Bamby
New member
I found this article thought provoking myself and others may also find some value to it as well.....
So now it's "Easter worshipers" in Sri Lanka who were blown up; not "Christians" eh? And by the way, that's what Barack Obama and literal dozens of other "political people" called them.
And while the media and everyone else was all agog about "white supremacists" after New Zealand they cannot bring themselves to use the words "Muslim terrorists" or "Islamic terror", or, quite-accurately, "Islamic state" in terms of the goals and desires of those committing these bombings.
The very words "Muslim" or "Islamic" are banned when it comes to anything negative, you see.
**** these people. All of them.
But let's not stop here. How about if I go at something more basic, and longer-running, and I'll drive a pike through a few more sacred cows this way too.
The so-called sexual revolution.
Let's first start with a basic fact of reality: There are approximately the same number of boys and girls born. It is slightly biased toward males; about 105:100. This assumes nobody deliberately tampers with it by, for example, aborting girls after determining their sexes, which has happened in China and thus driven the ratio higher.
By the time both sexes reach puberty, however, it's nearly equal. The reasons are somewhat complex and all turn on the fact that boys tend to die very young more often than girls. It's not a large number, but it's enough to "even the odds" -- at least "close enough."
So for each girl there is a boy, and vice-versa.
That's good, right, if you'd like humans to continue to be a species.
Well, wait a second. That's too simple. The assumption there is that one boy and one girl will get together and live happily ever-after, making some number of children between them if nobody interferes and everything works as originally intended.
That's pure nonsense and it's easy to see that. Just look around you.
What happens in other primates -- which have reasonably-close sex ratios too, since sexual reproduction works pretty-much the same way ("X" and "Y" chromosomes)?
90% of the males don't get to mate at all; they're either exiled or killed. 10% or less of them screw all of the females.
This is true of most animals that form social groups; it is not limited to primates. In a pride of lions one adult male winds up with all -- or nearly all -- of the pussy; any other adult male that wants to actually mate has to fight and either kill or drive from the pride (with the penalty for not leaving if you lose being death) the existing leader of same. There are typically a couple of lesser adult males around, but they don't get any sex - except by extreme rare circumstance. At a couple of years age young males, recognizing that they'll never get any where they are leave their pride and try to displace the male in another one.
A good number of them die trying, but a few succeed and kill or drive from that pride the male already there.
Why does this situation come up again and again? Simply put it's physiological and inviolate -- which the Social Justice Warriors refuse to accept -- just like they refuse to accept so many other physical facts (such as there being exactly two sexes.)
Specifically, men are cursed with vastly more genetic material than they can ever use for reproduction at disgustingly high ratios. Men produce more sperm every day than they could possibly use in a lifetime. Women, on the other hand, are cursed with producing about 300 ova over their entire fertile life, one per month, and a significant percentage of them are defective. They either fail to be fertilized, fail to implant or something is wrong with them and the woman miscarries.
Here's how those curses manifest: It is to the advantage of men from a reproductive perspective to use as much of that genetic material as possible. For a woman, however, she can trivially use all of the ova she wishes to turn into children without any effort whatsoever. In other words women are the "price makers" when it comes to sexual congress in all willing sexual contact and this is true in essentially all sexually-reproducing species. It is why the males have all the "pretty stuff" in the animal kingdom; all that "pretty stuff" is there to seduce. The two young bucks (deer) outside your window are locking antlers and fighting between each other to impress the doe and thus obtain sexual favors; they fight not to gain the ability to rape but rather to impress the price maker and get her to allow him to have sex. Ditto for the peacock.
The "natural order" winds up with the huge majority of the males getting nothing or nearly-nothing while the females get all the sex they want -- that is, enough sex to reproduce.
Humans formed social constructs to address this problem -- and for damn good reason. Having the men running around constantly trying to kill or exile one another and then murdering all the children of the previous male, which happens frequently among animals too, is considered immoral -- and that's being kind. Genghis Khan anyone? He literally raped his way across continents and has more genetic material expressed in humans today than anyone else to have ever walked upright on two legs.
That social construct humans put together took into account that women are wired to want "one man" but there is no physiological reason for it to be the same one at any given time (e.g. they have every physiological incentive to "trade up" at every opportunity) while men are wired to want to screw as many women as possible. Both of these natural physiological facts are immutable but you can design incentives to make them unattractive to follow through on.
The media and information revolution, starting with radio and onward, is hugely responsible for appealing to these base physiological instincts and claim that both sexes can have what their base instinct wants. Why not? Make men always seek no less than a "9 of 10" and make women always seek the Arnold Schwarzenegger (physically) or Jeff Bezos (wealth) -- preferably both! Stuff that in both men and women's faces 24x7 to sell all sorts of "stuff" from fast cars to glamorous make-up. Make the pitch that "buying this car" will get you the fabulous 5'10"' tall, 26" waist gal with 38DD*****. If you're a woman you can have the bronzed 6-pack abs dude with a billion dollars, a 10" all-night cock and 100' yacht. He'll fly you to Paris for lunch on his private jet too -- if you just buy Chanel #5.
The so-called "sexual revolution" intentionally destroyed all of the social constructs that had been put together over thousands of years of human history. It was sold to women as "freeing them" from their half of the bargain which was seen as "unjust" and many men foolishly thought it would work out well for them too.
What both women and men were sold was a knowing lie.
Then social media and the Internet came along and made it 100x worse. Not only is the brag factor out there but a huge part of it isn't even true because anyone can post anything. Then add to that Tinder, Bumble, Match and the rest. There was billions of dollars to be made selling both men and women lies and so Zucker****er, Spoogle, Twatter and IAC all went to work on your head -- and no, not the big one. The one between your legs.
Study after study has shown that women rate 90% of the men as "less than average" in attractiveness and wouldn't consider going on a single date with more than 10% of the men they meet. That sounds pigheaded but it's nothing more than expression of how women are physiologically wired. The same studies show that men are much less selective in terms of who they'd be willing to go out with but in terms of how they see attractiveness, not so much. Indeed irrespective of a man's age within the "breeding band" or his own appearance and wealth virtually all prefer the extremely-cute 20 year old! Again, they're not pigs; this expression of preference is nothing more than how men are physiologically wired.
So are we surprised at what has happened when all of the social constructs that bound women to men and vice-versa were intentionally destroyed in the name of "feminism" and the "sexual revolution"?
A 20 year old attractive woman gets all the men; she has more cock available to her than she knows what to do with. She feels great -- for the moment.
The somewhat-attractive 20 year old woman also gets a large number of men; she too has many choices one for each day if she'd like. She too feels great -- for the moment.
The 6-pack abs dude gets more pussy than he knows what to do with. Great for him, right?
And the 1%er with money gets all the pussy he knows what to do with no matter what he looks like. The evidence for that is easy to find too; go anywhere there are nice expensive boats and see all the fat, balding 50 year-olds with a 20-something 36DD chick in a bikini sunning herself -- and that's not his daughter either. Great for him too, right?
But what about the bottom 50% of guys? Hell, how about the bottom 80 or even 90 percent? You know, the dude with a regular old job and a Chevy -- no Lambo, no boat, and no six-pack abs.
They get none; exactly zero of the above women will go out with them. Such a man is allegedly too "boring." There are plenty of dudes that have one or both of the six-pack or lots of money so..... all the rest of the dudes wind up going to whack off to porn on the Internet.
What about the bottom 50 -- or 80% of women?
Well, at 20 they might get some, probably all they want is on-offer, but remember -- men are being told they can have it all too, and so they'll get laid but they too have been told they're a princess and can have the six-pack stud, so they have no particular reason to be loyal. As soon as the somewhat better looking or richer guy comes along they're suddenly "unhappy" and.... well there you go.
Then time goes on a bit.
The 20 year old woman who used to have a lot of dating (read: sexual) options is now 30, and then 40. She has had lots of sex but she's never happy because there's always richer and better-toned available. Why should she settle? She hasn't, in short; there's always a better one right around the corner, in the bar, at work, whatever. Well, she turns 40 and..... oops. Mr. SixPack now screws the 20 year old! Why wouldn't he -- remember, he is supposed to be "sexually liberated" too! Why take less -- as he sees it -- than he can get?
Women have a few years of very high sexual market value as "price makers" and then it starts declining, and that market value declines fast. If she wants kids that problem gets serious around the 30ish year mark if she wants 2 or more, and in the mid-30s even if she only wants one. Maybe one of the dudes who was "boring" but has a nice, steady job runs into her 20 years later. She turned him down 20 years before; he was neither cute or rich enough and he remembers her choosing to screw the burly dude with the six-pack -- or the guy in the $5,000 suit with the Lambo buying $200 shots -- that night in the bar. Why would he believe how she truly feels has changed now? Her desire is transparent and he has no reason to believe she won't **** the Amazon delivery dude next year if he's cuter as soon as she has her kid(s) -- and leave him.
Worse, he'll never see HIS kids again but he'll get the bill to raise them while the Amazon delivery dude goes to Disney with them on his dime.
As for men what do they have on offer when they're 40? Half or more of men at that point have a nice beer belly and the six-pack is long gone. If by then he's got a yacht (in other words he's in the 1%) well, that's plenty good enough and he'll keep getting some -- from younger women at that. But why would he want more than a bang-and-done from any of them? She's transparent in what she wants, so why wouldn't he be? Of course he is and will be -- it's only rational and there's nothing unfair about that exchange.
What happens to the now 90%+ of both women and men who are neither stupid-rich or stupid pretty/cute/sexy at 40?
They keep Hustler and the dildo store in business.
Is that such a great deal for nearly everyone out of the so-called "sexual revolution"? Wouldn't nearly everyone have been better off if most people pair-bonded at 20 and there was a strong disincentive to screw the Amazon delivery dude -- or the 20 year old beach blonde bubble-head?
Heh, if you all like the way things are now then so be it. You're odd's off to benefit from it, but there's no limit to human stupidity.
Remember, the ****heads who pushed this **** on people were all high-paid academics, media ****heads and politicians, all of whom have a lot of money and power and thus are never in the "common person" category nor will they ever be. They get all the sex they want all of the time from the day they reach puberty until the day they die and they can and will change the person they sleep with as often as they like -- maybe as often as they change their underwear. Have either power or money and sexual partners are never in short supply. Have both and, well, the world's your oyster.
Oh by the way the people who pulled that crap originally are still running their pack of lies too -- the evil bitches named Pelosi and Harris (who literally admits she blew her way into political office!) among them, never mind Trump and Clinton. Of course those two could and did "grab 'em by the pussy" (or stuff their dick in an intern's mouth) because they have either a billion dollars or are the most-powerful man in the world. McKenzie Bezos did just fine after Jeff decided to dick someone else but gee, Jeff got all the pussy he wanted, including while married and still does, right? McKenzie will get all the dick she wants because she too has a billion dollars. Ain't that special?
But neither you or I have a billion dollars nor do we have the ability to ram our bull**** down other people's throat at gunpoint because we're just ordinary people instead of being billionaires, Senators, Congress-sluts or Presidents.
In short they don't care about you when it comes to any of this.
If that was all it was then it wouldn't be worth this article. Frankly, I don't care any more. Not all that long ago I had a nice big boat. It was amazing what happened in terms of what was on offer to me literally the day I sold it. If you think I didn't recognize that immediately you don't have much respect for my level of intelligence.
The bigger problem for society however, and why this is worth the digital ink is that without a solid pair-bonding paradigm the human race is in big trouble and so is our nation.
If only the top 10, 20 or 30% of women have kids and they have no support for same they will only have 1 or 2 because that's all they can have. The few who are so wealthy they don't care about support, either emotional or monetary can have eight or ten but they won't choose to -- they're too busy making money to have all those kids and besides, it gets in the way of the trips to the Louvre or Alps.
The only people today having a lot of kids are those who could give a wet crap about them in any respect; they simply crank them out as a meal ticket to get freebie government benefits and could care less what happens to them beyond that point. Those are the kids who turn into teens that go on wilding screeds down on the MagMile of Chicago and, in short order, wind up as gang-bangers shooting, raping and robbing people -- or replicating what their momma did and making eight more for the next turn of the crank. Our cities are full of these people but up until the so-called "sexual revolution" and "feminism" that subgroup of society for all intents and purposes DID NOT EXIST. Feminists and the "sexual revolution" CREATED this segment of society AND IT IS NOW EATING THE NATION FROM WITHIN -- LITERALLY.
All-in, statistically, there isn't a fair distribution of children across socio-economic lines and worse even if you don't care about that there aren't enough kids being made in total to keep the human species going in our country -- or any other Western nation.
So the "wise asses" in Government have panicked and threw open the door to illegal immigration, turning same quasi-legal because those people will screw like rabbits and the Ponzi finance system they devised to give away all that money to women cranking out babies without regard to whether Remy, Jose or Harold is the father this time makes it possible to -- for a while -- cut the checks. Incidentally this includes Trump.
Unfortunately the mathematical reality is that the percentage of children being born who can and will go on to be in the 1% in earnings power (that is, pay disgusting amounts in taxes) and invent things (that is, improve productivity by leaps and bounds) -- or to be more precise, move society forward -- is collapsing and on present trends we will soon see the effective extinction of same.
That people like Ilhan Omar or Maxine Waters can and have been elected to Congress is proof of this; a majority of the people voting in those districts, which is necessary for them to be elected, are in the group that will never produce an Einstein or Henry Ford simply because they don't give a crap about anything except gaining a larger government check for emitting another spawn and the 50-IQ male they bang in order to do it doesn't care either; for him it's nothing more than intermission between shooting at other gang-bangers on the nearest street corner.
The necessary social construct which must be restored has to provide good incentives for men and women to "pair off" early and permanently in life. Like around 20 years of age. At the same time the incentive to crank out babies you don't give a crap about and who turn into gang-bangers and worse on a wildly disparate basis must be ended entirely or we will be swallowed by those individuals. The reform needed must come at both sides of the sex aisle -- not just one.
This is not a trivial issue nor is a simple-minded (and there are lots of those folks out there -- beware the banhammer in the comment section here if you're one of them) answer going to work.
This much is certain, however -- any such solution involves getting rid of those in power who have promoted the lie of both "sexual revolution" and "feminism" to both sexes for decades and deposing them to somewhere at least as remote in terms of their access to the levers of power as is Mars.
This must happen -- and soon.
Like now.
2024 is coming, which is a knee point in federal finances. The math is what it is and there's nothing anyone can do to change it at this point in time. While we cannot possibly reverse the demographic damage in that amount of time -- it simply can't be done, as it will take a full generation or more to make a serious dent in it -- we had better be well on our way by then or people in the markets and society are both likely to put not just middle fingers up in the air when government finance collapses but things that expel items from their business ends that are much more-forceful.
The gang-bangers already have plenty of them and they've demonstrated they'll use them with no hint of restraint.
Your move, fools.
MarketTicker
So now it's "Easter worshipers" in Sri Lanka who were blown up; not "Christians" eh? And by the way, that's what Barack Obama and literal dozens of other "political people" called them.
And while the media and everyone else was all agog about "white supremacists" after New Zealand they cannot bring themselves to use the words "Muslim terrorists" or "Islamic terror", or, quite-accurately, "Islamic state" in terms of the goals and desires of those committing these bombings.
The very words "Muslim" or "Islamic" are banned when it comes to anything negative, you see.
**** these people. All of them.
But let's not stop here. How about if I go at something more basic, and longer-running, and I'll drive a pike through a few more sacred cows this way too.
The so-called sexual revolution.
Let's first start with a basic fact of reality: There are approximately the same number of boys and girls born. It is slightly biased toward males; about 105:100. This assumes nobody deliberately tampers with it by, for example, aborting girls after determining their sexes, which has happened in China and thus driven the ratio higher.
By the time both sexes reach puberty, however, it's nearly equal. The reasons are somewhat complex and all turn on the fact that boys tend to die very young more often than girls. It's not a large number, but it's enough to "even the odds" -- at least "close enough."
So for each girl there is a boy, and vice-versa.
That's good, right, if you'd like humans to continue to be a species.
Well, wait a second. That's too simple. The assumption there is that one boy and one girl will get together and live happily ever-after, making some number of children between them if nobody interferes and everything works as originally intended.
That's pure nonsense and it's easy to see that. Just look around you.
What happens in other primates -- which have reasonably-close sex ratios too, since sexual reproduction works pretty-much the same way ("X" and "Y" chromosomes)?
90% of the males don't get to mate at all; they're either exiled or killed. 10% or less of them screw all of the females.
This is true of most animals that form social groups; it is not limited to primates. In a pride of lions one adult male winds up with all -- or nearly all -- of the pussy; any other adult male that wants to actually mate has to fight and either kill or drive from the pride (with the penalty for not leaving if you lose being death) the existing leader of same. There are typically a couple of lesser adult males around, but they don't get any sex - except by extreme rare circumstance. At a couple of years age young males, recognizing that they'll never get any where they are leave their pride and try to displace the male in another one.
A good number of them die trying, but a few succeed and kill or drive from that pride the male already there.
Why does this situation come up again and again? Simply put it's physiological and inviolate -- which the Social Justice Warriors refuse to accept -- just like they refuse to accept so many other physical facts (such as there being exactly two sexes.)
Specifically, men are cursed with vastly more genetic material than they can ever use for reproduction at disgustingly high ratios. Men produce more sperm every day than they could possibly use in a lifetime. Women, on the other hand, are cursed with producing about 300 ova over their entire fertile life, one per month, and a significant percentage of them are defective. They either fail to be fertilized, fail to implant or something is wrong with them and the woman miscarries.
Here's how those curses manifest: It is to the advantage of men from a reproductive perspective to use as much of that genetic material as possible. For a woman, however, she can trivially use all of the ova she wishes to turn into children without any effort whatsoever. In other words women are the "price makers" when it comes to sexual congress in all willing sexual contact and this is true in essentially all sexually-reproducing species. It is why the males have all the "pretty stuff" in the animal kingdom; all that "pretty stuff" is there to seduce. The two young bucks (deer) outside your window are locking antlers and fighting between each other to impress the doe and thus obtain sexual favors; they fight not to gain the ability to rape but rather to impress the price maker and get her to allow him to have sex. Ditto for the peacock.
The "natural order" winds up with the huge majority of the males getting nothing or nearly-nothing while the females get all the sex they want -- that is, enough sex to reproduce.
Humans formed social constructs to address this problem -- and for damn good reason. Having the men running around constantly trying to kill or exile one another and then murdering all the children of the previous male, which happens frequently among animals too, is considered immoral -- and that's being kind. Genghis Khan anyone? He literally raped his way across continents and has more genetic material expressed in humans today than anyone else to have ever walked upright on two legs.
That social construct humans put together took into account that women are wired to want "one man" but there is no physiological reason for it to be the same one at any given time (e.g. they have every physiological incentive to "trade up" at every opportunity) while men are wired to want to screw as many women as possible. Both of these natural physiological facts are immutable but you can design incentives to make them unattractive to follow through on.
The media and information revolution, starting with radio and onward, is hugely responsible for appealing to these base physiological instincts and claim that both sexes can have what their base instinct wants. Why not? Make men always seek no less than a "9 of 10" and make women always seek the Arnold Schwarzenegger (physically) or Jeff Bezos (wealth) -- preferably both! Stuff that in both men and women's faces 24x7 to sell all sorts of "stuff" from fast cars to glamorous make-up. Make the pitch that "buying this car" will get you the fabulous 5'10"' tall, 26" waist gal with 38DD*****. If you're a woman you can have the bronzed 6-pack abs dude with a billion dollars, a 10" all-night cock and 100' yacht. He'll fly you to Paris for lunch on his private jet too -- if you just buy Chanel #5.
The so-called "sexual revolution" intentionally destroyed all of the social constructs that had been put together over thousands of years of human history. It was sold to women as "freeing them" from their half of the bargain which was seen as "unjust" and many men foolishly thought it would work out well for them too.
What both women and men were sold was a knowing lie.
Then social media and the Internet came along and made it 100x worse. Not only is the brag factor out there but a huge part of it isn't even true because anyone can post anything. Then add to that Tinder, Bumble, Match and the rest. There was billions of dollars to be made selling both men and women lies and so Zucker****er, Spoogle, Twatter and IAC all went to work on your head -- and no, not the big one. The one between your legs.
Study after study has shown that women rate 90% of the men as "less than average" in attractiveness and wouldn't consider going on a single date with more than 10% of the men they meet. That sounds pigheaded but it's nothing more than expression of how women are physiologically wired. The same studies show that men are much less selective in terms of who they'd be willing to go out with but in terms of how they see attractiveness, not so much. Indeed irrespective of a man's age within the "breeding band" or his own appearance and wealth virtually all prefer the extremely-cute 20 year old! Again, they're not pigs; this expression of preference is nothing more than how men are physiologically wired.
So are we surprised at what has happened when all of the social constructs that bound women to men and vice-versa were intentionally destroyed in the name of "feminism" and the "sexual revolution"?
A 20 year old attractive woman gets all the men; she has more cock available to her than she knows what to do with. She feels great -- for the moment.
The somewhat-attractive 20 year old woman also gets a large number of men; she too has many choices one for each day if she'd like. She too feels great -- for the moment.
The 6-pack abs dude gets more pussy than he knows what to do with. Great for him, right?
And the 1%er with money gets all the pussy he knows what to do with no matter what he looks like. The evidence for that is easy to find too; go anywhere there are nice expensive boats and see all the fat, balding 50 year-olds with a 20-something 36DD chick in a bikini sunning herself -- and that's not his daughter either. Great for him too, right?
But what about the bottom 50% of guys? Hell, how about the bottom 80 or even 90 percent? You know, the dude with a regular old job and a Chevy -- no Lambo, no boat, and no six-pack abs.
They get none; exactly zero of the above women will go out with them. Such a man is allegedly too "boring." There are plenty of dudes that have one or both of the six-pack or lots of money so..... all the rest of the dudes wind up going to whack off to porn on the Internet.
What about the bottom 50 -- or 80% of women?
Well, at 20 they might get some, probably all they want is on-offer, but remember -- men are being told they can have it all too, and so they'll get laid but they too have been told they're a princess and can have the six-pack stud, so they have no particular reason to be loyal. As soon as the somewhat better looking or richer guy comes along they're suddenly "unhappy" and.... well there you go.
Then time goes on a bit.
The 20 year old woman who used to have a lot of dating (read: sexual) options is now 30, and then 40. She has had lots of sex but she's never happy because there's always richer and better-toned available. Why should she settle? She hasn't, in short; there's always a better one right around the corner, in the bar, at work, whatever. Well, she turns 40 and..... oops. Mr. SixPack now screws the 20 year old! Why wouldn't he -- remember, he is supposed to be "sexually liberated" too! Why take less -- as he sees it -- than he can get?
Women have a few years of very high sexual market value as "price makers" and then it starts declining, and that market value declines fast. If she wants kids that problem gets serious around the 30ish year mark if she wants 2 or more, and in the mid-30s even if she only wants one. Maybe one of the dudes who was "boring" but has a nice, steady job runs into her 20 years later. She turned him down 20 years before; he was neither cute or rich enough and he remembers her choosing to screw the burly dude with the six-pack -- or the guy in the $5,000 suit with the Lambo buying $200 shots -- that night in the bar. Why would he believe how she truly feels has changed now? Her desire is transparent and he has no reason to believe she won't **** the Amazon delivery dude next year if he's cuter as soon as she has her kid(s) -- and leave him.
Worse, he'll never see HIS kids again but he'll get the bill to raise them while the Amazon delivery dude goes to Disney with them on his dime.
As for men what do they have on offer when they're 40? Half or more of men at that point have a nice beer belly and the six-pack is long gone. If by then he's got a yacht (in other words he's in the 1%) well, that's plenty good enough and he'll keep getting some -- from younger women at that. But why would he want more than a bang-and-done from any of them? She's transparent in what she wants, so why wouldn't he be? Of course he is and will be -- it's only rational and there's nothing unfair about that exchange.
What happens to the now 90%+ of both women and men who are neither stupid-rich or stupid pretty/cute/sexy at 40?
They keep Hustler and the dildo store in business.
Is that such a great deal for nearly everyone out of the so-called "sexual revolution"? Wouldn't nearly everyone have been better off if most people pair-bonded at 20 and there was a strong disincentive to screw the Amazon delivery dude -- or the 20 year old beach blonde bubble-head?
Heh, if you all like the way things are now then so be it. You're odd's off to benefit from it, but there's no limit to human stupidity.
Remember, the ****heads who pushed this **** on people were all high-paid academics, media ****heads and politicians, all of whom have a lot of money and power and thus are never in the "common person" category nor will they ever be. They get all the sex they want all of the time from the day they reach puberty until the day they die and they can and will change the person they sleep with as often as they like -- maybe as often as they change their underwear. Have either power or money and sexual partners are never in short supply. Have both and, well, the world's your oyster.
Oh by the way the people who pulled that crap originally are still running their pack of lies too -- the evil bitches named Pelosi and Harris (who literally admits she blew her way into political office!) among them, never mind Trump and Clinton. Of course those two could and did "grab 'em by the pussy" (or stuff their dick in an intern's mouth) because they have either a billion dollars or are the most-powerful man in the world. McKenzie Bezos did just fine after Jeff decided to dick someone else but gee, Jeff got all the pussy he wanted, including while married and still does, right? McKenzie will get all the dick she wants because she too has a billion dollars. Ain't that special?
But neither you or I have a billion dollars nor do we have the ability to ram our bull**** down other people's throat at gunpoint because we're just ordinary people instead of being billionaires, Senators, Congress-sluts or Presidents.
In short they don't care about you when it comes to any of this.
If that was all it was then it wouldn't be worth this article. Frankly, I don't care any more. Not all that long ago I had a nice big boat. It was amazing what happened in terms of what was on offer to me literally the day I sold it. If you think I didn't recognize that immediately you don't have much respect for my level of intelligence.
The bigger problem for society however, and why this is worth the digital ink is that without a solid pair-bonding paradigm the human race is in big trouble and so is our nation.
If only the top 10, 20 or 30% of women have kids and they have no support for same they will only have 1 or 2 because that's all they can have. The few who are so wealthy they don't care about support, either emotional or monetary can have eight or ten but they won't choose to -- they're too busy making money to have all those kids and besides, it gets in the way of the trips to the Louvre or Alps.
The only people today having a lot of kids are those who could give a wet crap about them in any respect; they simply crank them out as a meal ticket to get freebie government benefits and could care less what happens to them beyond that point. Those are the kids who turn into teens that go on wilding screeds down on the MagMile of Chicago and, in short order, wind up as gang-bangers shooting, raping and robbing people -- or replicating what their momma did and making eight more for the next turn of the crank. Our cities are full of these people but up until the so-called "sexual revolution" and "feminism" that subgroup of society for all intents and purposes DID NOT EXIST. Feminists and the "sexual revolution" CREATED this segment of society AND IT IS NOW EATING THE NATION FROM WITHIN -- LITERALLY.
All-in, statistically, there isn't a fair distribution of children across socio-economic lines and worse even if you don't care about that there aren't enough kids being made in total to keep the human species going in our country -- or any other Western nation.
So the "wise asses" in Government have panicked and threw open the door to illegal immigration, turning same quasi-legal because those people will screw like rabbits and the Ponzi finance system they devised to give away all that money to women cranking out babies without regard to whether Remy, Jose or Harold is the father this time makes it possible to -- for a while -- cut the checks. Incidentally this includes Trump.
Unfortunately the mathematical reality is that the percentage of children being born who can and will go on to be in the 1% in earnings power (that is, pay disgusting amounts in taxes) and invent things (that is, improve productivity by leaps and bounds) -- or to be more precise, move society forward -- is collapsing and on present trends we will soon see the effective extinction of same.
That people like Ilhan Omar or Maxine Waters can and have been elected to Congress is proof of this; a majority of the people voting in those districts, which is necessary for them to be elected, are in the group that will never produce an Einstein or Henry Ford simply because they don't give a crap about anything except gaining a larger government check for emitting another spawn and the 50-IQ male they bang in order to do it doesn't care either; for him it's nothing more than intermission between shooting at other gang-bangers on the nearest street corner.
The necessary social construct which must be restored has to provide good incentives for men and women to "pair off" early and permanently in life. Like around 20 years of age. At the same time the incentive to crank out babies you don't give a crap about and who turn into gang-bangers and worse on a wildly disparate basis must be ended entirely or we will be swallowed by those individuals. The reform needed must come at both sides of the sex aisle -- not just one.
This is not a trivial issue nor is a simple-minded (and there are lots of those folks out there -- beware the banhammer in the comment section here if you're one of them) answer going to work.
This much is certain, however -- any such solution involves getting rid of those in power who have promoted the lie of both "sexual revolution" and "feminism" to both sexes for decades and deposing them to somewhere at least as remote in terms of their access to the levers of power as is Mars.
This must happen -- and soon.
Like now.
2024 is coming, which is a knee point in federal finances. The math is what it is and there's nothing anyone can do to change it at this point in time. While we cannot possibly reverse the demographic damage in that amount of time -- it simply can't be done, as it will take a full generation or more to make a serious dent in it -- we had better be well on our way by then or people in the markets and society are both likely to put not just middle fingers up in the air when government finance collapses but things that expel items from their business ends that are much more-forceful.
The gang-bangers already have plenty of them and they've demonstrated they'll use them with no hint of restraint.
Your move, fools.
MarketTicker