I can attest to the higher birthrate among religious women. We're Catholic and currently up to five children. Religion also correlates with ethnocentrism.
Congratulations! It's interesting that non-religious communities for women tend to have negative affects on birthrates. The religious factor is very important.
No it doesnt. Large families correlates with ethnocentrism. What keeps families together is (usually) religious commonalities. Ie the amish.
Children who grow up in large stable families usually go on to have large families themselves, the women at the very least.
My mother has 4 kids including me. Her mother had seven kids, her sister has 5, her brother has 6. Grandad on my father's side has 3 kids, his brother has 5, the daughter of his younger brother, the second girl, went on to have 5 kids, her older sister has 4 kids. Everyone was brought up culturally anglican but they're secular, they know religion is bs for the most part, its the social glue that we focus on. Church isnt a big thing among us, neither is easter nor christmas, new year's day is.
Large families of same ethnicity correlates with ethnocentrism. You dont have to teach ur kid or give them the talk about race because they've learnt implicitly that the lone wolf dies but the pack survives.
"Only 9% of White newlyweds marry outside their race compared to 17% of Blacks, 26% of Hispanics and 28% of Asians. Asian females are the most likely of all women to marry outside their race with 36.1% choosing a non-Asian partner."
Based on my real-life anecdotal experience, I would guess that virtually all of the non-White women who are miscegenating are marrying White men. The reason for that is that women across the board try to "marry up" - it's known as hypergamy.
It is simple proof that the more desirable partner for any woman is a White man. Because they are the best of the bunch. For good or ill, women's instincts are hard to completely smother.
Its not often reflected upon, but women rely on social networks, such as churches or extended family, for their need for comfort and safety when it comes to childrearing - a single couple can hardly deliver that on their own. Destruction of those sociql bonds and spaces affected women much more than anyone dares to mention. This piece hints at that with results of one of the papers brought up, it ought to be a subject of its own I believe.
Hardly? No. Its just that women, especially white women, need a lot more trinkets and pampering to survive and thrive compared to other races. This is part of the reason why most non white women dont give a shit and just follow their base instincts. The shot gun approach. White women dont do this because they have more foresight and self control, which is a double edged sword. All an enemy has to do is take away white men's ability to provide and their women will leave them for someone who can, simple as.
A couple can and should be able to provide need, comfort and safety on their own and theres few who can and have done it. Its just that the onus is on the woman more than the man because she will then have to be content with not having a social circle to virtue signal to/with, which is also a double edged trait.
Absolutely. It's interesting that some studies show secular networks for women actually tend to reduce birth rates. There is no denying the role of religion in women's proclivity to childbirth.
There will always be white women so long as they're white men. Its just a matter of getting the two to work together. Do as if the bad ones do not exist, move on from them, keep looking for the good ones and you'll find them. They will not be 10/10s, they will not be without some (reasonable) baggage but they're there, they're not waiting on u though...because they usually dont know what the fuck they want. Thats where you come in.
I've always disliked the anti-women talk in far-right circles. Some woman is going to treat you like shit at some point, sure. But to write them all off has always struck me as childish (and maybe a psyop). There are a lot of normal White women looking for normal guys out there.
Nah, you're just like most of those in the far right circles. You're part of the problem. Its not anti women talk, its talk about women you dont like thats true/has merit, thats what bothers you. The fact that women are hardwired to go with whoever has more resources and social proof on their side is biological, hard wired.
Think. If (they are) they push white men out of socially prestigious occupations and positions which are economically rewarding what do you think happens? They fall out of favor with white women. Its simple. When you point out this is how women are most people in far right circles do the only thing they seem to be good at which is to react viscerally.
I've always disliked the far right circles for their severe lack of insight and reasoning, and worse yet the ability to ACKNOWLEDGE cause and effect of things. The left understands this almost instinctively, its too bad they themselves mostly behave like women else they'd break off and form their own parallel politics like the right did but doesnt have the brains to sustain. There is a reason all the MOST prominent fascists started off on the left, because thats where all the brains are. Mussolini was a socialist, as was AH, go figure.
That being said, everything the far right dislikes is a psyop.
Everything in this article is based on evidence. The actual verifiable evidence suggests that there are plenty of good White women out there. What I don't like about the anti-White women stuff (like proclivity to race-mix) is that it has no basis in fact.
This is what im talking about. You're viscerally reacting. That isnt an anti white woman thing, it is a WOMAN thing, in general, generalized. The same logic thats used to discard talented 10th outliers? Good, now take that and apply it to women, a group White women are a subset of. Do you get it now?
It is a nature thing, like my previous comment explained but you ignored (or dont understand). Women go with the stronger horse, this includes white women, if that PERCEPTION of the stronger horse is not a white man, they will racemix.
Mixing isnt a trait inherent in white women and no one has ever said that in the dissident right, thats a strawman of a point some people make. It is a symptom of a the hypergamy trait of women IN GENERAL. This is not an anti woman take anymore than it is an observation of women's biological imperative. Its just that they are TRICKED into believing most White men are not worth betting on because they falsely perceive (through social proof) that White men are the weaker horse.
I take your point but the actual data shows that the vast majority of White women choose partners from within their own race. So, the evidence doesn't suggest White women have been tricked into believing most White men are "not worth betting on".
“They will not be 10/10s, they will not be without some (reasonable) baggage”
This is the number one truth that needs to be pushed on the right. Too many are romanticizing an admittedly better past, lamenting their inability to wed an optimal woman. We need to encourage young men to think about the future of our people, rather than personal satisfaction. It’s true the legal system is stacked against men in child custody/divorce, but there is no survival as an individual, only as a community. Most men don’t get to be picky with women these days (never did really), and the “market” is worse than ever, but we must persist nonetheless or perish.
I can attest to the higher birthrate among religious women. We're Catholic and currently up to five children. Religion also correlates with ethnocentrism.
Good article!
Congratulations! It's interesting that non-religious communities for women tend to have negative affects on birthrates. The religious factor is very important.
No it doesnt. Large families correlates with ethnocentrism. What keeps families together is (usually) religious commonalities. Ie the amish.
Children who grow up in large stable families usually go on to have large families themselves, the women at the very least.
My mother has 4 kids including me. Her mother had seven kids, her sister has 5, her brother has 6. Grandad on my father's side has 3 kids, his brother has 5, the daughter of his younger brother, the second girl, went on to have 5 kids, her older sister has 4 kids. Everyone was brought up culturally anglican but they're secular, they know religion is bs for the most part, its the social glue that we focus on. Church isnt a big thing among us, neither is easter nor christmas, new year's day is.
Large families of same ethnicity correlates with ethnocentrism. You dont have to teach ur kid or give them the talk about race because they've learnt implicitly that the lone wolf dies but the pack survives.
"Only 9% of White newlyweds marry outside their race compared to 17% of Blacks, 26% of Hispanics and 28% of Asians. Asian females are the most likely of all women to marry outside their race with 36.1% choosing a non-Asian partner."
Based on my real-life anecdotal experience, I would guess that virtually all of the non-White women who are miscegenating are marrying White men. The reason for that is that women across the board try to "marry up" - it's known as hypergamy.
It is simple proof that the more desirable partner for any woman is a White man. Because they are the best of the bunch. For good or ill, women's instincts are hard to completely smother.
Its not often reflected upon, but women rely on social networks, such as churches or extended family, for their need for comfort and safety when it comes to childrearing - a single couple can hardly deliver that on their own. Destruction of those sociql bonds and spaces affected women much more than anyone dares to mention. This piece hints at that with results of one of the papers brought up, it ought to be a subject of its own I believe.
Hardly? No. Its just that women, especially white women, need a lot more trinkets and pampering to survive and thrive compared to other races. This is part of the reason why most non white women dont give a shit and just follow their base instincts. The shot gun approach. White women dont do this because they have more foresight and self control, which is a double edged sword. All an enemy has to do is take away white men's ability to provide and their women will leave them for someone who can, simple as.
A couple can and should be able to provide need, comfort and safety on their own and theres few who can and have done it. Its just that the onus is on the woman more than the man because she will then have to be content with not having a social circle to virtue signal to/with, which is also a double edged trait.
Absolutely. It's interesting that some studies show secular networks for women actually tend to reduce birth rates. There is no denying the role of religion in women's proclivity to childbirth.
So beautiful❤️🔥
White women created feminism, they deserve more hate than even nigger bitches
Actually, no. Jewish men (Frankfurt School acolytes) created modern-day feminism, and Jewish women picked up the torch and ran like crazy with it.
The White women who've been duped into Feminism deserve to be shamed, but they are not the root of the problem.
Nope you women created it and you can't shirk your responsibility for it!
There will always be white women so long as they're white men. Its just a matter of getting the two to work together. Do as if the bad ones do not exist, move on from them, keep looking for the good ones and you'll find them. They will not be 10/10s, they will not be without some (reasonable) baggage but they're there, they're not waiting on u though...because they usually dont know what the fuck they want. Thats where you come in.
I've always disliked the anti-women talk in far-right circles. Some woman is going to treat you like shit at some point, sure. But to write them all off has always struck me as childish (and maybe a psyop). There are a lot of normal White women looking for normal guys out there.
Nah, you're just like most of those in the far right circles. You're part of the problem. Its not anti women talk, its talk about women you dont like thats true/has merit, thats what bothers you. The fact that women are hardwired to go with whoever has more resources and social proof on their side is biological, hard wired.
Think. If (they are) they push white men out of socially prestigious occupations and positions which are economically rewarding what do you think happens? They fall out of favor with white women. Its simple. When you point out this is how women are most people in far right circles do the only thing they seem to be good at which is to react viscerally.
I've always disliked the far right circles for their severe lack of insight and reasoning, and worse yet the ability to ACKNOWLEDGE cause and effect of things. The left understands this almost instinctively, its too bad they themselves mostly behave like women else they'd break off and form their own parallel politics like the right did but doesnt have the brains to sustain. There is a reason all the MOST prominent fascists started off on the left, because thats where all the brains are. Mussolini was a socialist, as was AH, go figure.
That being said, everything the far right dislikes is a psyop.
Everything in this article is based on evidence. The actual verifiable evidence suggests that there are plenty of good White women out there. What I don't like about the anti-White women stuff (like proclivity to race-mix) is that it has no basis in fact.
This is what im talking about. You're viscerally reacting. That isnt an anti white woman thing, it is a WOMAN thing, in general, generalized. The same logic thats used to discard talented 10th outliers? Good, now take that and apply it to women, a group White women are a subset of. Do you get it now?
It is a nature thing, like my previous comment explained but you ignored (or dont understand). Women go with the stronger horse, this includes white women, if that PERCEPTION of the stronger horse is not a white man, they will racemix.
Mixing isnt a trait inherent in white women and no one has ever said that in the dissident right, thats a strawman of a point some people make. It is a symptom of a the hypergamy trait of women IN GENERAL. This is not an anti woman take anymore than it is an observation of women's biological imperative. Its just that they are TRICKED into believing most White men are not worth betting on because they falsely perceive (through social proof) that White men are the weaker horse.
Hope im abundantly clear this time.
I take your point but the actual data shows that the vast majority of White women choose partners from within their own race. So, the evidence doesn't suggest White women have been tricked into believing most White men are "not worth betting on".
“They will not be 10/10s, they will not be without some (reasonable) baggage”
This is the number one truth that needs to be pushed on the right. Too many are romanticizing an admittedly better past, lamenting their inability to wed an optimal woman. We need to encourage young men to think about the future of our people, rather than personal satisfaction. It’s true the legal system is stacked against men in child custody/divorce, but there is no survival as an individual, only as a community. Most men don’t get to be picky with women these days (never did really), and the “market” is worse than ever, but we must persist nonetheless or perish.