Fractal

What is really going to hurt them is that in like two generations, like 75% of the South and Central Americans in the US are just going to be white Christians while European nations will basically become Muslim countries.

Even rightoids who try to maintain a sophisticated pretense can't help themselves from sounding indistinct from people who follow andrew tate and those who converted to islam through sneako because of their crass fixation on heterosexuality.

The Alans, a nomadic Iranian tribe, settled in parts of France, Spain and Portugal. There was even an Alan kingdom spanning both Iberian countries. This is why Jose Mourinho resembles an IRGC Brigadier.

TFR decline is a good thing. The selection out of the gene pool of people who do not sincerely love the opposite gender and desire children is a good thing. Falling populations are a good thing.

The left-coded responses to this are all tacit admissions that my position is correct but they think it is a good thing because it affects their perceived enemy. The right-coded criticism is worth addressing. When confronted with perspectives critical of marriage as an institution in the 21st c., it is common for people on the right say it is an anti-civilisational mindset, that marital problems are downstream of da kultcha, that women are "naturally submissive" and you just need to be more a alpha masculine leader and she will not only 'submit' to you but LOVE it. The problem with all of these retorts is they are completely toothless. You can have all of the right ideas, the most reasonable position, the correct understanding of the civilisational importance of not only having a high fertility rate but rearing your children as a cohesive family unit. Expecting this to materialise into any sort of legitimate contract which enforces these terms leaves one relying on a verbal agreement with the sex to whom such things mean absolutely nothing. The moment a woman's feelings change, for any reason whatsoever, such an agreement means nothing. The history of marriage as a legal institution is one of the state offering men legal and financial incentives to accept the loss of freedom entailed by domestic life to ensure the reproduction of the race. Legal marriage now offers none of these benefits, nor does it protect men's most basic dignities, but the cultural idea of marriage which was shaped by these legal incentives over two thousand years is still invoked as a henpecking mechanism against skeptical young men who stand to gain nothing. You are 'supposed to' get married because marriage is 'supposed to' be a certain way. So you find a woman who "agrees with you" (lol) about what marriage is "supposed to be." You have three children with her. And then you lose your job. Now she tells you that she never *actually* agreed with you. Maybe she says she was just young and dumb when she said that. Maybe she says she just wanted to make you happy when she said that. Maybe she decides retroactively in a fit of resentment that you were abusive, and she only said it because she was afraid and felt like she had to say things to appease you. No, of course, YOURS isn't like that! Naturally, you are too masculine a patriarch for this to happen to you. YOUR wife would never do this. Your wife would never decide those completely non-binding verbal agreements which have outlived their personal benefit to her and no longer give her tingles and butterflies need to be honoured. But if she did, what's going to stop her?

What is really going to hurt them is that in like two generations, like 75% of the South and Central Americans in the US are just going to be white Christians while European nations will basically become Muslim countries.

Feminists who want to ban porn and anti-feminist men are coming from the exact same place: Crippling insecurity about their ability to compete in a free and fair sexual and romantic marketplace.