title: everything is mate suppression
author: Whatifalthist
publication: YouTube
published: 2025-07-24T00:00:00
source_url: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y77AEt-YWr8
word_count: 10880
About a year ago, my friend Jim Keller hit me up after watching my video on mouse utopia. He loved the video and said it got him thinking about a core theory of his that he wanted to run past me. It took him like an hour to explain fully, but he said that so much of modern culture is a form of mate suppression. That was a theory that existed beforehand, but which he articulated in very cogent terms. What that means is that everything in our society is imposing costs on others to lessen their chances of reproductive success. Normally carried out by those in power who aren't hurt by those costs in the same way. Jim asked me to pull my audience for how many were aware of the concept of mate suppression. I told him I thought most people in these circles already knew about the concept. and I was horrified that only a small minority of my audience knew what it was. I told Jim then that I'd make a video on the topic and the video's been stewing in my mind ever since. So, thanks for the idea. As time has passed, it's consistently grown in my mind more. A year ago, I had a sense that a lot of our culture was mate suppression. But as more time passed in which I perceived the world through those new goggles, I kept finding the rabbit hole went deeper and deeper. This video is the end point of a year of thinking about how literally every single element of our society is built off mate suppression. Things I never even thought about, like the current religion, manners, culture, government, and values, only make sense through the lens of those with power trying to raise the costs of reproduction for everyone else. I hope it horrifies you as much as it did me. [Music] These videos take a while to make, which means I spend a lot of time sitting at my desk, hard at work, and I need a comfortable place to sit during that time. And Flexus Spot provides the perfect chair. Flexus Spot has it all. Take the C7M for example with an adjustable headrest that can tilt in almost any direction. It's perfect for work or relaxing. The lumbar support is designed differently from traditional ones that can only support the lumbar region by focusing on sacrum support. It automatically supports both the lumbar and the sacrum, making it more ergonomic. Plus, it has adjustable seat depth, armrests, and back rest. The C7M also has a memory foam seat cushion, a foot rest, and recliner, making it a perfect office, work, gaming, or just hanging around chair. I've really enjoyed my chair and it's made my work a lot more comfortable. I encourage anyone who spends a lot of time at their desk to get one. Flexuspot is having a summer sale where if you use the code C750, you can save $50 on a new chair. And this doesn't even include a 10-year warranty on any broken chairs. So, click the link below to start using Flexaspot today. Part one. What the [ __ ] is the World Economic Forum? I've always been in complete shock that the World Economic Forum actually exists. I'm from Philly whose elite were old school wasps whose ancestors were on the Mayflower 400 years ago. And I just assumed until after I left Pennsylvania that that's what all of America's elite were like, much like they were 50 years ago. However, as I spent more time on the coasts before settling down where I am now in Texas, I realized a completely new elite had taken over the western world, nearly completely replacing the old wasps, while claiming to be superior to the wasps as their right to rule. While in fact, the W were vastly more tyrannical in every conceivable way. I've been meaning to make a strategic analysis of the WE or World Economic Forum for the longest time. I ordered a bunch of books by Klaus Schwab. I am yet to read since I find their existence in itself really fascinating as a sort of example for how strange the human condition can get. This is one of the things I frequently think about where I try to find different people or civilizations where I look at them and think, how did creation produce you? How are you the natural incentive structure of the world? Because everyone and everything is the logical culmination of their circumstances. Our era of history and especially our elite are easily one of the strangest ever in human history or the most removed from the natural anthropological average of the universal person. I made a video, one of my favorites, talking about the most extreme societies. A few things seem unbelievable to me about the W style elites. The first of which is they belong to a purely artificial culture. This is another concept I want to talk about in the future. But most societies in history develop organically. They are rooted in a certain geographic area with a certain ethnicity, religion, and culture built around a shared history. Then you have strange artificial societies that only exist inside bureaucratized urbanized civilizations that tend to fold when put under pressure. They don't follow the rules of normal societies since they don't have to fight for survival. Thus, you see strange developments and growths completely unrelated to practicality. My mom would make moonshine in our garage growing up and so I would see the vats of beer and sometimes you just drop way too much yeast into the culture and then you see the beer turnout in really strange ways due to this strange overupp of yeast. And that's how I feel about a lot of these cultures. America is split at the hundth parallel between organic societies that go back to Europe and the east coast versus the American West which developed culturally in a wealthy atheist safe car oriented 20th century. The European Union is an artificial culture propped up on the corpse of the old European organic nations. Same thing with Dubai, communism or what I call modern civilization in general. Washington DC is an island of artificial culture in the organic east coast. The World Economic Forum is modernity personified to a level of parody. They are so artificial as a culture they don't even realize how ridiculous they are. In fact, the World Economic Forum builds its right to rule off destroying organic culture. Nze talks about lifeaffirming versus life denying religions. When religions first form, they are these overpowering psychic forces which completely remake culture and people's perception of reality in their image. They transport people to different mental dimensions and give the cultures that take said religion greater strength, intelligence, wisdom, love, and cooperation. All successful religions or cultures start like this. However, over time, every religion goes from mysticism to bureaucratized decay. For decadent societies or those in their decline, the culture is purely negative, imposing costs on the people involved. A good culture or religion are like night vision goggles that enhance your perception, while bad or lifedy ones actively blind you. Nze writing around 1880 said that in the early 21st century due to the wealth and comfort brought about by the industrial revolution combined with a degenerated moral code stemming originally from Christianity that the west would grow incredibly weak supporting a completely life-denying moral code. Nze said that the social code of the 21st century would be the most lifedenying ever in history with a social principles built off tearing others down to attain equality, destroying beauty or excellence, thus creating a culture too weak to produce healthy human life, excellence, procreate, or even fight for its own survival. He called this the age of the last men. I cannot believe how unself-aware the World Economic Forum types are. It's almost as if they're demonically possessed by completely nihilistic suicidal ideas which are driving them mad, shutting off even the ability to realize what they're doing. The W openly pushes for degrowth or the de-industrialization of the Western world. They openly push for shoving the population into a new surfom, the destruction of their own civilization, and the imitation and glorification of legitimately totalitarian regimes like China. I can already hear people writing this off. And I'm so tired in our culture that every single appeal to do something this collapsing society is replied with complacency and nihilism. People are about to lose everything they love and they couldn't care less. People will say that the World Economic Forum is just a committee, which is technically true in the same way as saying America is just a band of territory in Central North America. Moderns really like using a facade of logic to in reality argue that whatever [ __ ] they believe is totally true and you can't question it. It's rationalization. The W is incredibly important given it's a mouthpiece for the managerial class which completely dominates the modern world. A short list of the political leaders who have or are members of the World Economic Forum include Joe Biden, the EU commissioner, Zalinski, Trump, as well as business moguls like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a completely obvious elite power interest which you're an idiot if you ignore. The areas that tend to be the base for the weft today are the former Calvinist regions such as New England, New York, Canada, Scotland, Eastern England, the Netherlands, Southern France, Straborg, Berlin, and others. This makes sense to me given Calvinism is probably the harshest branch of Christianity ever in which they said it wasn't under our control whether we got into heaven, but rather a cruel God picked out the anointed in advance. And so there's no real free will. Well, they banned celebrating Christmas on top of having six-hour church services. This was back in the 17th century. These areas just replaced one highly stringent nihilistic self-loathing religion for another. At least with Calvinism, you have a highly functional intact society and get heaven. The left doesn't even offer that. The W sets a precedent for the opinions of the Western ruling class. That's why the W itself does not have much power, but very frequently you'll see ideas the W pushes become applied to actual policy very quickly. That sense, the managerial order is a kind of hive mind of which the W is a mouthpiece. The leftist managerial order is captured by a sort of toxic suicidal mob mentality. The reason I'm talking about the we here is that they're a sort of measuring tool. Much like when a river floods, you can see certain markers for how high the water got to say, damn, that was a bad flood. The fact that the West's ruling class and dominant culture is one which literally publicly champions degrowth, slavery, and suicide means something is very wrong. Things are this bad, and people don't seem to notice or figure it out. People are so complacent these days, anyone who has the slightest standard or backbone is viciferously attacked in this culture. This entire society is trying to turn us into surfs. As more time passes, I've become more sympathetic to the old school Marxists. For those who watch this channel regularly, my loathing of communism has become a sort of meme. But the thing with Mao or Stalin is at least they were progressive humanists. They believed humanity could attain incredible things. They wanted to achieve utopia, build new stuff, get rich, make technology, and the like. The thing with the current WE elite is they just don't want positive things. They're actively against technological progress unless it's tech that lets them enslave the public more easily. They're actively trying to shrink the population and economy or destroy the culture. What the [ __ ] happened here? How does this make any sense? Furthermore, how did this happen in a democratically elected governmental system? How did voting publiclix choose to commit their own suicide? Part two. luxury beliefs. Rob Henderson, who I apparently have a bunch of mutual friends with, developed a really useful idea for the collective discourse, of which I am very thankful. Henderson grew up poor in the foster care system, which gives him a distinct perspective in modern America's mostly classist society. I'm convinced a significant part of wokeness is just forcing the public to focus on race or sex so the elites can get away with horrifying class repression. It's insane the left started out with technically being the working class's defenders to loathing them. It almost feels like a spurned lover. Modern America has the lowest social mobility in any time of our nation's history. You're the most likely to born and die in the same state of any era in American history. We have the highest inequality and most entrenched class structure of any era in American history. 60% of kids at the top 20 universities are from families in the top 1% of income. As a bourgeoa identifying individual, the class repression that the left is doing now is completely horrible. And it's even worse in that this is a society which pretends to care about the downtrodd and help them. Henderson talks a lot about how almost everything the woke push is something that imposes costs on normal people which the elites are able to get out of due to their higher status. The easiest example is how wealthy Hollywood people will talk about how depolicing is important while they all live in their own gated communities with security guards in a parallel society. When Seth Rogan said that when your car is broken just buy another is such a horrible summation which is practically our ages let them eat cake. Watch my video on the 1960s from my wonderful second podcast, History 102, where I argue that almost every single social change that came about from the 1960s, of which we are living in the very obvious aftermath is hurting the social commons. Things like religion, a shared culture, patriotism, family values, community, and social ties are all things that benefit normal people. This isn't even in a little or a small unimportant way where, for example, if you have children inside wedlock and are religious, the statistical chances you end up in poverty are very, very low. I'm sure we've all seen the stats about the insane negative effects of fatherlessness. When you look at stuff from the old America and wonder why it appears to be a vastly superior society in every conceivable way than today, it's because it was a society that actually upheld the commons. One of the best books on society today is The Revolts of the Elites by Christopher Lash. It's a book written in the '9s, but it could have been written today since it's so precient. His thesis is that the cultural changes of the post 1960s world were all a move by the elites to rebel against any sense of social duty. The reason they push against nation, religion, culture, family, and other things is that these are all social ties that impose costs on their freedom of action. They are barriers to their untrabled authority. Lash goes through every single element of American life between the death of patriotism, genuine education about teaching facts, the death of neighborhoods, real art, no bless oblige, and moral values to show how we've lost any interest in supporting our fellow man. A take I'm going to throw in here is from one of my favorite historians, Carol Quigley, where he talks about the death of the British Empire was in many ways an alliance between the nobility and the labor unions to shut down British competitive markets against the rest of the world by regulating the British economy and secondarily through killing the empire. It meant the pre-established British elites could have control of power while young men would not go out into the empire, gain status there, and come back to Britain to change the social structure. And this is the case with a lot of European empires where the social authorities demilitarize the populations, getting rid of guns and getting rid of the empire because if the population was armed in doing stuff, it would make them stronger to resist the regime and it would create social tension. What our elites do is pick some abstract group to support which they have no genuine relation to and then use that as a way to avoid having to deal with any group they are in actual proximity to. This is the origin of the chart that went viral online that shows that leftists value nonhuman cellular life and people who have not yet been born in their worldview to their neighbors, friends, and family. The thing is that no one can enforce your treatment of non-ellular life. So you can value it infinitely without actually having to bear any cost as an individual. While for the people in your real life that involves actually doing stuff which is more difficult. Everything in the left is making someone else pay for a cost to make you look more virtuous. I'm from the rust belt. And so even as a teenager, I assessed I had practically no prospects. And I remember having a panic attack in senior year when I couldn't sleep past midnight that if I didn't become an entrepreneur in the next 5 years, I would be forced to work a minimum wage job forever without any social mobility since corporate America or the universities would have no interest in me as a Gen Z white man. And I knew that society was about to collapse on an intuitive basis. So I had to figure things out before then. I could see this was the world around me. But the thing is that no one at that time really talked about what went wrong in our society that screwed over most Americans. The disjoint between my lived reality in the mainstream narrative that even almost all normies pared was a big reason I started studying the world and history and also became a right-winger. As a teenager, I started calculating every single way the regime screwed my demographic of young white men over. The most obvious answer was de-industrialization and globalization. Since my home city of Philadelphia went from one of the wealthiest cities in the world to the poorest and most crimeridden of America's top 10 largest cities, America had enormous tariffs when we industrialized in order to protect our own manufacturing from more advanced European countries from the early 19th century until World War II. The tariffs America built its own industry off makes Trump's look like child play. One of the things Peter Zyan explains really well is that America made the current globalist model our core strategy at the time of the Cold War after World War II where America could leverage both its enormous wealth and superiority in that America was a majority of the world's economy in 1950 as a way to convince the world to not go for communism. What happened is that in the world America made, the vast majority of Americans became worse off than before, while a small elite did vastly better. I was always shocked globalism was a genuine political position since I always wondered what loyalty can a world evoke. There's no shared culture. There's no shared history, experiences, or stories. We're all different people with our own stories. What does supporting world peace even mean psychologically? What does that evoke inside of you? However, the reason the elite supports globalization is that by weakening the culture of individual places, creating a international global homo, they can destroy the standards of any given place. In the West's case, pesky things like freedom, the individual, Christianity, or honor that keep them from taking global power over every element of the average Westerner's life. On top of this, they can leverage different areas core strengths against that individual area. let's say using the cheap labor of Southeast Asia, China's enormous industrial facilities, Europe's fashion or America's intellectual power in order to exploit each area as efficiently as possible with them as the arbiters of the relationship taking the best cut. One of my friends is a term called pinkerism or the main ruling ideology of our society that since we have more toilets in Africa, the complete collapse of American society is acceptable. In short, their ruling belief is line go up equal world goodter. The elite has done literally everything they could have possibly done to lower the value of human labor. This includes globalization, importing downwards of a 100 million immigrants in the last lifetime, many of whom illegally, bringing women into the workforce, automating, and now AI. On a statistical basis, the things above which caused the largest depreciation of labor are firstly the introduction of women into the workforce and secondly automation, which is coming from Peter Turin statistics. I find it completely morally reprehensible that these people as leaders have a moral duty to take care of their own populations and instead completely betrayed them. The nation is a family in which the rulers are by definition responsible for the shared culture, genetics, population, and identity of the people in their country. When you're talking about immigration increasing the economy, managing a society as an economic zone was never the goal. but instead the living breathing nation itself which stems back centuries. The insane thing is that in the current worldview questioning any of this is completely taboo while at the same time these are completely arbitrary opinions picked by the self-interest of the ruling class. I never get how elites will make a strategic calculation based out of their own self-interest and then the masses treat it with religious fervor. Questioning free trade, immigration or regulatory systems is seen as bigoted, racist or sexist, which just makes zero sense. But it's simply the managerial classes attempt to hold on to power. The reason we import tens of millions of Latin American barely literate people but educated Anglo struggle to migrate here is that for the managerial class the first are cheap labor which push down wages for the American working class thus making their lives cheaper and for the latter it's competition for their educated jobs. The horrifying classism that came out of the left after Trump was always just completely disgusting to me. These are people who claim to care about the downtrodden as their number one thing. But at the same time, they say that anyone who votes for Trump is an illiterate peasant whose opinion shouldn't be counted. They openly say that we need a cheap labor supply from elsewhere, which keeps wages down for normal Americans. The left keeps the price of housing high, which you can see in red states having significantly cheaper housing, which is easier to build, which young and lowerass Americans spend over 60% of their income on. I remember the most influential leftist streamer until recently, Destiny, posting a meme about saying that people on a flight are asking to be the pilot as a metaphor for the lower classes asking for governance from the educated. I was shocked since this is such naked elitism and aristocracy. This is the exact kind of thing the nobility would have said 500 years ago and the left has zero self-awareness about it. I remember a leftist woman complaining she couldn't date anyone without a degree since they were inferior. I replied, "So the nobility and lowborns can't mix, right? One of my good friends is an American expat who lives in Mexico and he likes to say that our elite is trying to Mexicanize America. What that means not simply on a demographic basis is that Mexico is an innately aristocratic society stemming from the Spanish conquest which divided the country up between about a dozen ruling families who controlled most of the economy. Mexico is the best country to be an elite and which the courts are biased for you. You have infinite servants from the enormous poor population. Only the elites get to live a first world life while the entire society caters to them. The elite is trying to turn us into Mexico. Firstly by importing Mexicans, then on a cultural, political, and social basis. They're trying to turn us into surfs. You will own nothing and be happy. As they've literally said, my best friend's from a working-class family in Boston. He and a lot of his network are from old stock Mayflower Yankees. And when I visited his hometown several times, it's so dystopian how his set or local workingclass people have been completely screwed over by the leftist elite. Workingclass people in blue states have zero social mobility. And whenever I go to Boston, every single job I see is either automated or done by an immigrant, frequently one who can't even speak English. Let I remind you this is about as far from Latin America as you can get while still being in America. I keep finding this in blue states where the managerial class see the previous American inhabitants the way we saw the Native Americans. The Yankees have been completely betrayed by their own elite. The rapid social collapse has been horrifying to watch. I'm only 23, so I remember the old America a little bit, partially since I grew up in a rural area a few decades behind the rest of America culturally. I remember the old America which was a middle-class country in which social mobility was expected built around the cultural needs of the American people. A place where freedom and basic decency was taken for granted with open discussion. A place where it was just assumed everyone could get married and have children, even poor people. Poor people used to be able to buy houses, where middle-class people took vacations, where the weekends were normalized, people loved Hollywood, and kids would just play outside without even thinking. In our current society, we simultaneously are completely incapable of acknowledging that that old country ever ended. And at the same time, people will deny that it ever existed. I remember that country with my own mind, and I find it so heartbreaking. So many pretended it never happened. Whenever I talk about this, people say things were always this way or that things were just as good now, which is really a disgusting Schroinger society. By every conceivable metric you could possibly choose, the average American's quality of life has collapsed precipitously. This is borne out in a bunch of different statistics. As Peter Turchin covers eloquently, Gen Z has 90% less spending power per capita as the baby boomers did in their 20s. Gen Z is too poor to create culture or even go out to drink. Young people are too poor to mate or form families. This is why we have the worst birth rates in history. Wages have completely stagnated as cost of life has skyrocketed. The average young or poor American has 3/4 of their income taken from them for just existing in that they spend 60% of their income on rent while the state takes a big chunk in social security and taxes, let alone food or essentials. This is why most Americans have less than $500 in the bank. This doesn't even deal with intangible factors which we completely devalue in our culture. The reason other societies procreated in poverty and formed stable cultures while we do not is that they had social institutions we got rid of. With religion, community, family trust, and values, you can live in poverty while knowing that people will help you out through financial issues, babysit your children, hang out with you after work, and you'll have a meaning or moral code to explain how the world works. The reason mental health is so disastrous among Gen Z, around 40% having a diagnosed mental illness is that they're completely consumed by nihilism. There's a very important historic event called the disenchantment of the world that anthropologists talk about through which we move from a concept of the world in which the entire universe is alive and full of meaning and spirits and beauty and that meaning is inside existence itself. And I've put a lot of effort into studying the disenchantment. And it's a complex topic in itself, but one of the points I find very interesting is that when you look at the trajectory, you'll find that it's correlated with wealthy industrial societies where when you're not a wealthy industrialized society, you'll have an enchanted mystical view of the world. And I'll push this back to science a little bit earlier. And afterwards, you don't. And in each case, it's not really a rational argument, which I explained in this text. Wall, it's more so that just it's considered not scientific to believe in these things. Well, it's not explained while science has to be our entire moral code. And what I think actually happened here is that belief in things like religion or mysticism or magic was seen as lowclass behavior that upper class scientific people should not do because they're too rational and successful through modern methods to need those sorts of silly things. And that's what's borne out in the statistical evidence from demographics. The reason that within the last lifetime we lost all of those social institutions I spoke about earlier is that the boomers got rid of the culture in society since they didn't need it since their age group was so wealthy. What they did was put their children in a terrible place where their society makes no sense since they have none of the wealth necessary to uphold the lack of social institutions. People tend to see decadence or the phase of social collapse we're facing now with a declining society as a symptom of insane wealth or degeneracy. That's true initially, but as the society degenerates, most people fall into poverty while they lose the social institutions that would maintain the degeneracy itself. Decadence always ends in the oldworld peasant beaten down by millennia of the tyranny of culture, state, and family. We see the huddled peasants of Egypt or India as primitive while in reality they are the end point of civilization going longer than ours has now. We westerners are still somewhat savage since we were cowboys or Vikings not too long ago. Our freedom and vitality are barbarian remnants. We can't afford to lose them. Part three. GSR. When our society lies, it does so by stating a slanted halftruth while completely ignoring the opposite point which is even more true. Yes, toxic masculinity is a real thing. And we are the least toxically masculine society ever. Toxic masculinity is Genghask Khan and Hitler. The thing is that our society is completely destroyed by toxic femininity, something that we can never discuss publicly. It's insane how great the scope of toxic femininity is. and how practically nothing is written on the topic. I recently read a super good book by Joyce Bennison called Warriors and Warriors that covers this. I'm kind of impressed this middle-aged, I would guess, leftist female academic wrote such a cutting book on toxic femininity. I think it's a real bellweather for the culture where we all know that this is real and it's horrible and I think people are just frankly getting tired of it. Remember when people said women were innately more moral than men around a decade ago? In the time since, that opinion has just become seen as completely insane now. I would argue mostly due to the downstream effects of the internet. Female relational warfare or it's also called gsr. That being gossiping, shaming, and rallying is how women manifest aggression rather than war like men do. GSR is the use of social tools to lower others reputations and secure your own higher status. It's also called drama, which for thousands of years was widely considered to be women's worst trait across cultures. However bad you imagine gsr to be, just triple it. And this is borne out in all the evidence or statistics. As an example, there's the famous study that hairdressers will purposely cut the hair of women more attractive than them. a few inches shorter, but will not do so for women who are less attractive than them. My friend Homath has a brilliant video called Who's a 10? Which does an analysis of this through the lens of why it's such a common phenomena that women will say all women are 10 out of 10's attractiveness, which they obviously can't believe if you watch their actions. The reason for this is that the idea that all women are beautiful and in fact equally so is a convenient strategic argument for women of different levels of attractiveness. What we keep finding with the studies is that female social networks are completely dependent on agreeing to an external mask of equality when in reality that's just a cover for low trust competitive strategies. Women are terrified of appearing like they're trying to do better than other women. Women try to avoid the appearance of competition with other women while in fact they are. This is partly due to the removal of physical violence which creates a lack of an incentive to beat people into good actions. While until recently, female social status was dictated purely by beauty rather than capability like it tends to be for men. One of the things I learned from both talking to women as well as Joyce Bennison's book is that in female social structure, they're scared of being successful because in that case, their friends might no longer like them because their friends might envy them. And that's just so brutal because what's the point of having friends if they don't support you in attaining excellence in doing cool stuff? They're not your real friends. And when this channel took out and I dropped out of college and became much more successful than my peers, it was so dispiriting that so many of them were not happy that I was successful because I was thinking, wait, did you ever actually like me? And that's how I feel about a lot of this stuff where I just find it completely unacceptable that women don't support other women in female social settings. It's frequent that obvious things aren't discussed since they create awkwardness for people trying to perpetuate lowrust strategies. As you can see, this all applies to modernity, which is very heavily feminized with in this instance why modernity doesn't explain anthropology, biology, history, or how the world works. honestly since in doing so it would show how low trust the left is. This also involves the need of a mask for equality, fear of appearing competitive or aggressive in today's culture while people are still jockeying for status behind it. All of this is at odds with male norms which tend to deal with aggression or status conflicts directly while not feeling a need for equality. This is why in historic societies which were more masculine, they had titles of nobility, epic mythologies, or waged war for the fun of it. It's completely reasonable and rational to think that as women got more power over the course of the industrial age that the society itself would take on the traits of toxic femininity as the society is the end point of the people involved. The thing with gsr is when you see it, you can't unsee it. The nature of toxic femininity is all mate suppression. The underlying nature of toxic femininity is to abdicate responsibility as much as possible while also lessening risk as much as possible. This is why historically, going back to the Greeks or Romans, the correlation between feminism and the welfare state is so strong. Women then use interpersonal relationships and communication in order to achieve said aims. The insidious thing is that women evolved to be incredibly good at this since these were traits that were rewarded in humanity's evolutionary environment. Due to the emphasis on the abdication of responsibility, the onus for female communication is to imply as many things as possible while operating under a field of plausible deniability. This is why flirting is the way it is, existing within a range of plausible deniability and timing in which as you flirt, you have the potential to pull back at any time due to the realization that said relationship is not worthwhile. When you look at female communication, this explains a truly vast amount of it. When you wonder why a woman does something you don't understand, try to figure out how it either balances her own emotional state or how it allows her to abdicate responsibility. For toxic masculinity, you can see it from very overt signs, that being burnt out cities and corpses littering the streets. But for toxic femininity, for this reason, it's nigh impossible to spot unless you're actively looking for it. Frequently, you'll only find it in retrospect after it's already happened. Women have literally evolved to do this and have social camouflage like a chameleon, which allows them to metaphorically hunt more easily. I'm always in shock women don't take courses or read books or any of that stuff to learn these highly complex social games. They just do it intuitively. However, the effects of toxic femininity are beyond obvious once you spot them. They can frequently completely destroy a society. Toxic femininity results in a low social trust culture. It causes environments of mutual suspicion in which everyone hides who they truly are, where nothing gets accomplished, or where normal human relationships, including procreating, have become impossible. Not treating toxic femininity as real while acknowledging toxic masculinity is in effect avoiding a specific type of crime or a crime against the shared society. Most of toxic femininity boils down to greed from an individual woman where women evolved due to the enormous costs of child rearing alongside their physical weakness at the expense of the collective culture. The worst side of female nature is immaturity whether pettiness, greed, envy or weakness. To look at some examples of this from politics, the left has used gsr on an industrial transcontinental scale. The reason leftism works so well is that Marxism and its descendants create a pretty sounding ideology which in effect due to their complete abdication of responsibility means that the left can rationalize literally everything for their aims. As I have said before in these two videos, leftism is toxic femininity as an evolutionary strategy containing all the trademarks whether the removal of competition, risk, envious redistribution of resources, removal of freedom and criticism. GSR becoming the entire society and putting pleasant fictions above reality. The thing is that literally everything in leftism is some form of mate suppression since women have none of the incentives of group cooperation that men evolved to have. Keep in mind men went through twice the evolutionary pressures that women did caused by war and the womb being so expensive versus sperm. That means that twice as many women reproduced as men did. Men are bound together as a group since they needed to fight for war, which killed 20 to 40% of men every generation in prehistoric societies consistently. Meanwhile, women's only evolutionary pressure was their own children. Thus, women have a cognitive bias towards greed in order to provide for their own offspring. This is why female social groups are so often toxic. And I do not envy women's social position. Female relations are based off vulnerability in that women, especially during child rearing, are profoundly vulnerable. This is why women value sharing their emotions and attention seeking socially since they're testing to see if you're trustworthy with their weakness. However, since there's no loyalty or honor inside female social groups, what happens is that female social groups are constantly filled with drama in which social relationships break apart over silly things. Throw on top of this, we've consistently found from studies that women actually benefit from causing drama evolutionarily. It's common sense that the society needs to be built around stopping violence, but it doesn't go to reason in the same way that it would be true for toxic femininity. The reason for this is that the mechanism which stopped toxic femininity was called society and social norms. Women did not engage in these behaviors anywhere near the same degree 500 years ago since women existed in intensive social webs under the responsibility of their fathers or husbands. If a woman spread lies or is a complete slit, she'd be ostracized by the village community which had a shared moral code enforced by religion and disciplined by her guardian. In preodern England, and this was true across most societies, it was literally illegal for women to slander and cause drama since it was called disturbing the king's peace. Throw on top of this laws against witchcraft, which can be pretty directly interpreted as principles against toxic femininity. What a combination of the breakdown of traditional society caused by urbanization and modernization with the internet recently is that it broke down all barriers against low trust female behavior. In fact, we made it our religion. The worst element of female behavior were trying to suppress the fertility of other women became our entire culture. If you guys ever feel bad, keep in mind that the people women hate the most are other women, not men. As a comedian once said, "Men want to understand women while women do understand women and they hate each other." A point which I think is important but goes unsaid is that the real targets for mate suppression are women, not men. Because if you look at the subconscious of the people pushing this, they don't really think about how these men relate to society outside of a sexual status context. What that means is that they're not thinking of these men as individuals. They're thinking of them as people who get paired up with women. So, this is low status women trying to remove the reward for luckier women who get with higher status men because they envy them. This isn't a man versus woman issue because fundamentally women suffer as much from mate suppression as men do. It's you are enabling the worst demographic of women possible so that pro-social women face the harshest consequences. To jump back on a larger scale for a few examples of mate suppression in politics, the first is child car seats. In America, we've had a law for a while that children have to ride in very specific elevated car seats for their own safety. These seats are expensive and difficult to maintain. While furthermore, only specific types of cars, which happen to be more expensive, have the space to fit them. The effects of this have been saving something like less than 10 lives since 1980 and preventing 150,000 births by people who can't afford the seats or cars. This is a very obvious example of mate suppression. As another example, when I was growing up, helicopter parenting was an obsession. My parents were seen as strange for letting me have agency as a child, not monitoring every single moment of my life. I knew parents which walked their kids four blocks to school every single day until the end of high school, picking them up at the end of class, too, or controlled what their children spent money on until the end of high school. The thing that shocks me is that people didn't predict this would have the psychological effects it would on my generation, which it so obviously did of turning us into neurotic wrecks incapable of functioning as adults. At the same time, these very same parents didn't grow up like this themselves with this trend coming in around 2000. So, they themselves know it's unnecessary. Helicopter parenting, I nearly said helicopter carining, is very clearly an upper or middle class trend since they are the people with the resources to get stuck on this kind of [ __ ] [ __ ] Helicopter parenting was enforced by the society. Though, many parents literally had the police called on them for letting their children play outside without supervision. There's just so many crazy news stories about this through the prism of mate suppression. This is very clearly the upper and middle classes using female hysteria over children as a way to enforce upon the working classes a tax of time and effort that they can scarcely afford. You could also talk about a bunch of other stuff like this when I was growing up of parents obsessing over driving their kids to events, doing special programs for them, special diets or whatever. I hate how many parents sacrifice all of their hobbies and adult friends or their lives to supervise children who in turn become resentful and dysfunctional from it. If you compare the adults who came out of helicopter parenting to those who lived a century ago, it's clear that this is not a good system to produce adults. None of our ancestors had this and they turned out fine. This is all mate suppression much like economics in which big companies push for regulations as a way of hurting smaller companies. Is it any surprise that major companies rose from 20% of the economy in 1960 to 80% today as they used the regulatory framework to weaken small businesses. In the process, we've seen a collapse of small businesses and middle class America. It's funny. We went through all the different ways very different parts of life are indirectly connected to mate suppression, but I forgot about the actual mate suppression. That being how young women just openly tell each other to not have children where the culture now is incredibly anti-natal where I know lots of young women who saw it as sort of moral duty to not have children in that they and everyone else in their friend groups all have a consensus they will not have children. And this is a very big thing for a much larger group of people than I think a lot of people would realize. I think it's a large minority of Gen Z women who are like this where they've just lost any interest in starting families and they further each other in this and that when you look at the music or the movies or the culture or schools or political propaganda, it's all overtly antiatalist with a quarter of Gen Z thinking it's morally wrong to bring children into this world. There's a pretty horrifying statistic now that 60% of Gen Z women just do not want to have children and a larger number are unsure if they want to. For example, at the start of the Barbie movie, which was the biggest cultural event of the last year, I think they show a child breaking dolls and breaking her connection to matrimony um and child birth. And then they play the thus spake zerahustra music from 2001 of space odyssey. So they treat the destruction of motherhood and they do believe that if you look at the subconscious of their worldview as a historic level breakthrough and they tend to view women who do have children with contempt and they view children with contempt. It's so jarring to go to Mexico, a country in which I've lived for certain periods of my life, to see a society where none of this is the case. You see corner stores and small businesses everywhere in Mexico since their regulatory framework isn't as insane as ours. Kids play outside in Mexico. Even basic essentials not related to labor cost are cheaper there. The Mexicans are too poor to afford our luxury reliefs and mate suppression. Need I remind you Mexico is a vastly more dangerous country than America. The entirety of socialism is mate suppression in that creativity and economic growth is achieved by creative individuals trying to make money or status out of their own free will to power. Creativity is never generated by bureaucracies. What socialism almost always is is redirecting money from middle-aged and old white men who comprise nearly all of America's tax base to mostly single moms. frequently of ethnic minorities who comprise most of the recipients of welfare. This is just using the state as another form of mate suppression as a manifestation of toxic femininity. I find it kind of ironically and darkly hilarious how much of feminism boils down to women using the state and society as a way to make men less competitive versus women, which is just the entire culture. However, women are attracted to men who are more successful than them. And this is one of the reasons why it gets very messy when you try to integrate the sexes together as competitors. Where these women complain that none of the men around them are attractive because they're more successful than them. Well, they have zero self-awareness. This is the outcome of the society which they chose. As always, mate suppression ends up hurting everyone involved. As we can see with the rise of socialism killing Europe's multi-entury dominance in every field possible over the course of the 20th century which happened at the exact same time as the rise of socialism. You saw Europe lose its empires and lose all of its technological and cultural advantages. The introduction of communism killed Russia's rise to dominance which was occurring under the Zars while the left is trying to throttle America today. Read this text wall for more info. Part four, the walls are alive. As I went further and deeper into this topic, I started to break my sense of what my old reality was. In our society, we tend to see our own social structure uncritically. When we deal with stuff like codes of politeness or what's socially acceptable in our society, we tend to just treat breaking convention as innately wrong without thinking why or how these social norms came from or who they serve. There is a distinction between the nerd who does not understand social cues and the alpha who doesn't care. I like using the phrase the walls are alive, which is a phrase I invented. That signifies to me that something in the baseline of my life which I took for granted is actually an active insidious force which is trying to hurt me. I've realized this about half a dozen times in my life with one of the bigger examples was the realization that the entire society was a conspiracy to destroy me as a Gen Z white man which acknowledging a decade ago or even 5 years ago was taboo but it was still true at the time. How many things are like that now which will be terrible things that will be obvious a decade from now but which are taboo to say today. Let me give some examples. It's treated as a truism that Christianity is an anti-ex religion, which is also how traditional cultures in general are seen. In reality, religious people have more sex than the less religious. But on top of that, the attitude of the religions predominantly obsessing over sex is a modern thing. The Bible is a complex document of over a thousand pages, and the interpretations from it are even more complex. In the rise of modernity, Christians have had to compromise on a lot of tenets of their religion. For a lot of stuff in the Old Testament, it's generally understood that this is acceptable and that we don't want to stone people to death for breaking crimes or maintain complex dietary restrictions. However, Christians are very stuck on sexual morality today while completely rejecting their social codes in other ways. I think sexual morality is important and necessary to a functioning society, but it feels weird that Christians are willing to hold the sex equals bad line while surrendering on so many others. For example, feminism is completely against the Bible. Women are supposed to be submissive and not speak in church according to the New Testament. War and genocide is completely acceptable according to the Bible. The Bible and Christ treat hierarchy as normal and even good. To be frank, Christians have surrendered so much of their culture. I'm always curious where they choose to draw their lines. The entire nature of Christianity itself is based on love, humility, and free will, which is how the preodern church interpreted it, with pride being the worst sin. Interestingly enough, in a lot of ways, medieval Europe was a more sexually loose culture than we are today. People in the pre-industrial world would have sex in front of their friends and family. Masturbation wasn't treated as a real sin in that Catholicism had lots of low-level sins until the 17th century. During the 17th century, nannies would give their boys they were working for hand jobs, which we have records of them doing in front of the French court to a young Louis the 14th. When I first heard that fact, it shocked me. So, I checked it and apparently it's true. And the way it makes sense is that in the preodern world, they did not separate sex from hierarchy. So there was an understanding that if you were a nobleman that if you had sex with your female servants, that was kind of how things worked out because you had authority over them. Then that transferred over to the young son. And so that's how you ended up in a culture where nannies would give boys hand jobs. And the thing with the preodern world is they often were significantly more sexually loose than we think. But because they had a fundamentally Christian moral code, they didn't record this stuff as their external facing image. And that's the sort of thing that gets recorded is highly important in history. This is generally true for preodern societies where they didn't record this stuff as a public-f facing historic record. But preodern societies had much better understandings of private versus public. And so they did lots of weird stuff in private that just didn't get recorded. The nobility would keep concubines as a normal thing while courtly love was all about glorifying adultery. There's a great book on this topic called the evolution of manners by Norbert Elias which talks about manners from the middle ages until the present. In the medieval and early modern periods, societies, let I remind you, that are vastly more Christian than we are today. Knights would write poetry about how much they loved the act of killing. Drinking on the job was completely normal. England's the most peaceful country in Europe, had a murder rate comparable to South Africa, the bloodiest country in the world today. Entire towns would have nude baths together, including postpubescent women. Nudity and art was normalized. Animal carcasses were carved up at the dinner table in front of guests. People ate with their hands and would use chamber pots in front of others. This was a savage civilized society. My audience's core demographic and the one I try to represent is young men. And what I tell Christians is that if they can loosen up on stuff like masturbating being a sin, which is mentioned literally nowhere in the Bible, you could probably get young men to take up five times as many Christian virtues to balance it out. At the same time, if Christianity was willing to take up masculine virtues like interest in war, heroism, and honor, it would attract young men. This is all things that Christian societies in the past did. The reason that Christianity isn't like this anymore is something that Charles Taylor, one of the most preeminent Christian historians, talks about in his book on the secularization of Western civilization, a secular age. In the early modern period, atheism was seen as masculine or holding out against the chaos of the world alone, rationally. This meant that starting around the time of the 18th century, Christianity became highly feminized, which became even more pronounced around the time of the industrial revolution. People like to say that men are driven vastly more so by sex than women, but I don't think that's fundamentally true. From various studies and metrics, we find that men have about seven times the sex drive women do, while at the same time, men also do a lot of other things that women don't. Just look at the stories each sex writes. Men write stories about war, adventure, business, machines, science, history, magic, and other things completely unrelated to the quotidian or daily life. While almost all female stories circle around finding a mate, the ancient Greeks, Romans, and medieval thought women were innately more lustful than men. And I think a case can be made for that. The thing is that once an organization gets feminized, it will devolve into trying to increase the value of the wombs of the women involved, which need I remind you is frequently life or death for women. A pretty girl gets to be in the warlord's herum while an ugly one remains a peasant who starves or is enslaved. Thus, when the church became feminized, it became obsessed with sex. Especially so, male sexuality in which we can see that Christians today have been completely incapable of policing female sexual behavior or toxic femininity, even as America was a 90% Christian country a generation ago. The real reason masturbation was such a strong taboo from the 18th through 21st centuries, even more so than sex, which is pretty insane when you think about it, given the massive different in cost between them, is that a feminized church needed to make masturbating taboo in order to increase women's sexual value. At the same time, this is why Christians got so obsessed with really petty stuff like people being too edgy for church while ignoring the communist takeover of their entire civilization. I don't get why Christians don't fight back harder. You guys don't get it. It's your moral duty to fight to the death to defend your property and honor. The reason sex is so taboo to discuss in polite company today in a way it wasn't 400 years ago is that if people were honest about sex, we would realize how much of our society is using sex for lowrust mate suppression. If we were honest, we'd realize women are only attracted to men who dominate them. However, that would destroy feminism. We'd realize the vast majority of young people lose in this equation for the benefit of a few with hypergamy. Alternately, men would realize that obsessing over sex just isn't worthwhile. It's funny that I agree with a lot of the normie Christians about sex, but not for the reason that they do. I just don't think it's worthwhile for a lot of young men. They invest all their time and effort, practically their whole lives if you include the status which feeds into sex, for men to probably get a woman who doesn't even like them that much. There's an over 40% shot she divorces him. The majority of marriages are unhappy. While very few young guys even get married these days or get a girlfriend, the return on investment is not equivalent to the effort. And in this strange society which is obsessed with sex while also being squeamish and terrified, you can't sit young men down as an adult and tell them, "Well, it might save them their lives." All this stuff. To clarify my position here, because it's somewhat complex, I don't fault major world religions for having strict sexual controls because if you look at the course of human history and human nature, it's consistently been an effective strategy for the societies involved because it creates incentives for social cooperation and against degeneracy. I personally am not a fan of highly dogmatic religions. Although I think religion is necessary for healthy human societies because it destroys creativity and promotes irrationality or I'd prefer to have a social code based upon personal honor and responsibility inculcated in the individual. However, I think that's quite difficult to attain and not feasible for most people in history, which is why having a dogmatic religion makes sense. What I am against is using a sort of controlled hysteria to stop the public from talking about sexual realities in a serious way. What we've basically done here is create a very controlled sort of politeness where we can't talk about the reality of the human condition because it's impolite and this is destroying our civilization. Furthermore, the use of sexual shame in order to control men so that they can't actually follow their own self-interest and understand what's going on where our society defaults onto sexual shaming immediately. if you bring up any uncomfortable questions, which is just so stupid and it's so immature. We shouldn't have to put up with this garbage. It's just dumb. We have too much investment in mate suppression in order to be honest. And men have been tricked while they feel too much shame to admit it. This use of social norms for mate suppression is more of the society than you'd think. Our society's main religious belief is ignoring human biology. I mean the term religion here is how we perceive the world and our entire concept of reality. This is true on multiple levels in which we can't acknowledge racial differences as well as class or sex. Trans is the ultimate culmination of this which is a complete denial of biology on a level that's just incredibly insane. This is since our society is built off the idea that we can use social engineering to change reality which is false. The truth is that reality is that half of nearly every trait is genetically coded and not all people are equally smart, hardworking, kind, or wise. In fact, as we've studied more, the gaps are truly vast between the outliers and the average. You can look to a society's swear words to figure out what it holds sacred. In the Middle Ages, the swear words were tabernacle, God's bones, or Christ's nails since that was such an authentically Christian society, unlike ours, which pretends to believe in God well as being purely materialist. However, in our culture, our swear words are [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] and [ __ ] which are all innately biological. We are a culture which due to the myth of progress cannot acknowledge that we are all human. Realizing that we're animals would make this entire society fall apart. This is since we are a society in which the human animal suffers which you can see from the cripplingly bad mental health at the expense of the human ego which is fed by the delusions of modernity. If we admit that humans are stupid animals who want to procreate, that will shatter all the myths of this society and radically alter every element of the culture. We would start to prioritize our values, families, communities, and societies. Since as animals, we would realize that other animals would prioritize those things in order to be happy. An otter can have lots of toys and food, but if it's stuck in a zoo without space to play, a river or a mate, you can understand why said otter is unhappy. Our society has turned us into zoo animals. And much like how zoo animals don't procreate, neither do we. One of the most chilling books I've ever read was by a pimeatlogist comparing urban human behavior to zoo animals. The thing though is that when you add all of this up, we've sacrificed everything to mate suppression for nothing in return. Mate suppression has become our religion, social code, politics, child rearing, and discourse. Literally everything has become mate suppression. The very walls of the building we live in are mate suppression. In writing this video, it felt like it was too long, but after covering how so many things are innately mate suppression, I feel justified. We have to cut this out in order to survive. But that involves facing our shadow. Something people will often die before doing. That being toxic femininity. Thanks for the idea, Jim. You can really see how it's affected me. Peace.