Of course, one can argue that physically attractive girls aren't mentally attractive at that age, but that argument is meaningless in 100 Waifus because the maturity levels of the girls in question are through the roof compared to their physical age. As explained within the book itself, all the young girls have been through tests of will and mettle far beyond the average adult and passed them with flying colors in their back stories, so there is no question as to their mental or spiritual maturity. It's easy to believe that most 14 year old girls don't have good personalities -- most girls in general don't have good personalities, but that is no reason to object to a romance to the specific girls in question, the ones listed in this book.
When '100 Waifus' said these are the 100 most attractive women in imagination, it was with the full backing of science and not an exaggeration. Now do you understand why I compare this book to divine writ? It's true, unlike the lies the world tries to tell you. Truth is one of the absolute goods of this world. There is no reason to be ashamed of the truth. Rather, people should be ashamed of parroting lies. '100 Waifus' is on the side of truth and righteousness, the people condemning it are liars and thus children of their father, the father of lies, Satan.
Another lie being thrown around these days is that people have better lives than in the past. This is manifestly false by the simple metric of how many people today use drugs to escape their awareness of life as compared to the percentage in 1900 or 1850 or whatever, when opium, cocaine and the like were fully legal and easily available for all. The answer is something like 1% back then, but 50% now. If you want to be generous and only talk about habitual users of hard drugs you could lower that number down to 5%. No matter how you play around with the statistics you'll never get the numbers lower than the past, when the drugs were legal and easily available, and thus more abusable than they are now.
Another way of looking at whether people in the past affirmed life more than people do today is their willingness to bring more life into the world. In the 1800's the birth rate in America was 7 children per woman. Even with higher infant mortality that's easily a birth rate of 4-5 per woman, compared to 1.6 today. The people of the past loved life at least three times as much as people do today.
If you use the excuse that there was plentiful employment opportunity for children in the past but not now, you've undermined your own argument, because that implies people are worse off economically now than then. I actually agree with that stance, it is harder to earn enough to buy land, a house, sufficient capital to become self-employed, raise children or attract a wife now than then, but supposedly the other side doesn't want to admit to that. If they do the argument is already over. According to the other side, we've never been richer, which means it was more of a hardship for people to have children then than it is for people now, and yet still they were willing to make that harder sacrifice three times as much as people do now. What other reason could they have, according to the other side, than love of life?
An eye-rolling argument that is still trotted out every now and then is that people can more easily afford children these days, but they have more uses for money that the past didn't include, so they buy these rival goods with their money instead of children. I'm not sure you can really claim someone loves life if they purposefully let all life on Earth end by not replicating it into the future, but whatever. Let's say that buying cruises to remote locales or extra pairs of shoes or whatever is comparable in happiness to children.
The problem with this theory is happiness researchers have already found that the happiest people on Earth are the ones who go to church, marry and have kids -- i.e., live the same lifestyle as their 1800's forebears, not the permanently single atheist materialist cruise ship riders. Their happiness isn't just a subjective evaluation, either, they literally live 10 years longer than their unmarried counterparts. So it turns out no one in their right mind would purchase shoes rather than children, which means people are settling for shoes because they can't have what they really want, that which would have actually made them happy, the things the people in the 1800's had in abundance.
Another difference between the past and the present is the crippling levels of debt the youth have been saddled with. The median net worth of America is 0, or close enough to 0. The normal American has as much debt as assets. Of course in the past that wasn't the case, very few people had debt, most had dowries and inheritances lined up for them, and almost all of them owned their own houses and land. 90% of Americans were self-employed farmers who owned their own small plots of land and made most of the stuff they needed to live by day-to-day themselves. They lived lives of absolute freedom, beholden to none. In contrast Americans today have to beg and scrabble for shitty jobs whose incomes can't pay off the debt it took to get the job in the first place, can't afford a home, can't start a family, etc. On top of all that the national debt is $35 trillion, which amounts to $103k per person, and is continuously rising by trillions every year. Since each and every American is legally obligated to somehow pay off this ever rising debt, any assets they think they have are already forfeit to the ever-growing government maw. Very few Americans have assets that exceed the proportion of the national debt they owe. But if they do, guess what, there's an even higher national debt they would have to pay next -- the amount owed to Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries in the future. The unfunded liabilities the government owes is currently around $93 trillion dollars, or another $300k per person. Can you saddle that debt too?
Guess what the national debt and unfunded liabilities of Americans in the 1800's were? 0, because the government used to pay off their debts, and didn't set up dumb programs like Medicare and Social Security, so didn't owe anything to them, in the first place. An American today can expect to spend his entire life just trying to pay off the debts the government has saddled him with (humorously to spend on other people, many before he was ever born, which as far as I can tell is the exact definition of slavery). There is zero chance to get ahead in a world like this. Okay, I guess a few people can get lucky like Bill Gates or whatever, but for a normal person there is zero chance. Zero. Meanwhile the average person in the 1800's was married and had 7 kids and a successful self-employed business.
'100 Waifus' escapes modernity and lives a traditional life with early marriage (as recently as 1950 the average woman was married by age 20), no sex outside of marriage, no divorce, lots of children and worship of God. It's described as 'Eden' and 'Paradise,' not out of hubris but because this actually matches what scientifically makes people happiest, and thus actually is the utopia everyone secretly yearns for. It's yet another truth that's forbidden to be uttered in the world today.
If you just ask a boy whether they'd like to live in the 1800's or 1900's when you could marry a thin virgin woman at age 14 who would honor and obey you as a commandment from a God they actually believed in and wished to please, who wouldn't cheat on you and wouldn't divorce you, who would have as many of your kids as you wished -- or they could take their chances with life in the 21st century with the women of today, who normally don't marry at all, but if they do still have a 50% adultery and 50% divorce rate and are 75% overweight -- who would choose the present? Which cohort do you think was happier?
Of course, liberals argue that sure men were happier in the past because they were oppressing women and LGBTQIASS+'ers, but the rest of mankind is much happier now than before, so on net the present is a better place to live than the past. But unfortunately science disagrees with this assessment too. The science says women are less happy today than they were in 1950, and we have the hard numbers of suicide use and drug use to prove they aren't joking. Women have much higher depression rates, drug use rates, and suicide rates than the past. And of course the alphabet people have higher depression, drug and suicide rates than their normal counterparts too. So it turns out the past, which had a 1% alphabet population, was directly happier just by virtue of being normal, in addition to being more suited to women who actually really do prefer the traditional female role in life.
There is no slice of the pie that prefers the present to the past. Even black slaves had it better than blacks have now. Blacks today, 33% of their men go to jail, where they live in much worse conditions than slaves ever lived. 80% never marry and aren't raised by their parents, again a much worse family life than slaves lived. Their birth rate is under replacement, whereas the slave birth rate was above replacement. Every hard fact shows black slaves were better off than blacks are now. Need I remind people that the two keys to happiness in life are religiosity and family, according to science? (Both being related to community, by the way). Whether you're a slave or not is less indicative of your mental well-being than whether you are married or not or belong to a church who supports you and believe in a God who has your back. I'm sorry, but that's not my opinion, it's established scientific fact.
I guess I should throw in another difference between the past and the present -- in the past people had hope that their children would live better lives and the world was always getting better -- today science says, polls say, that parents expect their children to live worse lives than they lived. And of course those parents are right, every indicator is blinking red and showing we're in for a terrible future -- that is if we have a future. Because nowadays we must live with the existential dread of a nuclear outbreak or scientifically designed bioweapon that wipes out mankind, threats people in the past never had to worry about. Now we all live one button push away from extinction.
Who wouldn't want to escape Earth to the world of '100 Waifus?' Honestly, no one. Anyone who says they prefer modernity is lying. Secretly everyone craves the life described in my book, 15 year old brides and all. I'm just the only person honest enough to say it out loud.
No comments:
Post a Comment