The Perversions Of Hypergamy

I applaud Bronze Age Pervert (Costin) for bringing the current sexual crisis to forefront of the political issues of our day. There is something to be said about how women and men are becoming ever so divided on a political level but seem to be unable to figure out what they want from each other. The very fact female nature creates some a Pareto distribution problem and so many men are left in the cold. However I do not agree his advocacy of eugenics or pro-prostitution stance really helps the situation. In fact I think it will exacerbate the situation and there will be no civilization to speak of without some contractual pair bonding obligations. I think it even goes to show on an aesthetic level he doesn't seem like he has a phenomenological point of view to speak on such matters, I'd wager it even works against him, unlike any other topic upon which one could be knowledgeable. Sex doesn't seem like something he'd struggle with, so how would he know?

The very fact Costin (BAP) is attractive, by those who have seen his mug around the internet, negates his ability to subjectively speak about a sexual crisis that doesn't affect him. That's why I took it upon myself to counter his theories on reproduction, even if I don't mention him by name. I disagree with his advocacy of eugenics because we've already tried that in the late 19th century. Curiously enough, the biggest advocates of eugenics, The British, had a society marred by late births which caused defects like down syndrome, no doubt also caused by the fact another ideology coincided with it, 1st wave feminism. Regardless, even if feminism ceased to exist, eugenics would still be a problem.

What Costin fails to understand, is that the problem is staring at him in plain sight: the idea that women have inalienable rights, as a given. The problem is certain demographics are unable to see the trade off between rights and responsibilities, which can also be extended to race rather than sex. The fact that both blacks and women have zero sense of personal accountability because women think they shouldn't play by the rules and standards of men, and blacks by the rules and standards of whites, what is the point of allowing them into the social contract in the first place if they cannot understand a world, that, by and large, has a universal language, a universal currency, whose population is desired by lesser nations? One that breeds so much envy and resentment yet want to infiltrate our clubs, speak our language, the language of "bros” (considering the fact that women swear just as much as men nowadays, speak out of turn, or, in the case of the “unspoken” language of signs and symbols, the display of tattoos which they think is a way of signaling their independence but instead signals they’re worn and used) or the English language in general (which wasn't created outside of Europe) and take our place in a world they didn't create so they can complain some more? There are some things in history that might have been better off if 1865 and 1920 didn't happen. But the actions of both demographics (blacks wanting to have access to us so they can push us out at will and the creation of female-only spaces once formerly occupied by men) will probably end worsening the situation of both. And you know what? I say let it happen.

-J./Adolf Stalin