Blog Archive

Saturday, April 25, 2009

Evolution and Sex

Evolution and Sex

March 18th, 2009

In terms of evolution, nothing is more important than reproducing, the entire point of life is to survive until you reproduce, then make sure your children survive until they reproduce, then die and get out of the way. Making reproduction sexual was a necessary cost, even though it greatly magnified the difficulty of reproduction. This is because the entire world is locked into an evolutionary arms race of predator and prey, host and parasite, competition for the same territory and food source, and so on. If one species decided to just remain a stationary target with a stationary genetic code, all the other species would continue adapting until they found the perfect strategy against the stationary target. They would develop a resistance to their immune system, outrun them, detect their camoflauge, make a poison the stationary species could not digest, etc. Soon enough the stationary sitting-duck species would go extinct, victim to the sexual reproduction of its neighbors. Only sexual reproduction creates enough change and diversity each generation that no other species can get a lock on our genome and decode us to be their whipping boys. This quest for diversity also gives women the special power to smell men with a diverse immune system from theirs and be sexually attracted to it, without ever realizing why. The kids from that union would have a more varied immune system and thus be harder for diseases and parasites to lock on to and overcome. So we are stuck with sexual reproduction, it is the only way to compete with all the other life on earth, including other sexually reproducing humans. To fire up the cloning vat, we would have to first separate from all other living beings, who would all quickly, albeit messily and expensively, adapt to our weakness and then exploit it.

There is another advantage to two separate sexes. It allows for the specialization of the species. As we all know in economics, two specialized tradesmen who then trade their work to each other can produce more and better products than both of them producing everything they need for themselves. This is just as true between the sexes. For homo sapiens, men have specialized mentally and physically for war, risk-taking, aggression, innovation, intelligence, systematic and idealistic thinking, and competitiveness. Women have specialized mentally and physically for sociability, attractiveness, intellectual stability (the incidence of insanity and retardedness is far lower in females), detailed and practical thinking, and cooperativeness. Women can also endure painful, denigrating, and tedious situations far better than men. Just look how attentive and studious they are in school, or how they can babysit an infant day after day despite its endless time-consuming but not intellectually challenging needs, or their willingness to work as virtual slaves on farms all around the world without running away or revolting. When the two sexes specialize in their genetically ordained fields, and then trade the products of their specialization, each honoring and valuing the others’ ability and contribution, the world is the richest and best suited for human life. When one good or the other is provided alone, bereft of the other’s contribution, life becomes lopsided and inhospitable for either sex.

So if separate sexes create so many benefits, why then have they caused so much harm in recent history? We have to look at what has changed to see how the fault lines between the sexes have created our current unhappiness. Currently in China and India, infanticide and abortion is used to create more male babies than female. Inevitably this will mean too few females to go around and a lot of lonely boys who will never have a wife, a lover, or a family of his own. This is a curse to these countries, an obvious oversight, that makes little sense. But what if I were to tell you the west is also doing this same thing, and the result is the same here as there?

By abandoning monogamy, we can once again create an unbalanced system where there are too few women to go around and a lot of lonely men who will never be loved or married, who are completely superfluous to society. These women flock around some ‘good prospect’ and ignore any suitors who are likely to have weaker genes than their target. They will delay mating in the hopes of snagging a divorcee (sequential serial marriage is still polygamy) or just randomly getting lucky with the scarce commodity, or perhaps they’ll just artificially inseminate themselves with high quality ‘gene daddys’ and bypass men altogether. Even more sinister is women are perfectly fine with marrying one man and taking all his money, attention, love, and care while actually having another man’s children. If the other man isn’t willing to stick around or cuddle her at night, she can relegate these two roles to different men, getting the high quality genes from one man and high quality upkeep from another. What does she care? From an evolutionary perspective, the name of the game is increasing the chances that her children will survive and reproduce, the feelings of the men she hurts can go jump in a lake. In the past this was fought by mother nature — if the father abandoned the children they would starve to death and die, so it made sense to have the children of the person you actually married, and to not have children with people you don’t marry. This is all gone now. The flood of wealth has allowed women to select immoral choices at no cost to the survivability of their children. After this defense culture offered a second line of trenches, by condemning bastards and unmarried fallen women, keeping them out of inheritances and high-status, high-wealth activity, and in general making the price of non-monogamy too high to evolutionarily take. Luckily women have removed that stigma and culture as well, made divorce, single motherhood, and adultery utterly commonplace and unexceptional, and given their bastard children as high a chance at survival and success as the legitimate children of marriage.

To make matters worse, for some unaccountable reason, 1/3 of white women never have a child. If they do have a childless marriage, it’s an empty shell of what a real marriage is, with no purpose outside of, apparently, fun. More likely they just wander from meaningless relationship to meaningless relationship, working in flings when they’re especially desirous of male companionship (complete with birth control measures) and otherwise working endlessly at their career. If 1/3 of women don’t have a child, that means 1/3 of men (at least) also never have a child, whether they wanted to have one or not. When a woman chooses, she chooses for both sexes, as her participation is absolutely necessary. These men who now have no purpose or reward for being alive tend to drown themselves in alcohol, drugs, work, and meaningless flings of their own. The civilizing and humanizing influences of marriage and children do not reach them, and men allow themselves to become the worst in themselves, as there’s no point being anything else. High rates of crime, domestic violence, gang warfare, and STDs follow as a matter of course. This type of dead-ender lifestyle is not just true of blacks, anyone who has abandoned monogamy and reproduction, any group of men who have been abonded by their women to sterility and purposelessness, engage in the same behaviors. It is an unhappy, empty life, against all natural instincts, against all natural desires, created by an unnatural world of endless wealth, complete cultural non-discrimination, polygamy, careerist women and birth control. It is unimaginable how many women have chosen to raise their children themselves or simply not have any, they have essentially gone on strike and refused to participate in the human species, the one that includes both sexes, the one that includes children and a next generation, the one that includes a meaningful and happy life, the one that includes love, the life that nature has so generously given us as our blessed reason for being. Every time a woman makes that choice, an invisible man somewhere else dies with her, physically and spiritually. His seed is cut off, his spirit is shrivelled for lack of all healthy good things and the poisonous attempts to replace them with corruption and filth, he is dead to the world. Women are committing mass murder on a scale previously unheard of. In Europe, it is like the black death. 1/3 of all Europeans will be depopulated, wiped from existence, in just a couple generations. If it continues, it would end in the extinction of the entire white race. A genocide of a billion people! No man, not even Ghengis Khan, has been so vicious, unfeeling, selfish, or cruel as the collective will of women expressed across the world.

The evolutionary implications of this massive die-off are thus more potent than any epidemic or war that has previously raged across the globe. The men who still manage to have children in this environment, the women still choosing to have children in this environment, will soon be the totality of the new human species, no other type of human will have survived. Who are these men, these women? The worst of all possible people!

Exhibit A: Fat black woman incapable of thinking ahead or putting on birth control, really wants to shag mr. negroid and oops, there’s another baby. Guess welfare will have to pay for it alongside the other 10, oh well, time to shoot up some more crack and forget about it all.

Exhibit B: Some dusky man with no particular virtues except a willingness to beat or kill any of his family members or his wife if they show the tiniest hint of disobediance, dishonor, or wantonness. Through a collective male police state they keep all their women in bodybags, accompanied by escorts and chaperones everywhere they go, and eventually forced to have a dozen children without any use of birth control by said males whose clits are then cut off to help perpetuate the system.

These are currently the only two viable reproductive systems in the world, and thus the only two that will survive into the future. Monogamy, love, marriage, a high investment of deep care and attention to each individual child from both parents — all of that will be gone, myths of some sort of fairy tale bygone days, an alien species with no relation to the current crop of devolved man. Standing athwart this nightmare future are traditionalists, but they cannot do it alone. Like tinkerbell says, everytime a woman says she doesn’t believe in marriage, another male loses his wings. If the world is to have a remotely warm and fuzzy future for mankind, women are going to have to return to monogamy, to boring non-alpha males, to devoting time and effort to children not work, to not divorcing or not cheating just because it’s easy, and caring for ten seconds about the fate of the world and life itself more than themselves and their selfish narrow goals. How can it be done? This crisis is more direct, more imminent, and more fatal than any other. If we cannot change this, the rest will become moot, and very soon.

No comments: