Welcome to the public square. This is our welcoming tribe dedicated to introducing yourself, meeting new people, and learning about new tribes.
"Widespread childlessness is a lagging indicator of economic surplus which moves individuals beyond the life or early death need to spawn assistance to barren subsistence farming."
This is not only painfully wrong, but it's the quintessential mating call of those who get their worldview from random tidbits and quotes that float around in the ether without any real origin.
What childlessness correlates with is a custom of delaying childbirth. Countries like the US or Japan make young people, especially teenagers, completely and totally financially insolvent. First world countries also have a standard of living that radically outstretches the earning potential of young people. The result is that having a child isn't even an option until your mid to late twenties, meaning less children.
We can see this across different time periods. In Europe, the wealthiest third of society had more babies than the bottom two thirds between 1200 and 1850.
In China, serious industrialization didn't occur until the 1950s, which led to the population doubling between 1950 and 1975.
India had the same thing. The population of India was fairly constant for a long period of time, exploding only when the Portuguese brought wealth to the subcontinent. Under the British Raj, the population began to explode so heavily that the Indian birthrate was close to six and they actually faced a very deadly famine because birth rates were exploding even more quickly than their rapidly exploding wealth was.
And of course, the quintessential modern example is the African population explosion. The West funnels trillions upon trillions of dollars into Africa and since nowhere in sub-saharan Africa (except small regions in South Africa) has infrastructure to keep young people from breeding, the African population is exploding at 7 births per woman.
A litmus test chosen less for its predictive value than your certainty that it's an arena you're confident you have outstudied all possible opponents. I've long suspected it stems from inability and fear of addressing and leading large IRL groups, but more on that later.
Now, Evola and friends are a GLO interest that I can't really speak to... but I have my own litmus test. You base your ideology on random tidbits floating around without any basis in reality that are presented without source or arguments, and then you parade them around like timeless old man wisdom.
My litmus test is to completely ignore and disregard any retard boomer faggot who does this because they are not worth talking to. If your empirical and physically verifiable talking points are absolute crap paraded around by liberals, then there is a ~100% chance that your philosophical points are too. No wonder you were afraid of crowd. Crowds are probably afraid of having to watch you speak.
This is one of my chief complaints about the fruits of your methods. You've gathered a group of aggressive critics of other productive members of the Manosphere, who have little past or present original contributions of their own to show and potentially outshine that which they criticize.
I have known GLO since before glogang was a thing and I have my own side projects so I have not been directly involved, but I was talking to him a lot and working with him when I turned /r/the_donald from a 500 subscriber irrelevant subreddit to something that probably did actually impact the election and may have changed the course of history. I have nothing to do with the cringe boomer antics that go on over there now (antics that I'd place a heavy bet that you enjoy), but some good has come from GLO's aggressive tactics.
Now let's flip the script, what have you done to produce knowledge other than indirectly inspire everyone on TRP.red to learn about the history of the population growth of the old world?Read More