Thursday, May 26, 2022

To be blunt, if you love your kids you don't feed them formula.

Americans don't love their kids, so it is unsurprising that a formula shortage is a big deal. 

Formula tastes terrible and it's bad for you. Who deliberately feeds this to babies? People who hate babies. 

See also: cheerios. It has a long shelf-life because even the bacteria don't want to eat it; it's not fit for microbe consumption, let alone human consumption.

The fact Americans don't love their kids is exactly why they have to firmly signal, especially online, about how much they love their kids. This is why they go full [please somebody think of the children].

Same way every American who has ever looked twice at a 16-year-old has to go ballistic at any mention of jailbait. "Only a monster would be attracted to a girl without checking her driver's license first. I am of course a healthy male who is only interested in things the government has first given me permission to be interested in." Biology is bureaucracy, right? Animals in the wild find a mate without having to fill out form c-16; amazing, isn't it? A wonder of nature; how do they do it?

The fact [think of the children] initiatives immediately die to Conquest #3 is a reinforcing dynamic. Cause more pain to children while forcing everyone to agree that you care for them more? What's not to love?

"Maybe they don't know it's bad and bad for you." Did they check? Do they care so little about their kids they don't even bother to look? This is not rocket surgery.

Americans largely hate their pets too, by the way. I see them obviously causing pain to their pets more often than not. "See, he likes it!" He obviously doesn't. Then I look it up and guess what it's a known form of abuse.
I expect they get pets so they have something to legally torment, and they get mad at you for being mean to their pets half because they're terrified you'll notice they enjoy seeing you be mean to them, and half because they see you satisfying your sadism without paying for dog food. 

They rack up huge vet bills precisely because the animal hates the vet so much. Seeing the animal limp around and whine in pain makes them feel all fuzzy inside, which is why euthanasia is supposed to be bad. A few get confused and think the animal will really hate getting killed, but they regret it later because they can't torment it anymore. 

When you tell an American parent that cheerios are ruining their child's health, they don't get mad because you're questioning their parenting skills and need to mind your own business. They're not mad because parenting that badly obviously demonstrates they're a bad person and deserve to feel bad, and this is intolerable. "Hey, consider feeding your kid human food instead of cardboard." "Delete yourself." Since when are Americans meddling-negative? They get mad because they like giving their kid metabolic syndrome by feeding them industrial waste and you're making them feel a responsibility to stop.

I do say outlawing marriage is a primary driver of low birth rates.

However, there is a more important one: Americans hate kids. If your intuition complains about this, likely that's because it's normal to hate other people's kids. Nothing is more annoying than unrelated children.
Hating your own kids may be normal in the sense of being accordance with local norms, but it is very far from healthy.
On the plus side USG wants you to hate your own kids, so doing so is very Obedient and Conformist. Don't worry, Big Sister loves you. 


You can tell for certain because American parents do jack when there's a genuine threat to their kids. Their perceptions don't lead to action. They won't let them kids outside unsupervised due to the 0.0001% chance of being kidnapped by a stranger. Or - no joke, saw this in person - won't let them outside in the rain because they might get hit by lightning. (Instead, going out in the rain is an excuse to give the kid a healthy spanking. For their own good, naturally.) Then a school shooting happens and they won't even give them the day off school, never mind link school and danger. 

They will credulously repeat the ""statistic"" about 1 in 4 co-eds getting brutally ambush-raped by strangers, but never for a moment consider, you know, not sending their daughter to college. "Yes it's entirely credible that Jackie Coakley was ground into broken glass by a train run on her, but don't you dare drop out, young lady!" 

American parents obsess about car safety seats and motorcycles and then deliberately live in NYC. Americans are, of course, extra xenophobic and the "good schools" thing is a great excuse to live far away from Bantu-Americans. The kid's experience at school is irrelevant unless it can be used to change the parent's environment.

The American government lies all the time because the American people are massive liars. Demand => supply. 

There is a small minority of exceptions. Some Utah families have like 9 kids, because, "The first one was great! Let's do it again!" The "homeschooling" pull-your-kids-out-of-school reaction is indeed growing. However, slowly. Significantly less than 5% of all students are outside the Prussian system.
Prima facie, no more than 5% of American parents feel non-sadism toward their own kids. 

This is why population decline is wonderful. It will automatically stop once the 95% of parenting-negative parents gracefully exit the gene pool. Viva the pill. Viva abortion. All hail high cost of living. Outlaw marriage harder, daddy.

P.S. Ironically, stuff like cheerios kind of doesn't have a long shelf-life. They have to pack it in Communist plastic and fill it with Communist "preservatives" because otherwise it goes stale if you look at it funny. It's barely platable even at peak condition, but soon reverts to its natural "yeah, don't eat this" state. The term "preservative" refers to to sugar, vinegar, alcohol, and salt. The package-list term is a euphemism for [pesticide]. Hey, hot tip: don't deliberately add pesticides to your food, especially not broad-spectrum pesticides.


Anonymous said...

You're very right in noticing the symptom. But I think you're missing the cause.

>There is a small minority of exceptions. Some Utah families have like 9 kids, because

Because Mormons link female social status to fertility (basically, more kids means a bigger house in heaven).

But of course, Satan wants his fingers in that little pie too

"What I don’t condone is the bullying, ostracizing, and sexist disregard for women who choose to have a career rather than a family – either immediately or ever.

We forget our ancestors. These women who crossed thousands of miles in all types of weather, in a heavy dress I might add, to bring their families to Zion. Women who, after their husbands passed away, pulled up their bootstraps, and went to work single-handedly supporting a family."

Ie, you don't need kids and even if you have them you don't need no man!! And if ANYONE shames you for it, they're a bad person!!!! Sound familiar?

(Lol bonus round of quotes directly from the Devils mouth hole "We must remember that Heavenly Father wants us to be happy. We cannot be happy when we are living up to others’ standards. " Not even Heavenly Fathers standards? The mental gymnastics must be incredibly painful).

> It will automatically stop once the 95% of parenting-negative parents gracefully exit the gene pool.

Well, no. This is a dysgenic psy-op.
Animals are driven to have the highest quality offspring.
Humans with high social status have access to resources and the highest quality mates.

All of the things are linked, functionally like

Offspring quality(resources, mate quality)

with resources(effort, social status) and mate quality(social status, other factors)

So it's entirely rational to imagine that if your social status falls the quality of your offspring will fall.

Similarly, it's entirely rational to imagine that, if you have more resources, you will have more social status.

Now.. if you can convince people that having children lowers your social status (it does, relatively.) you can tweak their anxiety about having high quality offspring.

All of that "men won't date single mothers" rhetoric isn't really designed to make men pay for muh alphalphas kids. It's designed to remind women that kids = low status.

The GOAL STATE is flipped. It's no longer HIGH QUALITY OFFSPRING its MAINTAIN SOCIAL STATUS, using the natural anxiety of "if you don't, you won't have high quality offspring" as the lever.

There are numerous other media tropes. Eg, "muh career" for women, thus lowering the status of stay at home mothers.

The shitting on men who have higher paying jobs than successful women not wanting to date these "successful" women. (the point of this is "its MENS fault that they don't want to date you, THEY should change", pure copium)

None of this is directed at men because they pretty much just go along with whatever women want. That's how animals work.

And to bring it all back to baby formula - if you have time to breast feed, you don't have a good job, you're probably a stay at home mother! Your HUSBAND isn't doing 50% of the child care? I bet you VOTE REPUBLICAN!! How LOW STATUS. You're just demonstrating how POOR QUALITY your child is if you aren't feeding them formula!

Have you noticed how anyone who suggests that women breast feed are shouted down with status-modifying attacks?

Anonymous said...

further, I forgot to address this point

This is dysgenic because people who are legitimately low status have different status metrics.

The rhetoric also doesn't affect them in the same way, like "having 5 babies is low status!!" Well, I am low status, so, I may as well have 5 babies.

The way to affect the low-IQ population fertility level is to cut off the food supply. You can't lever them with rhetoric in the same way as people in the 100+ range.

Note, they haven't cut off the food supply.

PS : Additional note, the general tone of academia/ UN/ GAE propaganda is "education lowers birth rates".

Which is true, since the Holy Paper of the Degree raises a womans social status and means she must demand a man that similarly has the Holy Paper of the Degree.

The education doesn't have to DO anything you just need to tell a woman shes really high status. Oh, makeup does the same thing.

I've seen this happen multiple times in real life - women from low-status areas get SOMEthing - a job, an education, a really really good grasp of applying makeup - and they then stop dating within the original social pool. Even though they may be culturally more interested in having kids than their original social group peers, they still end up having less than their (original) peers.

And back to their original peer group - the things that raises female status are out of some of their reaches.

The ones that can reach them - they go up to the "middle class" and lower their fertility.

The ones that can't reach them - they look at status signalling within their own class, no problems finding a mate of appropriate status, fertility not affected.

Literal IQ shredder.

It's a very very clever sociological lever.

Alrenous said...

Nah dude.

Will not explain.

Anonymous said...

It's very interesting to me that you are very red pilled on many topics and have seemingly no emotional connection to the complete disassembly of them, and yet, on this topic you really seem very resistant.

You often bluntly refuse to discuss this, or have fairly mainstream-ish opinions (I'm not trying to insult you, obviously. )

Food and sex are our two main drives and very easily manipulated.

Eg, sugar, salt, fat - you well know the combination leads to personal destruction that people find it difficult to extract themselves from.

I think you've done your forms on food. I'm not sure on sex.

Why do you think female education is negatively correlated with fertility?

Alrenous said...

Just looks to me like you're the one who's resistant.

Obviously there's no point in getting into elaborate discussions with resistance. If you don't want to believe, go ahead. It's none of my business.

Anonymous said...

I'm not resistant at all. Your response is explicitly - no, won't discuss.

I'll talk about anything you want. I want to be wrong.

The point of this post was - people are narcissists that hate their kids. Well, that's a pretty crazy place for an animal to get to. Especially an animal like a human that has spent literally millions of years evolving to the point that our offspring requires 13-14 years minimum input to be effective.

But your analysis is "they behave as if they hate their kids because they hate their kids". We're missing a little of the "how we got here" part. College, education system, the media, society etc, yeah.. all play their role. But all of those things used to exist AND people loved their kids. Soooooo what happened?

Alrenous said...

The English haven't loved their kids for at least 400 years.

It's easy to make a model where nobody loves their kids. Rather, they have hard instincts which force them to be nurturing in a blunt and kind of stupid way. Just barely enough so that the kids don't actually die. Mainly because by inspection you can't be caught blatantly disregarding your own children's welfare.

Humans are only cooperative at all because large gang beats small gang. Cooperation is a tax the sadistic monsters have to pay so they can sadate without being fought off. If you just sit and watch your only kid drown, it implies you'll also betray the gang, and is thus a great excuse for a spot of sadism.

Probably it's more complicated than this outside England. Or maybe outside the Hajnal line. There's a lot of noise because by inspection you can't get caught failing to love your kids. Regardless, the fact the simple model works shows that it's more this way than not.

The upper classes have been known not to love their kids for millennia. Is the king's throne worth murdering your brother? Not if you love your brother. A fortiori, your father? If you don't, then it's a bit of a no-brainer.

Anonymous said...

Even your analysis reveals it is as I state in my first reply; status seeking as proxy for offspring quality metrics.

Hating your kids is what the people with high status do, therefore, you have to hate your kids in order to be high status.

Partially this is probably narcissism overcoming general principles. Certainly many people in England in the past have, demonstrably, loved their kids.

> Just barely enough so that the kids don't actually die.
You'll have to try to convince me harder on this one. Humans current hardware requires 15+ years of nurture to be effective. Maybe you'll need to define for me "love".

If society requires certain educational attainments - which are competitive in nature- for success, certainly one has to suspend their concern for their childrens' immediate suffering.

No kid wants to go to boarding school. But then, no adult wants to be poor or low status. So in a way, if you can't suspend your horror at watching your children suffer for their future success, you can also be accused of hating your children.

Marshmallow test; passing it doesn't mean you didn't want to eat the marshmallow the whole time.

Regarding the modern world.

If you try to homeschool, you're accused of being an authoritarian. The data that these children are on the whole better educated is irrelevant; you must be an evil christian evangelical monster trying to brainwash your kids. (whispers: Probably a huWhite Suhpremuhcist)

If you don't let your kids take the hormones to block puberty, well, you may as well tie the noose for them.

It's still actually status lowering to behave in such a way that society deems "child hating", as you say "blatantly disregarding your own childrens welfare".

We have generations of state-educated parents. Not taught how to critically think. Now that I think more about it, I don't think I agree that people "hate" their kids.

They mis-handle them, yes, out of ignorance.

I mean, that's "abuse" by western standards, as per the article.

The elite don't let their kids have much screen time, or send them to public schools too often. They'd private tutor them too! Which is home schooling.. No one accuses them of child abuse since they're high status.

>Is the king's throne worth murdering your brother?

Hmm. Personal genetic success is always higher priority than your brothers, so, yes.

I can't think of any examples, and I googled it, where a father has killed his son for more power. Fathers usually kill their sons to punish their cheating ex wives, which is a hilariously bad self own. Narcissism though, it's deadly.