Friday, October 29, 2010

United States Birth Rates At Historic Low.

In 2009 the birthrate fell to 13.5 births for every 1,000 people—down from 14.3 in 2007—which set a record for the lowest rate in a century.-Newsweek Magazine

Interesting.... The end of the Roman Republic anyone? History repeats itself aye.

Do not let the government steal our women......Understand? Women are not the enemy, it is their relationship with the Government Husband and their hypergamous mating preference which has manifested itself by female political agency. I ask you quite sincerely to study the laws feminist organizations and related ferver and that of our Federal Council On Women and Girls.

I have found so many parallels between women's relationship with government and my own personal life experiences it is astounding.

At heart I really do adore women. God bless them they are such a blessing but I will tell you a story.

I stopped by a bar the other night with many beautiful college girls in their reproductive prime. Women are most fertile at 25. Anyway, two strange women on separate occasions walked right up and to me and told me to buy them a drink (sex on the beach). It must be a thing among college girls. The young males at that age are very beta and lack resources or status but must fork over drinks like you wouldn't believe. I wonder how many of these boys grew up in a single mother home? Anyway I told them "no thank you."

They liked being told no but I wanted nothing to do with them. Something hit me viscerally about this very interesting socio-sexual, socio-biological circumstance I found myself in. I believe perhaps women want to test if you're beta by arbitrarily demanding resources from men. God love them but I truly believe women are all consummate. Hmm unlike men, government can't tell women no....this is the problem.

Once I realized truly what was going on I looked around and realized an inordinate amount of college boys getting reprimanded and disciplined by their girlfriends over the course of the evening.

I intervened to help three young men that night. I told them women will be as demanding as you let them be. They will raise the bar to see if you'll break. Once they supplicate and dominate you they dump you for a dominate man. I think I helped these young men.

One girl came back around for another round of verbal interchange with her boyfriend and the guy took my advise. She changed her demeanor right away. Good for him. It really is tough living under a female dominated government and associated matriarchy. I am beginning to understand the writings of Roman men when marriage rates and family disintegration took place during the final days of their Republic as well. The intolerability of their women and associated rapid decline of marriage and birth rates.

I've said it before here but do you know where the expression "you can't live with them and you can't live without them came from" ???

Upon the dissolution of the Roman family, falling birth rates, female sexuality moving from private and monogamous to public and promiscuous the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus states in 131 B.C....

"If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor.

Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become.

"Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure."

Wow, our birth rate in the U.S. is barely sustaining replacement levels.

So Quintus said the above in 131 B.C... It seems The Roman family really declined in the final century of the Republic--that is, the period from 146 BCE to 49 BCE when Julius Caesar was proclaimed sole dictator.

During the last century of the Roman Republic, no-fault divorce was introduced.

Following the complete end of Manus Marriage in the 1st century BC (100-1 B.C) and the emergence of Free Marriage Divorce, divorced ceased needing any reason, (No Fault Divorce).

Anyway, It's unfortunate....Unlike men, the government won't tell women no when they demand resources....It will be the death of this country if we don't stop this. I love women but they can be all consummate. They don't understand where the things around them come from. I really don't mean to be condescending. Perhaps they have as equally stimulating stipulations and postulations about men. I can tell you one thing though...feminism is certainly not it.

To me, feminism and female agency in government seems to elicit the worst of female and male nature. They form a relationship like no other that we as men can't compete with. Woman's relationship with Government Husband is unbearable. Her relationship with Government Husband is the most tortuous experiences for men to bear. It is an anguishing tyranny for sure. I love my country but I believe it is in grave danger and that we must do what we can to protect it. I don't like the division I sense in my country. I don't like what is in the air and pray that we can heal as a nation. I pray that we come together and make families again.....


Anonymous said...

Most people have heard the saying, "You get the government you deserve."

Well, "Governments get the people the amount and type of people they deserve."

No-Fault divorces in America has lowered birth rates.

In China it's one child policy has lowered birth rates and in turn developed a culture of only wanting to have one child so that parents can spoil them.

Anonymous said...

"Interesting.... The end of the Roman Republic anyone? History repeats itself aye."

We are in the middle of a RECESSION. In 2007, the population was near replacement levels. It's no accident that the birthrate dropped since than. Who wants to feed more kids when there are no jobs to support them? The same thing happened with the low birthrates of the Great Depression. People couldn't afford more kids and didn't have them. Economic prosperity brought on the baby boom when times were better. It doesn't take rocket science to figure this out without dredging up ancient history. That said, in ancient Rome, the low birth rate was caused by the fact that males outnumbered females by 131 men to 100 females. Adult women died in childbirth quite frequently and a woman's lifespan was shorter than a man's lifespan. In other words, woman was humanity in short supply.

Anonymous said...

OTOH, the Roman family was PATRIARCHAL. The Roman father (called paterfamilias, i.e., father rule) had the absolute power to decide if any child born to his wife lives or dies. Boys were valued in this society, girls were not. This led to a high rate of FEMALE INFANTICIDE. If the Roman men were so worried about low birthrates, they shouldn't have been killing all those female babies. After all, those female babies (left to die of exposure) would've grown up to become Roman women. You can't have a high birthrate unless you have enough women giving birth to begin with. Roman men shot themselves in the foot with this one. That said, Ancient Romans consumed HIGH LEVELS OF LEAD. Lead was in the wine they drank. Romans were famous for excessive alcohol abuse. Lead was also used in shipbuilding, stored syrups, containers that stored food and wine, lead pipes carried water to wealthy Roman homes, women wore lead cosmetices, lead was in pots and pans. Excessive exposure to lead is linked to lead poisoning and mental health problems. It has also been linked to stillborns, miscarriages, and INFERTILITY in women. It has also been linked to LOW SPERM COUNT in men. It also leads to birth defects in infants. Children born with birth defects in the Roman empire were exposed whether they were boys or girls. With all this in mind, even if the freedom of Roman women to no-fault divorce did have something to do with low birth rates, it certainly wouldn't be the main problem or the only problem. ULtimately, it didn't matter if women had no-fault divorce, or her marriage was with manus or without. The husband still had the ultimate authority whether a child born to his wife lives or dies. The husband ALWAYS GOT CUSTODY OF CHILDREN IN A DIVORCE. A Roman woman's first marriage was usually an arranged marriage without her consent. The average age of a Roman woman at first marriage was 15 when a Roman man was 30. Do you really think a teenage girl is going to stay with a husband she may not like or even love when she matures when she has legal avenues available to her (divorce)? Do you think she's going to stay with a husband who may beat her (quite common in the ancient world) if she can legally leave the situation? Do you think a woman is going to risk her life to give her husband a child that he has ultimate custody and control over when she can legally get out of the marriage BEFORE she gets pregnant? Do you think a woman is going to risk her life to give her husband another child when he exposed her first child because it was a girl when she can divorce him before she gets pregnant again? Why should she risk having a child with a cruel husband when she can take her chances with another guy who might actually treat her right? In a divorce, Roman husbands kept the children, and they were legally allowed to keep part of the wife's dowry as CHILD SUPPORT! And you guys whine about paying child support today. Ha! It was PATRIARCHY that invented child support, and Roman women didn't even have a legal right to VISITATION. And you guys wonder why the Romans had a low birth rate! Ha! There were other factors like lead poisoning and FEMALE INFANTICIDE CAUSED BY ROMAN MEN that were primarily to blame for the low birth rate. If no fault divorce did contribute to an already dying birthrate, it's because Roman women were smart enough to use what little freedom they did have to keep themselves from being victimized more than they already were by Roman men.

Anonymous said...

Women are not the enemy, it is their relationship with the Government Husband and their hypergamous mating preference which has manifested itself by female political agency

I'm sorry, but history has shown that women are illogical, male hating creatures that do nothing but destroy the civilizations that we men build. If they weren't essential to procreation and the survival of our species, they would provide nothing of real value that men can not already do.

I would say that women are one of our enemies, but it's an enemy that we must coexist with.

Anonymous said...

"I would say that women are one of our enemies, but it's an enemy that we must coexist with."

I think your problem is that no woman will coexist with you. Someone can't get a date.

Bwec said...

Is that the best you can do anon? No pussy for him aye. Is that all women have to offer? How about an intelligent response.

Anonymous said...

What the previous commenter said is kind of strange. Could someone explain?
Can you explain to me what reality is? Do robots exist in reality because they cannot judge and make perceptions?
How come some websites, like yours, appear all the way on the bottom of ranks with such engaging content?
I just saw my comments being removed from some sites. I mean no harm, I'm just… sporadic.

Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen asleep yet.

Bwec said...

To Anon: The time period I am speaking of is referring to the fall of the ROMAN REPUBLIC not the dictatorship of the ROMAN EMPIRE.

Your stating aspects of Roman life that are not congruent to the same time periods.

Bwec said...

To Anon: Every time feminists come here to give me their revisionist history it's a real pain in the ass.

"Classical Roman law did not allow any domestic abuse by a husband to his wife,[47] and in fact Roman Law made divorce almost excessively easy by requiring no reason or cause."

Look around and you will find the correct answers...I know you can do it : )