Chinese Eugenics Plan Blows Up In Their Face As Tens Of Millions Of Young And Sexually Frustrated Men Have No Wives To Marry

For many years, China promoted a “one-child” policy, allowing families to have only one child. Since for cultural reasons boys are more highly valued than girls, if a girl was born, she was either given up for adoption, murdered, or if her gender was discovered in utero, aborted and the matter forgotten.

As the young men in these generations have grown up, China is now in a crossroads because there are tens of millions of Chinese men but not enough women to marry:

The gender imbalance in China and Asia is wreaking social chaos. And the Washington Post’s worldview won’t let it admit the real cause of the problem.

Twenty-one-year-old Li Defu is hard at work, building a house in rural China. While American men his age spend their free time gaming with friends, Li knows he has no time to waste. Without this house, he may never find a wife.

As Li told the Washington Post in a story titled “Too Many Men,” “At the moment there aren’t any girls my age around. I am building this new house in preparation, in case I find someone.”

But even with a nice house to attract a bride, there’s no guarantee that Li will ever find one. The reason: There are 34 million fewer Chinese women than men. Indian men share this demographic nightmare: There are 37 million fewer women than men in India.

What’s the cause of this huge gender imbalance?

Well, reading the Post, you could be forgiven not coming to the obvious conclusion: Seventy million unborn baby girls were aborted—killed in the womb simply because they were female. Instead, the Washington Post refers disingenuously to “cultural preferences, government decree and modern medical technology.” In a 5,300-word story, the word “abortion” is used exactly once. The social damage caused by sex-selection abortion is mind-boggling—and yet, the Post can barely bring itself to mention the word!

Now, it’s a safe bet that most of the editors and writers for the Post consider abortion not merely a woman’s right, but also a cultural good. So why are they so reluctant to use the word in this front-page story?

I suspect it’s because nobody likes to be faced with the fact that their worldview is flawed—in this case, tragically so.

For decades, western family planning groups, such as International Planned Parenthood Fund and the United Nations Population Fund, have promoted abortion on a massive scale as the solution to many of the world’s problems. They’ve worked with leaders in both China and India, urging them to bring down their population levels through abortion and sterilization.

The result? Seventy million men, who expected to marry and rear children, are desperately lonely. “Brides” are kidnapped from other countries. Forced prostitution and assaults on women are on the rise.

Ironically, many of the parents who aborted their baby daughters in favor of sons will never have grandchildren: There are no women for their sons to marry. (source)

I emphasize “sexually frustrated” because a large part of the conflicts that define human life center around and (whether or not it is admitted to) human sexual behavior. The competition for reproduction and the abundance or lack or options for men and women due to social, environmental, or cultural constraints affects directly and indirectly the development of a society. If sex and sexuality is a “marketplace,” then it is important for the health of society that the market is ordered in a flexible but organized manner so to facilitate the greatest social harmony. When there are manipulations or otherwise abuses of the market, then it can lead to the destruction of society. The 4th century BC playwright Aristophanes wrote about this balance in his play Lysistrata, which is where the wives of the military leaders of Greece, tired of the continual fighting their husbands are doing in the Peloponnesian War, resolve to forgo sex with their husbands and any form of sexual gratification for themselves until the war is over, for they believe that the desire of men for sex will overpower their desire to go to war. In the words of the protagonist after which the play is named, Lysistrata:

I’ve discovered that the salvation of the whole of Greece depends upon us, upon our tits and clits! That’s how delicate a thing it is! Tits and clits! That’s what it’s all about! (source)

Marriage has always been a critical part of regulating the sexual marketplace because it solves the greatest civilizational threat contained within sexual politics, and that is the issue of female hypergamy. But before discussing hypergamy, a brief introduction about the differences between the sexes and what they seek is in order.

The “goods” which men and women, who are both the commodities as well as the buyers in the “market”, remain the same in a historical sense. Men historically seek beauty, youth, and fertility in women so they would be worthy mothers able to bear and raise children as well as provide a true “feminine” touch to polish out the rough work which men must do in order to provide a decent living. Men also historically offer women in exchange some form of wealth and power, be it a large bank account and a job as a CEO, or  a man who is respected in his community or circles of influence, or simply a man who can put food on the table and a roof over one’s head and clothes on her back. 1

Women historically seek men of influence and standing and wealth in some way that they can draw on for support. When I speak of “wealth” and “influence,” it could be as simple as “Ooga” the caveman has a “nicer” cave and is better at hitting squirrels with rocks than his neighbor “Booga”. What women do is they tend to seek out the “best option” that they believe they are able to acquire. Now if this means that the best option is Ooga over Booga, then so be it, but if she sees a better option and has or believes she has both the means and the license to pursue it, she will naturally gravitate towards him. Women also historically offer in exchange to men their youth, their beauty, and their fertility, for having acquired a level of control and influence over the possession and expenditure of a man’s resources, she can have children knowing that they will be able to be raised safely.

Female hypergamy is the theory that women will naturally gravitate to who they view as the most “desirable” man when they are given a choice of men from which to choose. A woman, historically speaking, does not provide “material” benefits in a relationship, but rather is a consumer of said benefits. When a woman “chooses” a man, she has two choices- one who is “desirable” in terms of the social and cultural context in which she lives, and one who provides the greatest number of resources. She will often times try to choose both, but to have both is a genuine rarity and in the overwhelming number of cases, she will have to settle for one or the other.

The woman is also bound by the ravages of time, because like a flower in bloom, a woman’s youth, fertility, and beauty have a limited “shelf life.” They will pass away, and she has to use them BEFORE she loses them. Men, to the contrary, can preserve their looks AND reproductive functions for many decades, and even when they are old, they still can possess both to a degree.

To put it crassly, A man produces millions upon billions of sperm in his lifetime. As everybody knows, when sperm are doing the “race” to the “egg” inside a woman’s body, only one of those sperms will fertilize the egg. The rest just die. Eggs, on the other hand, are limited in supply, and once they are gone they cannot be restored.

Eggs are valuable. Sperm is not. Eggs go bad. Sperm can be replaced endlessly.

This nature of sexuality shows in male-female relations. Just as sperm race to the egg, men race to a woman to win her affection and the ability to reproduce.

Because women are looking to “choose” a man, and the most desirable one at that, if there are no social or cultural restraints, then a situation can arise where multiple women all want to choose the same man given a group of men because he is the most “desired” one. This results in the majority of the other men being NOT chosen and thus, left alone to their own disappointment.

Now, consider that the same man chosen by these women, for some reason, no longer becomes “desirable.” Provided there are no “restraints,” these same women will leave him and move to the next most “desirable” man. They are still leaving the other men and not even considering them at all, thus only adding to the frustration they originally experiences.

This is the evil that is female hypergamy, or unrestrained female sexuality. Given a group of females and no social restraints, the absolute majority of them would attempt to get with the top or top 20% of men in a society, fighting with each other before considering the other and majority 80% to their own misery.

Such societies are still seen in countries that one would call “tribal.” One man has multiple wives, and many other men are just, single. These same men tend to band together as a group and, since they cannot seek power in their own domain as individuals and head of a family, begin to seek power by making demands of society and using force to back up their demands. These are the formation of gangs, raiding parties, and rebel armies that terrorize these same societies. These societies are also frequently and rightly called “backwards” because they lack extensive development, owing to continual and tribal infighting and with little social harmony or ability to engage in constructive economic and social relations between groups.

This is where marriage and in particular, monogamy is so critical to society. Marriage acts as a control on female hypergamy because it provides a cultural barrier to women constantly fighting over the top 20% of men to the anger of the bottom 80% of men. It additionally provides the other 80% of men, who would be otherwise locked out of sexual access, to a larger pool of women and thus gives them a healthy avenue through which to channel their impulses. It provides for the creation of stable families by preventing competition between women all united to the same man, as what happens in polygamous situations, and gives the children an equal and equitable place in their family.

The channeling of this basic urge- the desire to reproduce and for sex- facilitates peace in society because men are less concerned with competing over women’s selection as they are secure that if they do not currently have woman that they can secure one, that if they do have one that she will not leave him, and that if she does cheat on him there are punishments to deal with the cheating. This stabilizing element allows for men to view trade and exchange with each other as a matter of business disconnected from sexuality, which allows for economic development, wealth, and prosperity, which in turn gives rise to rules of social intercourse and from this, the development of culture.

Marriage and the family is the foundation of civilization because it is the God-given obstacle to the anarchy-inducing demon of female hypergamy and the social ills its facilitates. Many of the fundamental struggles of human societies throughout history can be traced to the proper use or abuse of the sexual marketplace.

The feminist movement is particularly evil because it is an attempt to invert the natural polarity between men and women as well as the proper, natural function of the marketplace by trying to make illegal, unnatural replacements to God-given gender roles. It began by asserting that women and men need the name social functions because they are equal in terms of their functions and thought processes.

Remember, men think in terms of power and wealth so they may seek and acquire beauty. Women think in terms of beauty so they may acquire power and wealth. It is essentially the opposite thought process. This translates into not merely private thought, but public policy as well.

Here is a chart showing US Government expendatures. Note the spikes during the War of 1812 and the Civil War (1860-1865). However, note the time of World War I and beyond. World War I was from 1914 to 1918, and the US actually had little involvement in it comparatively speaking. Why, therefore, what there so much increase in spending starting in 1920 and has since continued to climb?

Could it be that 1920 was the year that women were given the right to vote?

Remember, women seek to acquire resources from a man as a part of their natural and biological imperative. 

What began in 1920 took full form with President Johnson’s “Great Society Reforms” that brought about the creation of modern forms of public assistance. As many noted, “government” began to act as a surrogate for what a man used to provide for a woman. In the words of the infamous and evil feminist Irina Dunn and later popularized by Gloria Steinem, “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Truly, woman no longer needed a man, because she had the “government” to provide her welfare and later, preferential treatment in job hiring, divorce rulings, and all areas of life.

Today, the virus of women’s “liberation” has liberated women from everything but their true roles as the heart of society and the teachers of the next generation of people. Legally speaking, they have been empowered to have more power than and power over men, but that has not curbed their natural impulses as gender is fixed into a person from his being. A man cannot chop off his penis and count himself a woman as much as neither a woman can glue a penis onto her and she become a man, as the former is a man with no penis and the latter is a woman with a non-genitive appendage sewn to her body but both retain the same minds and thought processes.

The woman now is allowed in the name of “equality” to indulge her hypergamous impluses with no consequences, and the man is now forced to support her impulses on pain of legal punishment while still being denied access to her.

Nobody wins in such a scenario. The women return to a tribal state of fighting over the same group of “high value” men, except instead of Ooga and his cave it is over football players, musicians, movie stars, and anybody deemed “valuable” by the greater culture. Men also return to their anger, and that can be concentrated either in the jumbled postings of angry men online all the way to dropping out of the social order completely or even returning to violence.

The tribalism of the third world that has made its head rear is tied directly to the decline of the family that is rooted in the abuse of the sexual marketplace through the direct subsidization of female hypergamy in combination with the rejection or intentional cessation of social or religious rules whose purpose is to serve as a barrier to these impulses. The impulses of men and women that have been affected by Original Sin will re-emerge if there are no rules or abilities to enforce such rules against them.

In China, a nation that is officially atheist, female hypergamy has immediately reared its ugly head. For not only are Chinese men in overabundance, but the dearth of women in combination with the gradual liberalization of “women’s rights” laws as part of China’s attempts at “westernization” mean that Chinese women can and DO make demands of Chinese men that have become expensive, ridiculous, and outright humiliating.

To add to this is that Western men, particularly white men, are historically viewed by Chinese women as very desirable. In this sense, they represent a high-value commodity that such women tend to seek after and will pursue aggressively in the face of their own men. The result is an abundance of easy sex for American, British, French, German, Dutch, and Italian men while Asian men are left to watch in anger.

As a white man who speaks Chinese (and used to speak it MUCH better), I approve of the existence of such allure. White men truly are viewed culturally by Chinese women as a special and unique prize to “seek” as well as many other east Asian groups (I can personally vouch for Vietnamese, Korean, and Indonesian as well). While I speak here only on issues of attraction regarding sex, it is an observed phenomenon whose reality is consistent and cannot be denied (and something which I experienced myself).

Interestingly, many of the girls who were not aborted in China were given up for adoption. Since it is known that many American and some European families loved to adopt “cute little asian girls,” these women were exported as babies to the West and are now becoming adults. Since they were raised for the most part with European or Euro-American parents, they associate with the “white” culture. While some will marry Americanized or Europeanized Asians, many of those who do get married will naturally gravitate to the cultural millieu which they are most accustomed to, which is European men.

This alone is proof of original sin, for if left in a natural state, the very relations between men and women would produce anarchy and misery as their natural desires would drive them to such an end. It is only by revelation from God, who loves man and send His only Son to restore the human race, that marriage’s role and importance has been made known, to serve as a vehicle to restore that which was destroyed in Eden.

China has a birthrate problem, but they also have with it a hypergamy problem that is gravely aggravating the birthrate issue, for the Chinese women, as their incomes rise, are able to do what has already happened in the west for a while, which is to provide for themselves what a man could provide, and thus they will naturally expect more from a man and will be pickier. This makes them, for many men, less desirable as they will be more difficult to care for in terms of meeting needs that will keep them satisfied. Likewise, as in the western world, the women increasingly believe if they can work like men, they also can indulge in sexual practices as men do, which in a natural setting and lacking restraints is to sleep with a large number of women. It is polygamy (polygyny to be specific) by another means, except instead of a tribal leader with a bone in his nose it is a man in a suit with quaffed hair.

All of the above is conditional upon a woman offering her beauty, youth, and fertility and assuming that it is in good and working order, that it is something to be desired because it is desirable.

However, as mentioned, a woman’s beauty, youth, and fertility are like the eggs in her womb as are the eggs in the refrigerator. They all have a “sell by” date, because they will all eventually become unusable. If a woman does not “use it,” she will “lose it.” The way a woman uses these qualities is, historically speaking, to successfully secure a man through which she can have children and then use his resources to provide for the children.

The problems of today are based upon the abuse of the sexual marketplace. Therefore, what happens when these women do not have any children? Or what if they wait a long time before securing a husband or even considering securing a husband? Or if they do not want children at all? What also happens if men withdraw from society too, and how does that affect factor into the situation?

Continued tomorrow