Home › Forums › The Litter Box › Survival of the fittest
This topic contains 42 replies, has 19 voices, and was last updated by 
Grumpy 3 years, 7 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
So when it comes to women looking for rich men, it’s explained by social darwinism. When feminist society justifies men fighting each other over women, it comes down to the fittest male getting the female. Women women choose the alpha male who abuses others, and give terrible treatment to nice guys and weak men, it’s justified by survival of the fittest. Capitalism itself is social darwinism.
Feminist societies of the west use the excuse of survival of the fittest to give reasons for whatever suits them…. but conveniently leave it out when it doesn’t.
The reality is, that 80% of currently homeless people are men. 1 in every 200 Americans have experienced homelessness and these are also men. Jobs are hard to get and 90% of HR is female… leading to women getting preferential treatment hen hired. Homeless people die a full 30 years before the average. The bottom end of this ladder globally is not only homelessness and a very early death, but also, malnourishment and starvation to the point of death.
The unfortunate fact of life today, as we all know, is that women are the fittest. This is mainly because women are excluded from social darwinism in formerly fittest western/white countries…. but men are expected to cut each other’s throats. Frankly, it’s nauseating.
Of course religion hates survival of the fittest, which is also one of the reasons why it hates women…. but that’s a whole other discussion. What we have today isn’t true social darwinism…. it’s feminazi darwinism.
Anonymous42The plantation is dying and women know this as they cry themselves to sleep while dwelling in their hatred of men.
Women are in for a new dark age, the one they’re creating every day with their votes.
Yes it had really become a plantation in the 20th century. We cannot continue to exclude women from the natural/darwinian law.
men are disposable b/c one man can impregnate multiple women. from a reproduction perspective, men have less value than women…………especially young women
MGTOW is not a movement, it is a way of life.
men are disposable b/c one man can impregnate multiple women. from a reproduction perspective, men have less value than women…………especially young women
Nonsense.
This crap was propounded by feminists…. and is still being repeated by men from western, feminist societies (like you) who have woken up to their own oppression and female nature, but their minds are still filled with s~~~. No offence to you personally…. You are just a victim of your circumstances.
Anyways, one woman can easily give birth to 15 children. If they are utilised properly, a dying society can be revived within a few decades. Women who don’t produce children or follow strict rules have always been disposed of. For example, women who didn’t marry were thrown in brothels. Widows have always been outcast from society. Women who dared to have pre marital sex or commit adultery are supposed to be burnt to death, executed, stoned to the ground etc.
As St. Augustine put it rightly:
“Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot give birth to as many children as she is capable of, makes herself guilty of that many murders”.Also, son is a blessing but a daughter in the house is a burden and a curse. Whether girls are born or not, women WILL give birth to sons!!
Of course, everything has been ruined now.
Anonymous3I would not talk about the survival of the fittest, I would just talk about survival. The problem today is that survival is not an issue.
We do not need a man for the protection of the family.
We do not need a man for the heavy labor required for food growth.
We do not need a man for building a roof over our heads.In our kind of society we dont need to have any survival skill to thrive.
The mass production of everything means that a handful of people can do the important work and all the others just have fun and games. Yes, an economy of services is fun and games. It might not look like fun, by try your hands with a hoe for a day and you will know its fun!
And when all we do if fun and games, the clowns are the fittest for the job!
I have been thinking on thins sentence today:
In the modern world the lambs decide how the wolves should behave. In the real world wolves do not behave.I would not talk about the survival of the fittest, I would just talk about survival. The problem today is that survival is not an issue.
We do not need a man for the protection of the family.
We do not need a man for the heavy labor required for food growth.
We do not need a man for building a roof over our heads.In our kind of society we dont need to have any survival skill to thrive.
The mass production of everything means that a handful of people can do the important work and all the others just have fun and games. Yes, an economy of services is fun and games. It might not look like fun, by try your hands with a hoe for a day and you will know its fun!
And when all we do if fun and games, the clowns are the fittest for the job!
I have been thinking on thins sentence today:
In the modern world the lambs decide how the wolves should behave. In the real world wolves do not behave.Try and put things into perspective. Make no mistake: The strong is still dominating the weak and the fittest are surviving better.
The top 1% still control everything, especially the top 0.1%. We are all slaves to the capitalist system. As I stated earlier, the people at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy in the US (homeless) live 30 years less than normal people. Further, the rich live 10 years longer than the poor. Food insecurity and poverty still affects millions. International organizations like the UN, WTO, WHO, IMF etc. are all dominated by the fittest (white) nations. International rules and boundaries have been set by whites. Anyone who dares oppose our organizations and our rules will feel the wrath. Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals are dominated and still have invaders living on their territory. Blacks are being kept poor etc. Exploitation is rife. The rich countries still have stolen resources from the poor countries and/or use things made on the graves in the non-western world.
The main problem is that women are being excluded from this natural principle, while men are still expected to compete with each other ruthlessly. This has now made women the fittest, at least, in 99%+ cases. Feminist society justifies its happenings by bringing in darwinism when it sees fit (as shown in the first post) and conveniently ignores survival of the fittest when it doesn’t suit the feminist agenda.
80% of homeless are men but nobody cares about that inequality, which is absolutely shocking, because it is by far the most serious gender gap of them all.
So when it comes to women looking for rich men, it’s explained by social darwinism.
Except it isn’t. Because they aren’t looking for rich men to breed with them. They are looking for rich men’s resources to use to raise their children. And when I say “their children” I mean the woman’s children, not the rich man’s children. Cuckolding is a very viable reproductive strategy for human females. hell it’s entrenched into law what with all the men being forced by law to pay child support for children that aren’t even theirs.
When feminist society justifies men fighting each other over women, it comes down to the fittest male getting the female.
Yeah, that’s not what feminists societies do. Look around you. Feminists societies have a vested interest in pacification, not men fighting, be it over females or whatever. This accomplished two things: it nullifies a man’s inherent physical superiority to women, and it prevents useful worker class males from damaging each other so they remain healthy workers for women.
Women women choose the alpha male who abuses others, and give terrible treatment to nice guys and weak men,
Not quite. Women’s reproductive choices are largely conservative. Think about it: a human female has at most around 30 opportunities to reproduce her genes, and that’s if she goes directly from pregnancy to pregnancy from the onset of menses to menopause without dying in childbirth. And since each attempt only passes on half her genes, she has at most 15 chances to pass on her full genome.
That may seem like enough, but in the world of disease and starvation we evolved in, it’s a ridiculously low number, especially when compared to other species like cats or rabbits. With our ridiculously long human gestations and ridiculously low litter sizes, our evolution has forced women to all but literally put all their eggs into one basket. That has forced women to be very conservative in their reproductive choices, not opportunistic as you claim.
Instead of securing so-called “alpha” genes for her offspring to give them potential advantages, women are far more genetically hardwired to make certain their offspring don’t have any disadvantages compared to the offspring of other women. This is why the single greatest attraction to women is not height. It’s not success. It’s not ripped abs. It’s not a cleft chin. It’s not being an asshole.
The men women are most attracted to are men who other women are also attracted to, simply because those women are attracted to them. Women want to ally their genes with the same male genes that every other woman is allying hers to in order to ensure her offspring are not at a genetic disadvantage to the offspring of other women.
Don’t believe me? Try putting on a fake wedding ring some time and see how that changes the way women interact with you.
it’s justified by survival of the fittest.
Natural selection has f~~~ all to do with survival. It’s all about reproduction. And not necessarily the fittest. It’s more reproduction of the most reproductively capable. This is why natural selection has caused various species to evolve some very unfit things.
Capitalism itself is social darwinism.
Possibly among bacteria, maybe, which can transfer genes laterally, but not for any higher orders of life. Capitalism is a paradigm for the exchange of goods and services. Natural selection is all about reproduction. Reproduction and exchange are two completely different processes. It’s comparing apples to anvils.
Oh, and “social darwinism” is a bulls~~~ term. Darwin has been used, incorrectly, as a justification for everything from capitalism to fascism to communism to socialism to whatever whoever invoked it was trying to promote at the time.
The unfortunate fact of life today, as we all know, is that women are the fittest.
Incorrect again. As I said above, women have extremely limited opportunities for reproduction. This makes them the limiting factor in population expansion. So women end up being protected and cosseted, because a society can afford to lose 99% of its males far more than it can afford to lose 99% of its females. Societies that didn’t protect the females and keep them at full reproductive capacity were inevitable pushed into extinction by societies that did.
Nonsense.
No, he’s absolutely correct. In fact I’m going to try to figure out how this rating system works just to thumb up that post, because it is spot on.
Ova are rare and expensive. Sperm is cheap and disposable. It’s plain biology, not some feminist invention. Deal with it.
Anyways, one woman can easily give birth to 15 children.
Which is nothing in the environment of disease, starvation, and predators we evolved in.
Meanwhile a man can fertilize a quarter of a billion women easily with a single ejaculation. Let that sink in for a moment. A woman can reproduce her genes about 15 times in her whole life, tops, while a man can reproduce his countlessly in a single day.
If they are utilised properly, a dying society can be revived within a few decades.
Decades, huh? Many decades actually. Say a society loses 99% of its female population. Assuming the women are “utilized properly” that means the 1% of women who are left produce at most 7 female children each. So in the first generation you’ve only recovered 7% of the female population. The second generation each only produce 7 children each, so that by the second generation you’ve only recovered 49%. It’s not until the third generation where the population has any chance of increasing its female population to pre-loss numbers.
Meanwhile a society that loses 99% of it’s males can keep right on rolling reproductively as if nothing happened, and assuming the females there are “utilized properly” will reach a female population 700% of the original in just one generation with total population 1500%. That society will quickly push into extinction the first society before that society even gets finished with it’s first recovery generation.
So tell me again how male disposability is a feminist invention and not the simple result of biology it actually is.
Women who don’t produce children or follow strict rules have always been disposed of. For example, women who didn’t marry were thrown in brothels.
Now there is some actual feminist claptrap. They weren’t “thrown” into brothels.
Widows have always been outcast from society.
More feminist claptrap.
The plain fact is that non-reproductive women have never been destroyed or punished by any society anywhere.
They merely get treated the same as men.
Let me repeat that:
Non reproductive women at worst merely get treated the same as men. They are left to fend for themselves, just like men.
Only feminists and other hardcore gynocentrists would see treating women as the actual equals of men as “destroying” them.
Women who dared to have pre marital sex or commit adultery are supposed to be burnt to death, executed, stoned to the ground etc.
The crime there for which they are being punished is fraud, not the sex itself. A man is expected to sacrifice his whole life to provide for his wife and children in exchange for the opportunity to reproduce his genes. When she risks having children by other men, she is defrauding him of that labor for her own benefit.
If I were to take everything you work your whole life to earn away from you and keep it for my sole benefit, you’d want me to be punished for it, wouldn’t you?
St. Augustine
Was not a biologist. On the contrary he was a superstitious ignoramus from a dark age.
Also, son is a blessing but a daughter in the house is a burden and a curse. Whether girls are born or not, women WILL give birth to sons!!
Because that’s working sooooo well in China right now.
Of course, everything has been ruined now.
Women bad mojo. Hit on head with club. Drag back to cave by hair.
You may not realize it, but you are carrying in your head a f~~~load of feminist gynocentric bulls~~~ you need to unlearn.
We can help you with that.
It is just like deer hunting. Shoot all the bucks you want. Need a special tag to shoot a doe.
Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.
men are disposable b/c one man can impregnate multiple women. from a reproduction perspective, men have less value than women…………especially young women
Exactly correct.
It is just like deer hunting. Shoot all the bucks you want. Need a special tag to shoot a doe.
Also correct. And only when there is an actual need to cull an overpopulation of deer are doe tags issued. Females are the limiting factor in reproduction.
1 – Rich men are fitter than poor men. So women seeking them out is JUSTIFIED and accepted in feminist society.
2 & 3 – You’ve obviously haven’t been to a nightclub, bar or under-30 party in a long time.
4. Educate yourself. The two are intertwined.
5. Yes to a certain extent but mainly No. Educate youself.
6. The top 1% of men or 0.1% are the fittest of us all, but I was referring to 99% of women being fitter than 99% of men in the west.
7. –8. I said easily. Each woman can give birth to 30+ children if required.
9. 7 is too little, the birth rate in African countries is already 7 and they are not even pushing it. In the extreme scenario you bring up, it can easily be ramped up to 15 if required. So like I already told you, it will be achieved easily because 15*15=225… even double the original in a few decades. To add to this, in the reverse situation females would not be able utilized as one man cannot control so many women and the bitches would never do it themselves. We’ve always seen the birth rate of places where men don’t subjugate women. Also acquiring resources and healthcare would be inefficient and cause further problems for fertility as females are mentally defective and inferior creatures.10. Maybe you aren’t aware of how prostitutes lived and were treated till the 19th century where prostitution was allowed…. or you just want to deny everything before the 20th century. Either way you don’t change anything. Prostitutes are among the top 10% richest today, but they have always been slum dwellers who were spit upon…. and rightfully so!! They need to be put back in their place.
11. Across regions like Africa, India and China the practice of outcasting widows prevails, even though in some places the widowed woman is given to a male relative. Indians are even supposed to burn their widows, but unfortunately this practice was stopped by the British (who were going feminist) in the 19th century. Too bad widows are no longer outcast in the feminist West.
12. Nope. I can go into details if you’re interested, but you seem fixated on your idea that men are naturally slaves of women and have always sacrificed themselves for the queens. Typical product of feminist society, albeit woken up to a degree.
13. Actually the nature of women has been accurately pointed out by almost every religion and culture in every millennia since the beginning of time… no matter which corner of the earth men came from
14. It’s just how it has always been.15. So we were cavemen till the 19th century? Typical feminist.
We do not have survival of the fittest. We have survival of the weakest. The government rewards weak women for breeding. And such welfare whores work together to only breed with the worst and most weak willed of men.
While society also punishes strong men for attempting to start a family.
These women are under the false notion that they are needed for civilization to continue. Half of humanity can pump out a baby. Humanity does not need the lowest common denominator to breed.
Actually, a century ago, the average number of births per woman was four or five. Now, it is one or two. One needs each woman to give birth to two children to maintain the population level.
With a birth rate four children per woman, means that half the women could die tomorrow and civilization could still maintain its population level for the next generation.
When it comes to population control and quality. Society should not look to men for being weeded out. Instead, society should look to control which women should be allowed to breed.
Women that have more influence on children than men. What a woman does to her body while pregnant effects the child in her body. And nurturing of the baby leans more towards the mother.
The father’s major influences in their children comes from lessons and guiding when those children exits out of toddler stage to when they become an adult. Sons look at their fathers as whom they should be in life. And daughters look at their fathers as to whom the want in a companion in life.
Society should not rewards weak women for having children simply because they can have children. This leads to more poorer quality of each subsequent generation
Because the weak are rewarded to breed and the strong are punished by being forced to reward the weak to breed, and this prevents the strong from having the resources to breed.
A good video on this subject can be seen here:
Anonymous3You people claim women only go for money, but then you also whine that women prefer unemployed thugs over you, and that they should prefer you because you have a “good job”.
So which is it? It can not be both at the same time.
Here is the reality: all women want resources. Where resources don’t matter, women prefer physical fitness, attractiveness and a dominant attitude. The vast majority of men do not have any of those “attractive” traits, and instead want to rely on their resources. But these men also wish they were those traits, and so will complain about it and work themselves into a mental confusion.
Personally, I think you’re better off just avoiding women entirely. At least until you can get it sorted out in your head. Do you want to be a beta bux, an MGTOW, or a fornicator? Different mentalities to each one, different things you have to do. Until you know exactly what you want, you can’t actually do anything.
Some of you want to be fornicators. That is easy to do, as I stated you just need to be dominant, and it helps to have physical fitness. Others want to be beta, in that case continue working on your career and trying to get money above all else. Your fitness will not matter one bit, and the second you can’t provide the beta bux you are finished. But it’s the same for the fit, dominant male that becomes fat and weak too. The best course is MGTOW, and not putting your life’s validation on women’s approval. Most of you apparently can not do that, so pick one of the other two. Do not try to be multiple things at once, that never works.
You may not realize it, but you are carrying in your head a f~~~load of feminist gynocentric bulls~~~ you need to unlearn.
We can help you with that.
So I become like you and keep spouting the same old feminist bulls~~~ that men are disposable?? Fact is that we can save the species from extinction and revive societies if 99% of both males and females are wiped out (as I have empirically demonstrated above)
Women are machines for producing children and MUST be treated as such. They should not leave the house and their only duty is to serve & please their lords. Wife beating should be legalized again and STRICT RESTRICTIONS should be placed on women…. punishable by death
It’s just how it has always been. A woman’s purpose is cooking, cleaning and serving men like me. I don’t care if you have a problem with that you stupid feminist. The patriarchy NEEDS to be resurrected in the west. This grossly disproportionate and unnatural social setting NEEDS TO GO!
I think you’re better off just avoiding women entirely.
We’re all better off avoiding women entirely, and only go to them for sex… make them cook our food and make sure the house is spotless. Women should be confined to the house and public places should outright ban them from entry. No dogs allowed… No women allowed!!
That’s how it’s supposed to be. Get the feminism out of your head.
We do not have survival of the fittest.
We have survival of the weakest.
The government rewards weak women for breeding.
And such welfare whores work together to only breed with the worst and most weak willed of men.
While society also punishes strong men for attempting to start a family.Agreed.
It’s a breeding ground for, “Whatevah, Ah do what I woent” mental habits."It seems like there's times a body gets struck down so low, there ain't a power on earth that can ever bring him up again. Seems like something inside dies so he don't even want to get up again. But he does."
You may not realize it, but you are carrying in your head a f~~~load of feminist gynocentric bulls~~~ you need to unlearn.
We can help you with that.
So I become like you and keep spouting the same old feminist bulls~~~ that men are disposable?? Fact is that we can save the species from extinction and revive societies if 99% of both males and females are wiped out (as I have empirically demonstrated above)
Women are machines for producing children and MUST be treated as such. They should not leave the house and their only duty is to serve & please their lords. Wife beating should be legalized again and STRICT RESTRICTIONS should be placed on women…. punishable by death
It’s just how it has always been. A woman’s purpose is cooking, cleaning and serving men like me. I don’t care if you have a problem with that you stupid feminist. The patriarchy NEEDS to be resurrected in the west. This grossly disproportionate and unnatural social setting NEEDS TO GO!
I think you’re better off just avoiding women entirely.
We’re all better off avoiding women entirely, and only go to them for sex… make them cook our food and make sure the house is spotless. Women should be confined to the house and public places should outright ban them from entry. No dogs allowed… No women allowed!!
That’s how it’s supposed to be. Get the feminism out of your head.
You need to calm down.
You don’t hit women and don’t let them hit you. No one hits anybody.
Death penalty, shut the f~~~ up.
Confined to the home like slaves, shut the f~~~ up.
You just gave every feminist the ammo to say all men are like that.
Females are human beings and deserve basic human rights.
Definitely Jerks, but still human. Let go of your hate.
Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.
“Serving men like me”
I’m thinking Tuna. Anybody else?
Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.
Anonymous3Try and put things into perspective. Make no mistake: The strong is still dominating the weak and the fittest are surviving better.
Stronger? How? In aggressiveness? In physical power?
Did you ever watched the “undercover boss”? Most of these powerfully executives would be fired in day one from their own company. Circumstances and financial ability is what passes for “fitness” in our days.
You missed my quote about the wolves. Women are not homeless because society protects them. Men are supposed to take care of themselves.Women are machines for producing children and MUST be treated as such. They should not leave the house and their only duty is to serve & please their lords. Wife beating should be legalized again and STRICT RESTRICTIONS should be placed on women…. punishable by death
No.
Women are people. There are many kinds of people I cant stand. That does not mean I want to hurt them.
Once you go that way you are taking away their freedom. I very much want my freedom, so I will not take theirs. I resent them for taking mine!
Women should be confined to the house and public places should outright ban them from entry. No dogs allowed… No women allowed!!
Man, you are losing it.
Next you are saying the same thing about blacks. Next is Islamist. Then is the Mormons…You are not the all knowing judge of things. Have the wisdom to know that and refrain from determining the fate of others.
I do not believe that women are the fittest since without male labor society would not exist. See women would not make the best cops or soilders in a society without women using men as a labor horse they would not survive.
White knights and pussy beggars are the ones who throw men under the bus in society trying to get female approval are worse then the parasitic women who simply need to leech of men because they do more damage.
Just an east coast asshole who likes to curse, If you get offended by words like fuck, cunt, shit, piss, bitch or any racial slurs then you just scroll down.
I do not believe that women are the fittest since without male labor society would not exist. See women would not make the best cops or soilders in a society without women using men as a labor horse they would not survive.
That’s why real MGTOWs go Galt.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
