top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

The empty planet



The world population is in a crash—apart from Africa, where it grows ever onwards. On current projections, the Africans will inherit the earth—so that The Planet of the Apes may prove to be a more prescient film than was even realised at the time.


The reason for the global population crash is the emancipation of women. When women can read and write, they stop having children—jobs, careers, and the vote just make this situation worse.

If you look at the population figures for North Korea and South Korea you see that the South Koreans are dying out, whereas the North Koreans have reasonable stability—though even Kim is worried, there is a video in circulation where he weeps for the unborn children of North Korea, and the audience weeps along with him (or else).

But the tears of Kim or Musk will not change reality. North Korea has a more stable population pyramid because it still runs 1950s feminism—Stalin’s feminism. In relative terms, Stalin constrained the excesses of Communism as far as feminism went. And it turns out that 1950s feminism, as strained through the mind of an intelligent Georgian peasant, is closer to reality than South Korea’s expert-approved “liberal democratic” social policy.

So they’re still feminist—but frozen at a point where feminism was just about sustainable.

It’s not about how harsh North Korea is, as many think. You can be harsh and feminist—indeed, it is still a very feminist regime. It’s just that it hasn’t expanded the feminism beyond a certain point, so it’s almost sustainable—though not quite.

The South Koreans, meanwhile, have gone all the way—have become as feminist as you can be, per American standards, and so face complete population collapse.

It hits them harder, Iike the Japanese, because Western culture, as imposed under military occupation, has destroyed their culture altogether (it displaced all the kinship ties that underpinned their reproduction as a society, whereas feminism emerged from the West itself—it conforms to the way women in NW Europe have always been treated better than women in other races, whereas in the Orient they were always truly chattel).


Even people like Mishima were mistaken, because Mishima ultimately looked to the West, to men like Somerset Maugham, and not to Japan itself (and he liked to jump on a quick trans-Pacific flight for hot boy action and hamburger; he was a Western man in the end—he died a narcissistic “media celeb” death).

So the only way to stop the population crash is to knock women out of education and employment—out of public office and so on. Ideally, to really help the population recover, most women would be illiterate or semi-literate.

This is not going to happen. We are nowhere near that happening. Just to be “more religious” or “more conservative” will make no difference whatsoever—so long as women are educated and emancipated the population will continue to crater.

When people say “we need to be more religious”, in Western terms, they don’t mean that women should not be taught to read or write—or not be allowed to hold a bank account (an innovation that only dates back to the 1950s in the West).


When they say “to be more religious”, they mean like the evangelical girls I knew who would sit on the bed with their boyfriends and kiss until it went *too far* and then have a prolonged examination of their consciences for their *sins* (I mean, you’re in the bedroom already, you might as well—but this is religion as feminine hypocrisy). Alternatively, they were desperate to go to Africa to hold black orphan babies for Christ (said babies promptly bit their milky white tit, so very hard).


People talk about “being more religious” or “pro-natalist” because these do not get you into social trouble. You can make bland statements about “more religion”, “pro-natal policies”, “tax breaks for hard-working families”, and so on—other pleasantries from politicians—until the cows come home. But that’s all easy, all segues into socialism, into “state-funded crèches for hard-working mothers”—it doesn’t constitute a real solution. A real solution would ban women from holding bank accounts—and that would just be for a start.


Abortion should be banned, not to increase the population—but because it places a weapon in the hands of women. Abortions are used as birth control by more stupid people—those who cannot plan ahead (blacks, in America). So in a way abortion is eugenic, but the real point with legal abortion is to disempower men. Because it’s always “my body, my choice”, even a middle class woman in a family that could plan ahead can hold the threat of abortion over a husband.


It reverses the dynamic between the sexes so the woman always has power over the man—and there are multiple dimensions in which this is so in the West. This is why abortion should be prohibited—or, really, if we were sensible, it should be allowed but only the man should be permitted to make the decision (which would, in practice, reduce the rate).


After all, why would you want a family—why does it make rational sense—if a woman can divorce you whenever she wants, could abort your child whenever she wants, and holds a job so that she doesn’t cook dinner and clean the house? At one level, there’s nothing mystical about the collapse of family formation in the West—it just doesn’t make rational sense, especially for men.

What will happen on current trends is exactly what happened to ancient Greece—depopulation, abandoned temples and citadels (abandoned cities). “The empty land”.


The only way to stop global depopulation—the depopulation of the West in particular—is to grasp the thorn and disenfranchise women.


I doubt that anything will be done, because so far as I know when civilisations reached a similar point in history nothing was ever done. The Roman emperors taxed bachelors, but they never reined in the women—in the late imperial age feminised cults, like Christianity and the woke, prosper. Christianity first spread among bored Roman matrons, just like woke ideas spread among bored middle-class white women today.

It’s really hard to change the situation, because men have a natural sympathy for women and want to please them; and when conditions become very comfortable this becomes sentimental—women stop being like a donkey you ride to the village in the next valley over, stop being a quasi-trade good that you chastise along the path to get the best price you can haggle from Mustafa. They become “daddy’s darling”—and then the birthrate collapses.

That’s why we’ll soon be denizens of the empty planet.






172 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page