all middle to upper middle class…I’d say with between 80-300k income.  Single moms on the other hand…all between 1-5 kids, and every single one of them on some sort of assistance program.  This is going to create a huge problem…because now we end up with literally 2 kids who grow up thinking living off the state is the norm for every 1 kid who grows up thinking working hard and taking care of your own is the norm.  I have nothing wrong with helping the poor, I completely understand s~~~ happens and sometimes people need a bit of help, but currently society isn’t helping the poor, we are rewarding the stupid.

If you’d like a good idea of how a society like this functions, just look at inner cities, it has been going on there for decades.

On a side note…this is why I have been putting as much of my retirement savings as possible into ROTH accounts, a post tax brokerage account, and in the future more real estate for the tax benefits rental properties offer.  The only pre-tax savings I do is enough to max my match out for my 401k.  I’m 31 now, and I’m more than willing to gamble that taxes will be higher 20-30 years from now when I want to retire because of our national debt and constantly growing cost of social programs.

What really scares me is how unprepared for retirement baby boomers are, and they had a lot higher marriage rate than my generation, and spent their prime in a much better economic era.  Even unhappily married/never divorced couples had the chance to attack life with dual incomes and work out a schedule without having to pay for child care.  When I look at younger people…I see a lot of men who can’t save much for retirement because they are getting massacred by child support, and a lot of women with a crappy job who live high on the hog for 10-20 years milking child support and public assistance money.  Once that ends, you have a bunch of men approaching 50 who can finally start saving for retirement but really lose out on the power of compounding, and a bunch of women approaching 50 who have nothing saved because women can’t plan ahead, just saw their income get cut down to less than half, and generally have a sucky job because they never imagined they wouldn’t be able to hook another sucker before the gravy train ended and would have to provide for themselves.  Someones gonna have to foot the bill for them.

[AFTParticipant 2726]

Evolution, is a reaction, a result of environment, circumstances, and necessity. You need to consider who is causing the circumstances and environment, and why, I think we can all agree, the current bureaucratic nightmare is the problem. Productive people will “evolve” into welfare recipients when the rewards to work diminishes and the incentive to be dependent upon the state become inordinate.
Those in power need people to control, to harvest surplus production, and support their own lifestyles. The bureaucracy is built for a specific reason, it has no interest to empower those it intends to subjugate. What you call reverse evolution, I call a deliberate effort to disempower the population that some see as merely the necessary working productive class. I don’t blame the subjects of an unjust society, it’s the architects, those in real power, that are the problem. We will evolve according to the environment that is artificially constructed by those in real power. It used to be nature, now it’s anything but natural.

When the war cemeteries are half full of the corpses of dead conscripted women, only then will women have earned the right to speak of equality. Sidecar “A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do.” - Bob Dylan

[Ned TrentParticipant 4894]

What a fitting perception, AFT seconding that, cheers.

I'd rather die a natual death with a clear MGTOW conscience somewhere off the grid than one within "modern" civilisation with a big stress mark on my forehead and a couple of dozen tubes plugged into my body. Back to the plantation..? Me..? Hey, literally: I won't ever fucking kid myself...YZERLMNTSIC

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

Agreed sidecar,
It cannot continue… it will either result in societal collapse, or the collapse of the theory that this is sustainable. As Ned’s diagram demonstrates, the collapse of the theory, and probably the societal collapse as well… can’t be far off.

Agreed Ned…
It seems the most painful part of that circle is going to be the next one. The video is more historically thorough than any I’ve seen, and the author does a good job of making it a statement of facts and data without instilling emotion into it. It does make sense to me that fluctuations in relative abundance or scarcity of resources over time would create a fluctuating effect on behaviors that adapt to them. Perhaps at some point, there will have been enough of these cycles that history will be clear enough for anyone to see, and we as a species can adapt to this reality, although I don’t hold my breath for that happening in my lifetime.

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[porky ryanParticipant 18]

i think that whatever traits one considers to be evolutionarily progressive or regressive are totally arbitrary and only nature can really prove what will be successful and what won’t.  i think that another thing that needs to be considered is nature vs. nurture.  the people that are making poor decisions in regards to societal circumstance set forth ahead of them might not be biologically adept to fail.  some of them might not have been brought up as well as more productive members of society but otherwise might have been more successful if they had been.  i believe there are many more people who resort to being dependent on social services simply because they can but otherwise would be self supporting if the alternative did not exist.  the government of course wants this because the more people there are that are dependent on them, the more control they have over both the populations of people of dependency and those supporting them by not being dependent.

i think as a whole the human race is resilient and even if this current unfortunate model comes to a breaking point, we’ll get through.  even if there seem to be more slackers now, in a time of crisis great men will rise up to grab the reins and get things moving again.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

AFT wrote:

Productive people will “evolve” into welfare recipients when the rewards to work diminishes and the incentive to be dependent upon the state become inordinate.

This is huge right here.  With married couples, if one of them has a relatively low income job or is a stay at home parent, it is literally in their best interest to divorce, make sure the low income spouse gets custody, have the high income spouse “move” into a parents house, or a friends house on paper only, they don’t have to actually move out because the government would never actually check, and have the lower income spouse go collect every government freebie they can.

^This right here is why I don’t vote democrat lol.  Its not that I think republicans are great, its just I’d rather watch republicans let some filthy rich guy hang on to obscene amounts of money he’ll never spend and tell people who make poor choices to make better choices, than watch democrats reward stupidity and constantly raise taxes to maintain the system.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

porky ryan wrote:

i believe there are many more people who resort to being dependent on social services simply because they can but otherwise would be self supporting if the alternative did not exist.

When I was in high school, I had a part time retail job.  One of my coworkers was a single mother with 5 kids, I’m not even sure she knew who all the baby daddies were, who said she planned on pumping out a kid every other year until her ovaries dried up.  She had no plans to ever support them on her own, or expect their fathers to support them, the government took care of everything.

Had that guaranteed safety net not been there, she probably would have stopped as a single mother of one, actually went after the first baby daddy for child support, and tried to improve her position in society beyond part time retail work.

This is why our system is f~~~ed up beyond all belief.  When she went to get benefits while a single mother of one, there should have at least been a stipulation that you can only get this help if you agree to have no more kids until you can support them on your own.  The state paying for a birth control implant that is completely reversible if she got her s~~~ together at any point in the future is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for future babies.  Instead its just like eh, you popped another one out?  Here, have more “free” s~~~.

The whole system disgusts me.  I have no problem seeing a family trying to do the right thing get some help because one spouse gets a major illness, hurt in a car accident, has to miss time at work to care for a child with health issues, face an untimely death of a spouse, or something else that is legitimately uncontrollable and unfortunate happens.  Its just today the vast majority of people on assistance seem to be people who’s only problem is self inflicted stupidity, and rather than tell society smarten the f~~~ up and use stupid people as an example of what not to be, politicians constantly want to siphon more money from those who make good choices, to those who make poor ones.  I often wonder who the stupid ones are…those of us wasting our lives working, or the ones shamelessly riding on our backs.

[ComingInHotParticipant 160]

I often wonder who the stupid ones are…those of us wasting our lives working, or the ones shamelessly riding on our backs. [/quote]

You hit the nail on the head.   Some people are content having nothing and using the system and taking advantage; others, like to have nice things and take vacations, have pleasure vehicles etc, so we pick up the slack by working so we can have those things, so we get punished for doing the right thing of working hard, providing for ourselves and enjoying the life style we try to accomplish.

This is how funny it is.  Please feel free to laugh at my misfortune, I know I do all the time.  I worked 70 hours last week… Head hit the pillow and the alarm is going off, it sucked.  I chose to do it, but to all those guys who have to do it every week, my hat is off to you!  Being single with no deductions… I grossed about 1700 … After taxes, federal, state, local and city.  Also subtract SS deductions and all that good stuff, I came home with a whooping 1194.

When I saw that, It was like someone hit me in the stomach with Thor’s hammer.

This week they asked me if I wanted to work that many hours, I replied, ” nope Im single and have no family or kids, only have to support myself, not the tax man.”

I worked it out that if I can stay between 48-50 or less hours per week the tax man is not so savage.   Of all that money however,  I have not figured out how much I would get back, but it doesn’t matter to me, the fact their hands are in my pockets that deep, like that, p~~~es me off.

After all my taxes are paid, I only get maybe .60-.70 cents on the dollar that I am paid, depending how many hours I work.  I think once it gets to .50 or lower I’m taking a permanent leave of absence from the workplace.

My state and local tax is 5-6% plus 1.00 per pay period which comes to 52.00 for working in another jurisdiction, not the one I live in.

Excuse my cry baby whining complaining like a bitch, but it just really isn’t fair.

 

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

For me, the most interesting observation has been this one:

“All the people want to live at the expense of the state. They don’t realize that the state exists at the expense of the people.”

Whenever I hear someone say something like, “the government should do this or that, or pay for this or that…”, I sometimes like to point out to them that it’s my money they are talking about. This usually confuses them a little so I have to explain it to them: “That money you are talking about the government spending on your agenda… That’s MY money. I earned that money. When your government writes a check for you, it’s ME that covers it. The government you speak of neither earns nor creates anything of value. It just confiscates it from me after I’ve earned it, and spends it on whatever agenda people like you complain about the loudest. I’ve never once gotten so much as a thank you card from any of you…”.

I’ve said this directly to the faces of only a few people, and I make it a point to say it calmly, slowly, and at low volume. But in response to this, I always get a blank stare and open mouth. As though something that was invisible to them just magically appeared in front of them… which is exactly what I am as a source of the free resources they’ve come to expect.

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Having worked my way through college and not being a traditional student who did it on loans or my parents paying for it, you have no idea how many times I’ve wanted to punch a fellow college student in the head for being too stupid to grasp that simple concept.  Some people consider things free that come from the government, and totally lack any concept that its not free…my last pay check got robbed for 400 dollars to fund it.

The only thing that p~~~es me off even more than that are the idiots that support the rights of the leeches over the rights of the workers.  For example…tell some stupid feminist bitch that a woman with a kid should be given a birth control implant if she wants to get on welfare programs, because she shouldn’t be able to pump out more kids when she can’t even afford what she already has and feminist bitch will absolutely freak out about how you are violating her body, violating he reproductive rights, and then probably try to call you a Nazi trying to start a eugenics programs.

Yet…there is no consideration that middle class families very often limit their family size based on what they can afford.  There is no consideration that those very same middle class folk who would love to have more kids but stop at would they could afford, could maybe afford 1 more of their own if they didn’t have to support other people’s kids.  There is no consideration that some people just say f~~~ it, I don’t want kids, I don’t want to be responsible for them, yet they get stuck being responsible for some other person’s kids.  Its ridiculous the non-productive members of society can so blatantly s~~~ on the face of productive members of society and people are stupid enough to encourage it.

Its kind of like drug testing welfare recipients.  Florida experimented with it a few years back…but the stipulation was you had to pay for the drug test…if you passed it they reimbursed you and you kept your welfare benefits, but if you failed it you got told f~~~ off.  Before the courts shot the law down, I think they had a couple thousand people be mandated to take a test.  Several hundred of them never bothered to show up and just gave up their benefits…obviously because they would have failed it and they knew it.  Because of that an over whelming majority of those who took it passed…like maybe 7 or something were stupid enough to take it and fail.  You had idiots claiming what a massive waste of money such a program was because only 7 people failed a drug test while completely ignoring those who just voluntarily declined to show up and fail it and gave up their benefits.  What makes it even worse, is the idiots clamoring on about how it violated their privacy.  WTF!!!!!  I get random p~~~ and breathalyzer tests at my job and fired if I fail.  Why do I have to get tested just to keep the opportunity to earn a decent living, but someone else has the right to leech my s~~~ and testing them violates their privacy.  Plus there is the whole idea that welfare isn’t forced…if the programs come with stipulations and you don’t like them, go find another way to get by.

[porky ryanParticipant 18]

Beer wrote:

What makes it even worse, is the idiots clamoring on about how it violated their privacy.

the fools should realize that anytime you call on the government to become more vested in your life, whether it be for social service benefits or the judicial system (family court, the police, etc.) you give up your right to what little privacy and or sovereignty they allow us to have to begin with.

Yes. Where did this idea of a STATE come from? this abstraction that has ultimate power, but seemingly no fixed leadership, but a process in place to appoint new ones? I know the answer. Im testing you guys.

was it the ancient greek democracy?

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

I won’t take up the argument that poor people should not be allowed to reproduce, because I don’t want to take up the daunting task of defending that. And I’ll admit that I have some personal bias on the discussion. I was born poor…the last kid in a big family that just barely had the ability to pay for all of us without any sort of government assistance. We were not aware that there was any safety net for us, if in fact there actually was, so we went through some desperate times and some very hard work to change our situation. We have escaped that poverty now, and being the last kid in the family, it would be a little hypocritical of me to say that poor people should not be allowed to reproduce. But my parents were willing to accept the lower standard of living that came with having more kids, and didn’t look to someone else to elevate their standard after having those kids.

To say that poor people should not be allowed to reproduce indiscriminately and in a way totally detached from the reality of the costs and responsibilities of reproduction … is an argument I’m willing to make. For someone unable to be responsible for their own offspring to continue to reproduce them presents their surrounding society with a choice: we either watch their children starve, or we forcibly remove the abilities and resources of someone else through taxation and give it to those people so that we do not have to watch those children starve. But in doing so, haven’t we just created a system of taxation that forcibly steals the reproductive abilities of one set of people and gives them freely to another?

I don’t know the correct answer here. Perhaps there is some balanced approach that says: no one will tell you that you can’t reproduce at least once just because you are poor, but someone will tell you that you can’t reproduce 10 or 15 times and then use those kids as hostages in order to extract a ransom from your surrounding society to prevent them from starving.

When I was in medical school, I was having this discussion with someone who said that Norplant (surgically implanted birth control) was a good idea, but had not been developed to its full potential. They joked that perhaps developing “Nor-dart” (dart form of same device) implantable from a distance with a dart gun or cross bow would have been better… and allowed for setting up sniper’s nests on the roofs of welfare offices…

All this was in jest of course. But the question of how much dependence of one person or set of people on another should be allowed is a serious one. Zero dependence seems harsh. Unlimited dependence for unlimited period is stupid. I don’t know where the line is, how to measure and draw it, or how to enforce it. Just thinking out loud…

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Oh I hear ya…I wasn’t suggesting poor people shouldn’t be allowed to have kids, but I just don’t see the benefit of a system where a single mother with one kid she can’t afford can go pop out kids number two, three, and four, and get an increasingly bigger reward for each one.  Its not like the average working folk get a raise at work for popping more kids out, and in a lot of cases kids are actually detrimental to ones career.  I’d be happy even if welfare programs turned into loan programs, and after your last minor was out of the house you got hit with a 10% repayment tax until you paid it all back at 0% interest, or you died.  At least then it would be a last resort safety net people would plan to not get involved with, and not lol I got knocked up again pay me more.

But with that being said…this is a great discussion to highlight why it is in your best interest to save, invest, and gtfo out of the work force as young as you can afford to do so.  Government waste and stupidity p~~~es everyone off…the best way to not get so p~~~ed off thinking about how f~~~ed up the system is, is to have less skin in the game.  Kinda like women…the best way to win is to not play…only we can’t avoid taxes like we can women lol.

[BeerParticipant 11832]

Hrmm…like I was saying about inner cities earlier…

http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/liberals-make-excuses-for-baltimore-riots/

Its nice to see this author blames a break down of society in inner cities on dumbass single mothers, deadbeat fathers, and the overall decay of family structure instead of somehow trying to blame it on white people being racist.

[DybbukParticipant 182]

I’m not sure that the most “productive” people are also the most evolved. These sickly suburban nerds in well-paid jobs wouldn’t last a week in a hunter-gatherer society. I’m not sure they’re even more intelligent…they’re just conformist. They got ahead by being good boys doing what The Man told them to do.

[Author]

Posts