Post-Boomer Post-Feminism

Divorce rates have been in decline since 1986 and have returned to pre-feminism levels:

Divorce rates have plummeted to their lowest level in more than five decades – thanks to men being more ‘committed’ to their marriages, a study claims. The chance of a marriage breaking down is now 35 per cent, down from a high of 44 per cent in 1986, and a rate not seen since 1970.

Researchers found the decline is almost entirely down to a fall in the number of wives filing for separation. They argue that this is because men’s increased commitment means women are far happier in their marriages. By contrast, the number of divorces initiated by husbands has barely changed in decades.

Granted, the researchers are being ridiculous in their customary attempt to avoid all female responsibility and culpability. It’s literally not the male behavior that has changed, nor has the female behavior changed due to any changes in male behavior. This increase in marital success is due to a) Boomers aging out and b) younger women having seen the results of feminism.

It’s true that the reduced level of marriage probably plays a role here, as some of those who would never stay married aren’t getting married in the first place. But it’s good news that a higher percentage of married couples are staying together now, and these statistics should be kept in mind whenever some bitter MGTOW starts spouting off about how marital failure is inevitable when it’s actually only one chance in three.

UPDATE: A MGTOW responds:

In your newest post, you said that, with the divorce rate having decreased to one in three, that should shut up MGTOWs. I’ll simply ask you one question: would YOU jump out of an airplane if your parachute had a one in three chance of failure? NO! Because divorce wrecks mens’ lives, marriage is still too risky for men.

To which I responded in the kind and sensitive manner for which I am well-known:

You’re literally retarded. And a genetic dead-end. If you weren’t retarded, you’d realize that your analogy is both stupid and irrelevant. Don’t be such a coward. It’s no way to live.


Ignore the Boomer Ghosts

The Kurgan responds to Karl Denninger’s Boomer blackpilling:

In the big scheme of things, those who do not reproduce sufficiently die out. Nature is pretty brutal about it and tends to operate on the principles of large numbers. And exceptions to that rule because of different large numbers.

It may just be humanity’s lot that we go the way of mouse utopia aka Universe 25. In which case, we’re all doomed and so are all our children. And if so, why worry about it. Worrying about it would be a total waste of time. Besides which you do NOT know this for certain, so assuming it off the bat is an error. So, as a function of reason and logic, this specific idea must be ignored.

Treating it as valid or true can only lead you to depression and misery in a situation where your irrational belief in a “certainty” you cannot possibly know is a certainty, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This point alone, the Universe 25 possibility, should make it obvious that similar thoughts that lead down similar (if less total) outcomes are also to be ignored.

So for example, the idea that “all white people will soon be extinct” or “high IQ people do not breed together because there is not enough of them” or the more common “marriage and children is a loser’s game because all women are whores and will divorce-rape you” and all the various variants of that kind, are in essence self-fulfilling, loser’s bets on life. The fact that your specific marriage may turn into a hellscape, or your specific life becomes a dead end is not relevant to the entire sub-species you represent.

Yes nature does not care about you specifically, but you specifically can and do affect nature. Make 15 children and chances are most of them survive. If they all too make 15 children from age 20 on, like you did, guess what the landscape of your tribe looks like 100 years from now if you just start out with you and your wife as Adam and Eve? On that basis, starting with you and your wife having had 15 children by the time you are both say 40, if all your children and theirs and so on do the same, meaning that every 40 years they all have a batch of 15 children each, if you lived to be 140, you would have over 17 thousand descendants. 17,275 to be exact. And if the average age of death was say 80, then almost all of them would still be alive, since the first iteration (at year 20) is only 135 people. And that’s only ONE family. Imagine if you have ten such families in the same area. You now have a small nation after one century. Which in the scheme of things is not so much time. And if the genetic serums actually sterilise and wipe out most of humanity, you will not only be a small nation, you will be the majority within it. And it might not be such a small geographical area after all. Now imagine them all of the same religion that takes no crap from depopulationist satanists like Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates and their pedophile friends.

“But people don’t make 15 children each, and how do you feed them all, and send them to college?!?”

Patience grasshopper. People who bought the lies and live in clown world no longer make 15 children. But people did do that for centuries in Catholic countries. And that was before the internet, and Amazon deliveries, and often before indoor plumbing and central heating, and certainly before electricity and tractors and industrial fertilisers and automated harvesting machines… so let that sink in a little and park it in your brain somewhere while we continue to look at reality and possibilities instead of the ghosts boomers put in your head.

This is one of the many reasons why it is good to hate the Boomer, or at the very least, to reject the Boomer and all his pomps and all his philosophies. Hope is not only a virtue, it is one of the three primary Christian virtues, along with Faith and Love.

Don’t worry about college. It’s a net-negative artifact of the 1960s-1990s anyhow. If you’re going to walk the path of the materialistic hedonist, you shouldn’t be getting married and having children anyhow, just plug into the pharma-sexual matrix and extinguish yourself over time in an overdose of Clown World oxytoxin.


They Call it “Luck”

But it really doesn’t have much to do with chance or anything random. A team of Italian scientists tests the connection between the distribution of various attributes and the distribution of wealth.

What factors, then, determine how individuals become wealthy? Could it be that chance plays a bigger role than anybody expected? And how can these factors, whatever they are, be exploited to make the world a better and fairer place?

Today we get an answer thanks to the work of Alessandro Pluchino at the University of Catania in Italy and a couple of colleagues. These guys have created a computer model of human talent and the way people use it to exploit opportunities in life. The model allows the team to study the role of chance in this process.

The results are something of an eye-opener. Their simulations accurately reproduce the wealth distribution in the real world. But the wealthiest individuals are not the most talented (although they must have a certain level of talent). They are the luckiest. And this has significant implications for the way societies can optimize the returns they get for investments in everything from business to science.

Pluchino and co’s model is straightforward. It consists of N people, each with a certain level of talent (skill, intelligence, ability, and so on). This talent is distributed normally around some average level, with some standard deviation. So some people are more talented than average and some are less so, but nobody is orders of magnitude more talented than anybody else.

This is the same kind of distribution seen for various human skills, or even characteristics like height or weight. Some people are taller or smaller than average, but nobody is the size of an ant or a skyscraper. Indeed, we are all quite similar.

The computer model charts each individual through a working life of 40 years. During this time, the individuals experience lucky events that they can exploit to increase their wealth if they are talented enough. However, they also experience unlucky events that reduce their wealth. These events occur at random.

At the end of the 40 years, Pluchino and co rank the individuals by wealth and study the characteristics of the most successful. They also calculate the wealth distribution. They then repeat the simulation many times to check the robustness of the outcome.

When the team rank individuals by wealth, the distribution is exactly like that seen in real-world societies. “The ‘80-20’ rule is respected, since 80 percent of the population owns only 20 percent of the total capital, while the remaining 20 percent owns 80 percent of the same capital,” report Pluchino and co.

That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20 percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most talented or anywhere near it. “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the researchers.

So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? “Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck,” say Pluchino and co.

First of all, this science, such as it is, should suffice to end, once and for all, the absurd insistence by American Jews that their statistically inordinate amount of wealth and power amassed in a matter of decades has anything to do with their imaginary average 115 IQ.

However, “just pure luck” is not a variable. While this method is sufficient to demonstrate the lack of correlation between talent, IQ, hard work, and other specific variables with wealth, to simply assign the causation to random chance is incorrect. The much more reasonable answer is that the team failed to test the variable that is most strongly correlated with wealth, which is positive connection to the central societal distributors of wealth.

There is no way such a model could account for ticket-taking, and yet we repeatedly observe that mediocre ticket-takers succeed while much more talented independents “experience unlucky events”. Is there one single person in the world who believes that Ben Shapiro is better behind the microphone than Milo Yiannopoulos or Owen Benjamin, and that he is also a more talented writer than Bruce Bethke, Chuck Dixon, and me?

Color me dubious.

Is there anyone who genuinely believes CNN can’t do better than hire a CEO and Chairman who was fired as the Director-General of the BBC for covering up the Jimmy Saville scandal?

I am of the color dubious.

It will be interesting to see what happens when these researchers discover that what they call “serendipity” fails to produce the results they are expecting, and when “serendipity” suddenly begins to cause them to experience unlucky events.

A useful term, that “serendipity”.


One Ticket to the Ride

Mike Cernovich advocates men seeking to have children younger than the current societal norm.

If you’ve lived right, and done enough stuff, you won’t resent your kids or see them as having “held you back.” (That is almost always DELUSIONAL. It’s really hilarious how many people think they would have done something truly epic if only they hadn’t had kids. Kids often inspire you to become more.)

While men don’t have a biological clock the way women do, you still don’t want to die on your kids. Imagine being 70, having a kid, and dying when he’s 10. Hello? That’s creating cycles of trauma, and the number one rule of parenting is that your job is to close off cycles of trauma.

Anyway, that’s how you want to think about this subject.

Cold hard math and a little bit of biology.

You don’t have “all the time in the world.”

You get one ticket to the ride, and today is the youngest you’ll ever be.

It’s rather fascinating to see how many men, even men that one would not necessarily describe as having been particularly good men all along, are finding their way back to the Christian verities via a variety of paths.

He’s correct. Today is the youngest you will ever be, so make your game plan and act accordingly. The goal for a young man should be having his first child before the age of 30, and preferably as young as 25.


Triggering the Irrelevant

All the cowards and incels on Gab were triggered by this.

The future belongs to those who show up for it. Stop whining. Start fighting by getting married, having children, and planting the acorns of the trees in whose shade your grandchildren will play. Yes, there are risks. You might get your heart broken. You might lose half your toys. So what? Action requires risk and risk is inherent to life.

There is no point in whining, blackpilling, or worrying about things you can’t possibly control. If you’re not willing to take risks to build the future, if you’re not willing to live, if you’re not willing to set your face against the entropy of the universe, then you are irrelevant and your inferior genetic line will end with you, due to your cowardly narcissism.


The Canadian Tea Party

The Canadian Truckers’ Convoy ended up pretty much as I anticipated, effecting zero change despite the media theater as it was easily dismantled by the authorities. So much for the Internet’s armchair logistics experts:

Some mistakes were merely operational. There was no vetting. I gave one person my pseudonym and an invented autobiography, and within hours I was in a boardroom with all the organizers, going through maps, talking about internal weak points, looking at charts, and inputting every important phone number into my contact list. The lack of operational security was astounding.

The grass-roots organizations also meant that no one—yet everyone—was in charge. It was a classic case of “too many chiefs, not enough Indians,” but worse, as if the chiefs had all been drinking mouthwash. So much time was wasted between defective people competing for status and control, including podcasters and lawyers who thought of themselves as serious leaders, that it felt like the Special Olympics of political resistance. Resultantly, there was no distinction between strategy and tactics. Some organizers became so committed to certain small tasks, they could not understand that a bigger picture existed, while at the same time, it was rare for anyone to discuss what success would look like.

Another problem was the lack of quality men: we had some who were brave and others who were sharp, but few who were both. Most damaging of all was that nearly every organizer saw the occupation and their battle with the regime through the lens of a feminine morality, with undue concern about how we would be perceived. There was no understanding of conflict. The organizers couldn’t even fathom the regime extending its power through the judiciary or the financial system, and every time the government used the tools within their control, the organizers would become histrionic, and take comfort in videos of commentary and ranting by political celebrities who supported the convoy.

Somehow, most organizers and demonstrators held two incompatible premises at the same time. They took for granted that the Canadian government had been acting illegally over the past two years, even harming its citizenry for their own gain; and also believed guilelessly that the government would not lie, seize donations, freeze personal finances, use brutal force, or commit any other illegal action regarding the convoy. Every time the government demonstrated its willingness not to “play fair,” there was widespread emotional breakdown among the organizers. Some left fearful for their lives, while others became meritoriously cavalier and tried to get themselves arrested, even if their skillset was irreplaceable. There was an indulgent narcissism in the desire to be arrested for “counselling to commit mischief” and other misdemeanors. Since most organizers were released without charge, there was a sense that you could achieve martyrdom without real sacrifice.

So, as usual, it accomplished nothing except to wake up more regular citizens to the fact that they are not going to be able to vote, protest, posture, or threaten their way out of the neo-liberal world order’s chains. Which is why nothing is likely to change before its eventual, and inevitable, collapse under the weight of its own inversions and internal contradictions.

As a general rule, very few people are moved to act unless they are made sufficiently uncomfortable first. And the societies of the WereWest are literally too fat, well-fed, overstimulated, and drug-addled to be even remotely uncomfortable. But they are fragile and increasingly unstable societies, and their collapse is clearly coming.


We’re Not Locked Out By You

You’re locked out by us:

A majority of vaccinated Americans do not want unvaccinated relatives attending their holiday parties, and almost half have cut off family members over their vaccination status, according to a new poll. According to a survey of 2,000 Americans conducted by OnePoll this month, 63% of those vaccinated against Covid-19 “don’t feel comfortable” allowing their unvaccinated relatives to attend their holiday parties, while 58% have completely broken contact with family members who refuse the jab.

Around two-thirds of Americans said they felt unwelcome at family parties unless they got vaccinated first, however only 22% of unvaxxed reported being excluded from an event so far.

Almost a half of unvaccinated respondents had cut off communication with their vaccinated relatives for not respecting their decision not to get jabbed. Despite the risks of perpetual family alienation, 14% of those polled said they would never get a Covid-19 vaccine.

First, let me point out that this is ridiculous. I have no problem with any guest in my home being either vaccinated or unvaccinated, although I’d prefer to not be in too close contact with the vaccinated in the first week after their vaccination due to the known issue of shedding. While I haven’t personally experienced that particular problem, I do know one individual who has; it is a genuine problem and one that is best avoided if possible.

That being said, if a vaccinated family member cuts you off or disinvites you because you refused to sacrifice your health to the vaccine regime, don’t permit them to reestablish contact once their absurdity of their position finally becomes apparent to them. They have demonstrated what their priorities are and the true nature of their character… and you are much better off without people like that in your life.

I have never had any cause to regret cutting contact with former friends and family members after they revealed themselves to possess unacceptably flawed characters. To the contrary, life is considerably more enjoyable when one no longer feels obliged to endure the constant stream of nonsense that inevitably flows from the deceitful, the depthless, and the deranged.


See how they squeal

It’s going to be interesting to see the media attempting to simultaneously argue that a) businesses can discriminate against the unvaccinated and b) businesses cannot discriminate against the vaccinated. Because you know they’re going to screech like crazy about second-class status for the unvaccinated:

An anti-vax beauty therapist has said she will refuse to treat anyone who has been vaccinated against coronavirus. 

Sarah McCutcheon, based in Glasgow, wrote in a post on her business’ Instagram page: ‘We will not treat anyone who has had a Covid-19 jab.’  

The owner of Wellness and Wellbeing With Sarah made the comment alongside a post from an Australian hair salon which read: ‘We are not your hairdresser if you have had the Covid vax.’  She added: ‘We agree and will not conduct massages or treatments on any vaccinated people…sorry not sorry.’

The National Hair and Beauty Federation (NHBF) told the Daily Record such a policy would go against Government guidance, which should be followed to keep customers safe.      

I don’t know about you, but I definitely know more people that are concerned about contact with the vaccinated than they are about contact with the unvaccinated. 

Divide or be conquered

Yes, Virginia, your very good friend and family are absolutely going to cancel you if you don’t submit to the Narrative like they do:

Mumford & Sons have reportedly ‘axed’ Winston Marshall from the group after he posted a tweet praising a controversial Right-wing writer.

The I Will Wait hitmakers – also comprised of Marcus Mumford, Ted Dwane and Ben Lovett – are said to have held crisis talks on Sunday – a day after banjoist and lead guitarist Winston, 33, posted a tweet in support of a book by Andy Ngo, claims The Sun.

The band and their management are then said to have made the decision that Winston would be asked to 

A source close to the band told the website: ‘Winston’s staunchly right wing political views have been causing tension for some time now within the band. They continued that a rift had been ‘forming for the past four years’ saying: ‘Marcus would always be an advocate for his right to free speech and for him to believe what he wants. Adding that the decision had been ‘hugely difficult’ the source also alleged the band thought Winston’s tweet ‘impacted the band’s image.’ 

All of this became inevitable once the social media companies were permitted to police their users by banning them for badthink and thoughtcrime. The sooner you sever your ties with your Narrative-spouting friends and family members, the better off you are going to be. What fellowship does light have with darkness? What fellowship can truth have with ever-mutating lies?

How much longer are you going to try to fit in among the walking dead and pass for one of them? And even if you are successful, what do you think that will accomplish? Living in fear of constant exposure is no way for a free man or a free woman to live.

UPDATE: And this is what they will force you to do, if you do not have the courage or the strength to walk away from them on your own.