Social Darwinism is Natural Selection Misunderstood

[Curtis24]

Because those variants were more successful when high quality demands in the higher level individual and group selection determined biological success and are still more often more moral, social, educated, intelligent, hard working, attractive, fertile, physically superiour etc., etc.



Most of them being raised with the idea that children are not necessary or that our planet is even so overcrowded, that it would be egoistic to give birth to a child which you can't raise "the best thinkable way."

Also, many of them have actually one, or at best 2 children, but that is not enough, since a RELATIVELY high percentage of them have no children, they get their children late, because of their educational, career and other "life plans", while the lower level subjects get their children earlier and more of it.

Just think about the reproductive rate of one group having about 1 children on average, giving birth around 32 and the other has 4 children, giving birth to the first child around 19.

How many generations do you think you need that the 2nd group becomes the majority, even if starting as a minority?

You just need to manipulate 5 generations into something like we have now, with Capitalism and Cultural Marxism with all its side effect like career orientation, consumerism, false ideals and goals in life, "plural society", "Multiculturalism" with the mass immigration of non-integrable, lower level foreigners etc., to ruin the quality of populations which were build up in thousands of years.



They were successful in the past and they are still socially successful now and will be desperately needed in the future, whereas the "crap reproduction", to say it blunt, will be always primarily a burden...

Now if you increase the burden and reduce the backbone of the group, sooner or later, it will break!

You are under the impression that white women are not having children, because they've been brainwashed. I'm not sure this is true. It is possible, that the reason they are not having children is because of genetic reasons. In other words, because they genetically, genuinely do not desire children.

Remember - for most of white history, women had not choice in having children. They were forced into it. So we don't really know if you could go back to the Middle Ages or whenever, and give them the choice, would they have chosen to have children? Could it be possible that a feminist lifestyle is simply more satisfying for many women?

Whites have clearly valued technical/professional competence over all other things. This could have had the result that many Europeans lost other skills, such as "emotional intelligence", child-raising skills, etc. Lost these things on a genetic level.

Just as an Indo-European steppe warrior would have focused on being a warrior to the exclusion of everything else, including child-raising and "trying to get along" with others, so his daughters would have inherited this. But, in ages past, they would have been forced to have children anyway. But now that they are not forced to do that, their true natures are revealed...

Consequently, the white race must now evolve itself to be more compassionate and cooperative - simply being a scientist or technical professional is no longer enough, since, as we see, many of those people are genetically inclined to be quite self-absorbed..

[Agrippa]

You are under the impression that white women are not having children, because they've been brainwashed.

That is not "my impression", but a fact, because if you have family records in which the same type of women went down from 10 to 0,8 children, you surely have the cultural influence and the biggest gap comes with the new contraceptive methods, 1968'er "revolution" and the other brainwashing effects I usually talk about.

I'm not sure this is true. It is possible, that the reason they are not having children is because of genetic reasons. In other words, because they genetically, genuinely do not desire children.

Whether they desire children more than others is irrelevant, they were better women to raise high level children in the past and as long as structures were healthy, it worked.

But they actually do desire, but supress it because of ideas of "how they must fit into" other concepts they being filled with, like first making school, then making university, then "living their life to the full", then making their career plans, if they more materialistic-superficial, they go on with parties, if they are more idealistic, they might do some "care work", this way or another and in between they being disappointed by similar minded men and relationships which failed, because being based on the superficial connections we have now usually, without family bonds-clan structures and - children.

I could go on this way and I can see perfectly that the very same woman and mother-type, which was so successful on the highest level among aristocrats or warrior-herders, being now such a "biological loser" because they being raised that almost everything is more important than children and nothing is more important than their "life plans", "independence" and "self-achieved social success."

Even if they love children, they might do more for other people's children success, even of the lowest kind, than their own. How many high level women work now in social institutions, schools and kindergartens and the like, caring for lowest level children, while having only one, at best two, almost never more if at all, children?!

Just look at it! Just look at it!

Remember - for most of white history, women had not choice in having children. They were forced into it.

It was their success story. A successful mother had a higher status, better life, more power, had to plan for the family and its success. They were truly important and successful socially AND biologically.

Once Cultural Marxism destroyed the healthy and normal correlation between female status and fertility, actually it started with Christianity already, in which bloodrules and offspring were denied, an important part of the "Western disease" was born.

So we don't really know if you could go back to the Middle Ages or whenever, and give them the choice, would they have chosen to have children?

Yes, they would have - DESPERATELY. Because if they had no children, they were at lower end of the hierarchy in society and the family. It was not just about "force", it was about their success in life. And the greatest success for a women is having many healthy children and probably even beautiful daughters and powerful sons.

Could it be possible that a feminist lifestyle is simply more satisfying for many women?

As long as they don't think about their life, probably, but as soon as they do and its too late to change things, it isn't.

Because what women finally want are stable relationships and being mothers.

If they aren't, healthy women get "problematic", but as I said, many women being hurt due to many relationships they have early on and the fact, that being a wife and mother is no value any more, but just something to look down upon in many areas of the European world - and - in meantime, even beyond.

Capitalism just exploited the female tendency towards social and caring behaviour, making them cheap labour and voters, easy to manipulate and exploit by the system, with their natural instincts and behaviour being abused and redirected into what the system wants.

We live in a feminised society and part of that is that on the very top some people knew exactly how to manipulate the women and put them into this new role, against their males, against their group's and finally even their very own biological interests.

You might just look at this, because Edward Bernays, a close relative (nephew) of Sigmund Freud, was one of the first to fully understand how one can manipulate the masses, especially the women - "public relations":

How to brainwash a nation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ8ZvYNlxiM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0OrT-8gXMs

They called cigarretes, which were considered masculine and vulgar, nothing for a decent woman, torches of freedom from the radical feminists perspective and so the tobacco corporations sold it, with the image of "a new freedom"!

That was their slogan and the people, as stupid as they are, accepted it!

Imitation:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...23&postcount=8

Cultural Marxism:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17073

Whites have clearly valued technical/professional competence over all other things. This could have had the result that many Europeans lost other skills, such as "emotional intelligence", child-raising skills, etc. Lost these things on a genetic level.

That's ridiculous, they are still better at it, they just lost parts of the CULTURAL background for going for the RULE OF BLOOD.

Just as an Indo-European steppe warrior would have focused on being a warrior to the exclusion of everything else, including child-raising and "trying to get along" with others, so his daughters would have inherited this.

On the contrary, they were very blood and family, of course clan oriented also and had high birthrates rather!

Consequently, the white race must now evolve itself to be more compassionate and cooperative - simply being a scientist or technical professional is no longer enough, since, as we see, many of those people are genetically inclined to be quite self-absorbed..

On an instinctive level, Europids are higher evolved, the progressive ones in particular. But the higher evolved humans are, they more dependent they are on their nature and their culture fitting together.

So this must be solved and a population policy with Eugenic and Euphenic measures applied, because otherwise, degeneration and a false development, the failure of mankind will follow, because what we need is a rational planning for our future, not animal-like subjects.

Actually Europids care enough already, probably even too much, because what you assume is just false, namely that you get more children, because you are loving and caring. No, you get more children if you don't care at all!

If you care too much, you strive for perfection and that's part of the problem, if people say to you, it is better to have no or just one children, if things are not perfect, rather than getting 16 children like a moronic Gypsy, which will live in the dirt and hunger or die - but guess what, Europeans will help them out!

Probably even CARING and CHILD-LOVING stupid social workers, mostly women, which have themselves no or just 1 or two children!

You see the problem? They must care more for their OWN BLOODLINE and must see the value in it, something being weakened by Christianity and killed by Liberalism and Cultural Marxism.

Because for Western women, children are part of their "individual life plan" and no natural certainty any more, which is sick in itself and a devation from normal human culture and behaviour.

As for the beginning of this developments, look into this threat about the Medieval change:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12370

Europeans are more caring and childloving than others, EVEN FOR FOREIGN CHILDREN, too much actually, because they lost the sense for the USE and USEFULNESS of children! Which is part of the reasons for our low birth rates! They look too much at the individuals by now and forget about the bigger picture, because they were blinded by Liberals and Marxists, Neo-Christians and all those manipulated by the current system under the rule of the Plutocratic Oligarchy.

This system doesn't reward being the mother of many children, if you don't want to be "asocial", dependent or "backward", even compared to a breeding animal by envy women from the bourgeois perspective.

So mostly asocial and just a few really convinced people, many of religous sects, on a higher niveau, get more children, which are often one sided personalities and family cultures unfortunately.

Higher standing, normal Europeans, rarely have more than 3 children and 3 is pretty high for them, which is a cultural standard which was formed, in this crappy society and culture (crappy in this respect in particular) and is not "in their genes".

[Phil75231]

I'll say it again.

We are NOT dictated by our DNA. Influenced by it, certainly. There are environmental factors that influence our attitudes about children. In fact, there's even a gene for alcoholism, that doesn't mean everyone with that gene who drinks a little will turn into acutal alcoholics.

The truth is, we barely have a clue how much of individual human behavior is genetic and how much is environmental. Certainly we have brains developed enough to overrule our DNA/Environmental programming when necessary.

As for the other moral issues. What's "weak" and "strong" is a moving target - and 'grab all you can' selfishness by the rich won't quite make society sustainable. In that case, short-term (as in a few generations) success means to 'grab all they can' and nothing more. It's the successful (conning, cunning, cleaver, and sometimes forceful) grabbers who get ahead - not necessarily the ones who create new ways of bettering the human condition, or even individual wallets. In this case, the group is trapped in a one-dimensional way of thinking and cannot see another way out -- like cars stuck in deep tire grooves on a highway.

If conditions change (as they are now), when creating a new way of doing things counts for more in the long run than grabbing all you can, then "grabbing all you can" becomes maladaptive.

[Curtis24]

Agrippa: You raise many good points, but there are other factors, behind the breakdown of marriage, which you ignore.

1) Why do women initiate so many divorces? Certainly this can't only be because of the "brainwashing", but rather many women are genuinely dissatisfied living in a marriage.

2) Why do many women also engage in promiscuous sex? Once again, you can't pin this one on cultural marxism...

[Agrippa]

Agrippa: You raise many good points, but there are other factors, behind the breakdown of marriage, which you ignore.

Actually I don't.

1) Why do women initiate so many divorces? Certainly this can't only be because of the "brainwashing", but rather many women are genuinely dissatisfied living in a marriage.

First of all, it is not natural for humans to live together just because they like each other ALONE, but the natural background was that TWO FAMILIES MET with all commitments related and they had to form a working unit, they worked TOGETHER for their subsistence and were economically dependent from each other.

Also, they had to raise children, which again the woman could not without the father and his relatives - or her relatives in a matrilocal society.

And yet I'm not even talking about social and religious rules, which made the bonds much harder in most cases!

In any case there were many practical dependencies and the idea of a primarily "hedonistic marriage" or "hedonistic-materialistic" one is essentially an abnormity in all of human history.

Followed by that woman today are in many respects more socially mobile, they get constantly influenced by other people and don't live in the family as a natural unity any more - neither does the male. Working "out of the house" was unnatural FOR BOTH! The (historical) rule is working and staying together.

And women are very much, even much more so than males, "social adaptive", so they always try to be "in", to put it that way and don't "staying out". This comes from their strong dependency from other group members, especially during pregnancy and the early years of their children - being socially adapted was adaptive and "survival-important" for them.

Without the help and acceptance of others, they were dead.

So what "the others", their social environment in the widest sense, tells them, this might be peer group, colleagues, family, close friends, mass media, books, whatever can change something of the way they evaluate things based on their constant need "to adapt", they will eat, mostly without questioning.

If you tell them it is hip and chic to be a bitch, they will eat it, like they eat the mode: Be chaste and wear a scarve.

AT LEAST THE VAST MAJORITY.

So if you tell them what a man has to be and to do, how their life has to look, while at the same time most of the things partners had in common in the past, including their huge dependency from each other, vanished, what do you expect if allowing divorces, which essentially ALWAYS give the advantage to the woman and put down the male?

Women being HIGHLY favoured by our current legal system in virtually EVERY RESPECT, so it is much easier for them to make a divorce, actually even profitable in many cases.

And even if not as much, women are more likely to be flexible and adaptive, like they always were, so they are more willing to adapt to "a single life", which fits into the concepts of the current society, if seeing "problems with their relationship", than a (especially older!) male, which is, to say it blunt, more unflexible and lazy in this as well as in many other respects.

If males are used to something, they are used to it. Women even more so, but only as long as all people tell them, "that's alright".

F.e. many women had a happy marriage, until some asshole came along and told them what a happy marriage HAS TO BE.

So they HAD TO check, for being "up to date" to our societal rules and "realised" OH SHIT, MY MARRIAGE IS CRAP!

So they had to begin to try to change their husband and had "the rule of society" in their back, but the male was used to his way of life, so he didn't wanted to change: Easy way out, make a divorce and start living like your women's magazines told ya!

2) Why do many women also engage in promiscuous sex? Once again, you can't pin this one on cultural marxism...

Surely I can, because it was the rule in most of human history that women which behaved that way were considered OUTCASTS and dishonourable.

There was however always a minority of women, having the susceptibility for the "bitch mode".

This kind of behaviour comes from genetics and early experiences in life for the most part and being characterised by women not being obliged to one men, but trying to get the most of it by having sexual relationships with many men.

Now this is abnormal in the sense of a minority thing, usually such women would, if not being excluded from the group completely, become the "village bitch", the "street whore" or the mistress of one or more important males.

But these days, again the society and their conditioning tells the majority of women, which wouldn't have become bitches and whores in a normal society, that this is normal behaviour.

One simple example: You tell all the girls that they are "retarded" and "not cool" if being still virgins at 17.

This is a strong pressure you can produce, just by using the communicative channels of the mass media for example - from there it goes to the peer groups and from there in the brains of the young women.

With all those changing and uncommitted sexual relationships, many women get rather disappointed and wounded by their experiences with males, the same goes for the men, but to a lesser degree, because being promiscuous is more in their nature.

So with a more and more cynical way of looking at sexual relationships, women become less and less of an option for a long term relationship and so they go on with their promiscuous life, often dreaming about a "prince saving them", even as a 40 year old bitch without children or children from various males, while being at the same time dissatisfied and still in the mode the society demands from them: Don't give up your modern way of life, independence and "own mind" (filled witht the society's crap rules).

All of this being easy to explain and the result of our societies transformation from Christianity and Feudalism, to Liberalism and Capitalism, with a lot of very dangerous and poisonous Cultural Marxism being thrown in, to form our current, Plutocratic and Neoliberal society.

Women became the victims of this changes, sometimes without knowing it, but just dying out unhappy in the end, without having achieved anything of importance in their whole life.

Because unless they are a genius, what can be more important, fulfilling and successful than having healthy kids which keep up the bloodline and form a Gemeinschaft in which you live and die?

Anything of what they do and try to do, speaking about the average woman? Nothing! They are just small parts of the Capitalist world, totally unimportant and highly manipulated, but they still feel more "special", because being told so, as they are, like most humans, herd animals.

Truly responsible are those in charge which send this messages to the people and made up those structures ON PURPOSE, to gain more power, profits and control!

The Plutocratic Oligarchy and their menials!

[Curtis24]

In conclusion: we're fucked

[SwordoftheVistula]

In conclusion: we're fucked

Maybe not. People thought Israel was done for too, but natural selection actually favored the extreme right: the orthodox and especially ultra-orthodox had large families, which shifted the demographics against the liberal families who had 0-2 kids, and are now reaching the point where it is shifting the political nature of the country rightwards.

I think the legalization of abortion and other means of birth control are one of the main reasons the white population in the US has shifted rightwards. Unfortunately, unlike Israel, we also have a generous social welfare system which gives benefits to the nonwhite population and encourages them to have children.

[Agrippa]

Maybe not. People thought Israel was done for too, but natural selection actually favored the extreme right: the orthodox and especially ultra-orthodox had large families, which shifted the demographics against the liberal families who had 0-2 kids, and are now reaching the point where it is shifting the political nature of the country rightwards.

Backwards you mean, because the valuable and productive parts of the population being substituted by insane and superstitious, often degenerated elements which actually don't do too much for the state and community as a whole neither.

This is another perfect example of the "Western degeneration", in this case just affecting Jews.

The most valuable Israeli elements have a much too low birthrate and being overrun by the orthodox and non-Jewish elements in the state.

Again without a strict and planned population policy, including Eugenic and Euphenic measures, Israel will go down the drain, with an (strictly) orthodox and Muslim Palestinian majority (each) over secular Jews of a higher level - not talking about the lower level secular Jewish elements yet.

I think the legalization of abortion and other means of birth control are one of the main reasons the white population in the US has shifted rightwards.

And downwards. Idiotic ideas like Creationism, Evangelicals in religion and policy, seeing the state as a principle in a negative light and being against social programs in general is just part of the growing uneducated, dumbed down mass of people, which substituted the more valauble, yet unfortunately successfully brainwashed by Liberals-Cultural Marxists, elements.

Unfortunately, unlike Israel, we also have a generous social welfare system which gives benefits to the nonwhite population and encourages them to have children.

Which they would have anyway, because if living more traditional, you don't have the children just for economic reasons, it is "richness and wealth" in its own right to have many children and keep up the bloodline.

Since the Western culture discouraged, even destroyed that attitude, all people being more strongly affected by this new "Western values" have a breakdown of birthrates.

Among Westerners themselves, only very dumb, asocial, spiritually awkward and uneducated people are not as much affected, they have no higher blood rule, but are more animal like in their behaviour - unless living in the few more healthy social environments and families left, or truly making up their own mind regardless of what their surroundings say.

Because even if foreign and low elements would bring just 5 of 10 children through, all being sick and close to starvation, as long as they survive and procreate, they win - not talking about diseases, plagues, social unrest, criminality rate and all those "nice things" to get with uncontrolled poverty.

Even if you would let mothers with their children die on the street, without "social welfare", which is a joke in the USA anyway, you wouldn't turn the tide, NO WAY.

Actually often the lowest elements even among the poor will have greater chances to make it, organising themselves in semi-legal or illegal ways and doing "their job" against the rest.

If you don't interfere in this processes directly, with Eugenic and Euphenic programs, you don't make it.

Actually one has to pay or otherwise reward the lower level ones for having only a few to no children and giving the higher level ones more opportunities if having children. There MUST BE a direct reward system based on genetic and socio-cultural/memetic qualities of people.

Everything else can just fail or being utterly inhumane, most likely both.

[SwordoftheVistula]

A lot of this stuff throughout this thread is quite contradictory. For example this:

Backwards you mean, because the valuable and productive parts of the population being substituted by insane and superstitious, often degenerated elements which actually don't do too much for the state and community as a whole neither.

This is another perfect example of the "Western degeneration", in this case just affecting Jews.

The most valuable Israeli elements have a much too low birthrate and being overrun by the orthodox

If you evaluate people on 'value to the community and state' as opposed to individualism, you'd have to go with the orthodox, who place a high value on community, as opposed to the secular/liberal jews who are more individualistic.


And here:

Idiotic ideas like Creationism, Evangelicals in religion and policy, seeing the state as a principle in a negative light and being against social programs in general is just part of the growing uneducated, dumbed down mass of people, which substituted the more valauble, yet unfortunately successfully brainwashed by Liberals-Cultural Marxists, elements.

Liberalism/Cultural Marxism is against all of the above listed ideas. The key components of Cultural Marxism are to oppose religion in policy, especially fundamentalist religion, and promote the state and its social programs as an omniscient & omnipotent protector. The idea of Marxism being pro-Christian/anti-socialist is just absurd.

[Agrippa]

If you evaluate people on 'value to the community and state' as opposed to individualism, you'd have to go with the orthodox, who place a high value on community, as opposed to the secular/liberal jews who are more individualistic.

Pseudo-Individualist usually, as explained.

What you seem to ignore or misunderstand that there is to me not just the question of problem of Collectivism vs. Individualism, but WHICH KIND of EITHER!

If the community-spirit and collectivism, Gemeinschaftsgeist is highly irrational and degenerative, of course I oppose it and it is no good alternative.

And if you talk about positive Individualism of truly self-thinking and moral beings, which try to make themselves better and being more than just mindless puppets, well, that's nice also.

It always depends on the results and details. I mean a collective oriented society which thinks that the sun won't rise if you don't sacrifice the most beautiful virgins of the group every month would be something totally contraselective and degenerated, regardless of "how collective" and group oriented these moronic system might otherwise be.

Liberalism/Cultural Marxism is against all of the above listed ideas. The key components of Cultural Marxism are to oppose religion in policy, especially fundamentalist religion, and promote the state and its social programs as an omniscient & omnipotent protector. The idea of Marxism being pro-Christian/anti-socialist is just absurd.

That's a clear misunderstanding.

What I meant is that the biosocial middle class and elite, at least those which are not themselves part of the "higher order" in this Plutocracy, got brainwashed by Cultural Marxists and Libertarians, which resulted in their inability to form a healthy community and resistance, as well as strong families and bonds, give birth to many children.

That way their numbers go down, while the numbers of those too dumb or far away from such "educational" and "enlightened" ideological manipulation, being the victims of corrupted religious and political leaders, which teach them the nonsense mentioned above, anti-statism, Evangelicalism, pseudo-conservatism, Creationism, anti-social politics and so on.

That way they being largely neutralised, easy prey and cannon fodder for the system economically and for the military in the USA, unable to resist Neoliberalism, while at the same time being RELATIVELY to the higher level Americans "more fertile" in the sense of getting more children in this social environments.

This is a two fold strategy of tweedledee and tweedledum, essentially to control all whites, this or the other way, and offering no viable solution, but just slavery to the Plutocrats - either by being brainwashed or just completely dumbed down and being pushed into poverty and dependency.