Gynocentric copers in our circles love to spread the myth that up to 90% of men living and dying alone is a good thing for humanity. If that wasn't cucked enough, refer to the image above.
The worst part about their cucked ideology is that it's not even eugenic.
IT's common knowledge that larger parts of any reproducing group are going to grow faster than any smaller parts (unless you are really low IQ). So eventually you'll have the "better" genes (in quotations because better should be closer to the top 60%) get overwhelmed and taken over by the "worse" genes.
Their response to this is to point out that virtually any and all of the bottom 90% men will die out anyway which leads to a eugenic effect. Again, very low IQ because it's an overcomplicating argument. In every generation with this model, the bottom 90% of men are weeded out anyway which makes them an irrelevant variable. What isn't irrelevant? The 84% of what they see as "dead end" genes reproducing; a figure that mathematically can never shrink with each passing generation.
The next cope is that "Most chads have normie parents." Another poor argument, simply due to the fact that relationships among good looking people can lead to subhuman sons and daughters. And generally, the genetic lottery is not in the favor of the offspring, so the latter scenario happens much more often than the former. Hell, even if we assume that normie relationships created more chads than 7+ relationships created genetic dead ends, this wouldn't be nearly enough to offset the growth of the poor quality reproducing group to be slower than the better one. So you'd get the same dysgenic effect, just slower.
The best you could hope for with the gynocentric, hypergamous model is that generations of men will be born and DIE ALONE while the same ratio of chads and foids get access to endless reproduction and sex. Which, admittedly, isn't necessarily DYSGENIC, but isn't eugenic either and just leads to our unnecessary suffering.
Last edited:
