No Future Orientation

Over at the Economist they ask the question of "What explains America's mysterious baby bust?". Immediately under the headline they note "Hispanic Americans are having fewer babies, as are city-dwellers".

You don't say?

For example, they observe:

The fertility rate has fallen more sharply in large cities than in smaller cities or rural areas (see chart 2).

Then immediately try to explain it as follows:

Rents and prices have soared, making it harder to afford an extra bedroom. Lots of properties are being built in city centres—but many of these are tiny flats in towers. In 2006 only 27% of newly completed apartments had fewer than two bedrooms. In 2017 fully 48% did

I could explain it - especially the discrepancy in birthrate shifts between rural and urban.

Political outlook.

Just take a look at a county-by county election map like the one above.

The Urban areas have a political leaning to the left. These areas have a much higher concentration of:

• People who are gay.
• Working women.
• Pro-abortion people.

What do all of these have in common? Lower birthrates.

Now, until fairly recently, and to a large extent still, I could give a shit what consenting adults do. The antics of the gay lobby have made me personally look more and more askance at anyone who makes it the foremost part of their identity in the "you know they're gay because they tell everyone right away" sense. I have it only on hearsay but I've known a few people who used to be pro gay marriage in the midwest, working to legalize it, etc., until lobbyists came along from the west coast and flat out admitted to them the goal was to use gay marriage to sue and attack churches. Even without that, others like Eric Raymond who were originally sympathetic and/or outright supporters are now questioning their earlier mockery of "slippery slope" fallacies as they look at the massive overreach of the political activists, and the ongoing push for trans rights, and the opening salvos for pedophile rights.

In short, we have gone from supposedly asking for "OK, here's a few people who don't like women, ifyaknowhatImean, who cares" to being actively and massively promoted as a wonderful lifestyle. Promoted to the point that everywhere you turn on TV major characters are gay. One may think they are desperate to speak happiness into being, given the suicide rate. Yes, I'm sure some of it is the abuse they get for being different, but how much of it is also depression/etc. caused by the same factors that predispose them to homosexuality?

So we don't just have a larger than usual percentage of the population being gay, concentrated in one area, but a lifestyle - an inherently childless one unless one adopts - which is not truly continuing one's own culture and ethnicity being actively promoted as ideal. Incidentally, we'll touch on that a bit more later.

And working women?

Sure, a woman who's grown past her child rearing years, or at least has a houseful of teens, can take some of her time for outside work. A number of community organizations depend on their volunteers, and many are women. If you want a job after that to fill the day - housework isn't that difficult - sure. And yes, some women just are not good with kids, or really have that obsession with something that guys typically do. But they are rare.

Even if at the further edges of the IQ and obsessiveness bell curves women were just as common, even if they truly were guys with tits and different plumbing, just as strong, etc. - and they're not, cross check the Olympic world record for women's 100m freestyle vs the time to even be considered for the US mens swim team - even if the raw biology of hormones and childbirth and monthly cycles had no impact on them, the raw facts of the time involved in pregnancy and childrearing severely impacts career and work availability.

Even if you don't decide to stay home after that.

And if you're encouraged to stay at work, to disassociate yourself from your kids to have some stranger raise them, to focus on your career instead of having a second, or third, that's another avenue through which birthrates in the western world, and urban areas especially where the concentration of career women is the highest, takes a hit.

The impact of abortion on birthrates, especially to support working women - nevermind Margaret Sanger's original goal of keeping the black population in check - should be self-evident.

In short, any one of these would be sufficient to affect birth rates simply by being accepted. But they are not merely accepted, they are encouraged. They are heavily promoted. When abortion was passed in Ireland, women were weeping and screaming with joy at the prospect of killing the life in their wombs. God forbid we affect a woman's "right to choose" by making her pay for the costs of her choices. The gay lifestyle is heavily promoted in the media and academia, and as I've mentioned earlier, gay characters show up everywhere, always in a complimentary light. And don't get me started on the proliferation of ball busting career women showing men how to properly do their jobs, or being the best scientist in the room, and so forth, ad infinitum, where traditionally masculine behavior, nevermind "sexist" attitudes, is frowned upon or shown up, and any man in a position of power is awful and abusive.

For example, the creator of Hello Kitty now has a badly-animated show called Aggretsuko about the travails of an anthropomorphic secretary with a secret hobby of karaoke death metal, who's boss is literally a sexist pig.

Just in case you didn't get it.

So these are all not only accepted, they are heavily promoted, and not just one of them, all of them.

Why in God's name would they do this? Why create a society that will implode, so that future generations won't enjoy their freedoms because they simply won't exist?

I believe the answer is "they don't care". Listen to feminists who have kids and if they are still feminists, they resent them. "I was an interesting person until my kids were born."

Or take a look at the story of Garrard Conley in "Boy Erased", a book, and now a movie. Sure, the behavior he observed at the conversion therapy facility was abusive as hell, even taken with a grain of salt. But stories like his hinge on several assumptions we are regularly sold. The first and largest is that they are "born that way."

I'm willing to accept that there may be a genetic continuum of propensity along which a small percentage knew they were attracted to the same sex from the outset, mostly on the strength of several people I've known who have insisted such. Obviously, the percentage that are like that are small in any population, especially one with such a long pregnancy and childrearing period as ours, or it would die out. Other's would be open if imprinted early - though the degree to which this is prediliction, epigenetics, or what, is far from clear. In short, to some extent, some are likely completely born that way.

But that latter middle ground is morally troubling. The gay community denies it and downplays it, but a number of known public figures have told stories of how they were introduced to the lifestyle as children by older authority figures who groomed and took advantage of them, sometimes older counselors as in George Takei's case, often adults. Many now claim to look back on it as a good thing, but this doesn't square with evidence that children sexually taken advantage of rewrite the memory of their abusers as mentors instead.

A number of course, despite the abuse, remain straight. Moira Greyland, horrifically abused by her parents, is but one example of the latter, but her brother took his life, as did many of her parents victims. Her father maintained throughout his life that the kids wanted it.

And a large circle of people in the Bay area agreed - at least enough to allow him to continue for years.

So yes, it's likely a small percentage are truly born that way, but it's also almost certain that a percentage were imprinted that way, and susceptible. If it is not all choice, the extent to which there's a genetic basis and they are "born that way", if you consider the reports of CRISPR babies out of China, the thought of that tech in the hands of a society that cares about a legacy in the future and kids, grandkids, etc. should give the "born this way" gay community screaming nightmares.

The real reason though that I ask you to consider his story is this. At the end, there is a stereotypical confrontation scene where he contends that he is gay, and cannot be changed. I've had this gushed about at me, how powerful and honest and etc. it all is.

For what it's worth, it may indeed be too late for those truly "born that way" or imprinted. Let's assume though that he is right.

He is gay. His father was not. If he cannot be changed and we have to accept it, then why does he not accept that most people are not, and are inherently at a fundamental biological level at odds with his sexuality, and instead expect his father to change? They cannot change, but we must?

More importantly though, he utterly dismisses his father's concern that his family line dies with his son. Sure, dad should have had more kids, hindsight, 20/20, and all that, but it doesn't matter at all to him if there is a following generation to carry on the family's and culture's ideals and traditions, it matters that he is gay and wants to live his life, accepted by a society that, if it wishes to survive going forward, needs him to try and procreate. I've seen that attitude again and again. Not simply within the context of the gay lifestyle but in the utter and total deprioritization of kids in liberal circles. "It's horrible to ask the kids when they'll give us grandkids", and so on.

Possibly worse, the utter repudiation of self improvement built into the attitude of "be yourself" and "I cannot change" as a baseline assumption, even if they make exceptions.

In short, a complete and total childishness, an inability to assume agency responsibility for their choices because they cannot choose to be different, and placing the burden on others.

And perhaps this childishness is the crux and the key.

Borderlines and other cluster-B types are often described as being emotionally children. Empty inside, they seek validation outside of themselves, and constantly violate personal boundaries. A lot of typical liberal behaviors come across as less pathological versions of BPD behavior, with a shared inability to take responsibility for their own behavior, to take agency, and both in the personal and global spheres, a hatred of boundaries and borders.

Sacrificing in the now for kids, home, or saving for the future, even living for a legacy instead of for themselves, is something that I've repeatedly seen in the left. Sure, they may care for their kids, if they bother to have one between career, etc., but paying forward for the next several generations? Pushing their kids to do the same, and to leave a legacy, and to continue the culture?

Utterly foreign to them.

They want what they want, they want it now, and could not give a shit about what's left behind for all their talk of "sustainability" for everything else outside of their culture and family. If anything, all that focus on sustainable architecture, agriculture, etc. nay be a deep seated guilt because they know they themselves are not sacrificing to sustain their culture, but sucking it dry.

Those signifiers - gay, career women, abortions, are just symptoms of a deeper rot.