Why it’s always conservatives who worry about birthrates?

And why is it always conservatives who shame childless women, while women resent it?

Well, you’d never guess, but the reason is power.
And we’ll explain it in this article.

Conservative Power VS Liberal Compassion

Conservatives value power, masculinity, and victory.

Righ-wing conservatives are also closer to social Darwinism, including:

• Winners must be rewarded
• Losers should not be supported
• Life is competition

And in that competition, the strong one wins, the weak one… Doesn’t.
Or… Dies.

That’s how it goes, and we should not try to change that.
One, because it’s the “way of nature” (naturalistic fallacy).
And two, because helping the weak ones to survive is not only useless, but harmful to all. It wastes resources, and saddles the species with sub-par specimens.

Democrats instead are more pro-social communal.

Liberals value kindness and compassion over power and dominance.
Winning is good, but not winning is OK and the losers also deserve our love and support.

Tribal power Vs. group collegiality

For liberals the group is about our fellow human beings.

Fellow human beings that we can love and support, and receive love and support back.

Conservatives place individual success above the group.

Part of it is values.
But part of it is also about confidence, early reinforcement, and personal success. And confident, successful, high-power men have less of a need for group support.
For these men, other people aren’t necessarily there to be nurtured, but to compete against.

However, conservatives do value the POWER of the group.
Such as, powerful individuals band together, as tribes, to project power.

Racism & Locked Borders Keep The Group Pure

Conservatives’ racism and anti-immigration stance is also explained from a group and power perspective.

Immigrants are the outgroups “from a different tribe”.
They’re suspicious.

And they pollute the blood covenants of our tribe.

There is no way to pacify the conservative mind.
If immigrants come with women and children, they’ll replace “us”.

If it’s mostly men, the competitive nature of the conservative sees mating competition they’d rather not have.
From an evolutionary point of view, this is understandable.

Children Project Power Into The Future

Children for Conservatives are also about power:

1. Heir to project power into the future: a clone of yourself to keep operating after you lose power and eventually die
   • Heir to keep the forefather’s name & work alive
2. Tribal power with a larger group: more warriors, more workers, stronger economy

You can see the first successful, empire-building men.
Kings always looked for male children.
And so do many present-day empire builders.

Example, the Godfather:

We also see an overlap with more dark triad-ish and psychopathic men.
Some of them also seek children as a tool for genetic power projection.

The unnamed contemporary phenomenon of the manosphere says as much here.
And look where his political affiliation lies:

You’d never guess that the dark triad seeking children for power-projection supports the power-hungry conservative candidate

And how about #2, the group power?

Well, on average liberals tend to be collegial with everyone.
That includes any form of life, and also any human being, no matter where they come from.

Conservatives instead have smaller, tighter circles around them.
Their groups also have stronger boundaries, and with more competitive “us vs them”.

Finally, conservatives are also more patriotic.
But patriotic is just the positive term for “clannishness” and what we referred to here as “ego fusing”.
They bask in the group’s glory when it wins, and feel like losers when their group” does poorly.
So for them it’s comparatively more important that their country stays powerful and strong.

Childless women threaten Conservatives’ power

Women who decide not to have children are a threat for conservatives:

• Non-traditional women are harder to date & control
• Childless women make it harder to reproduce because fewer available mates means higher competition
• Childless women disempower the tribe because a smaller population equals less power

That’s also why conservatives embrace traditional gender roles, oppose “gender fluidity” and, secretly, resent empowered women.

And it goes both ways.
In general, the more empowered women become, the more they resent being limited to child-rearing only.

Smart men get that.
Seducers get that, too.

And while red pill men argue with women, seducers seduce.
And smart men who want families work while, often, their women raise children. They’re just smarter -and win-win- about it.
But it’s let’s not go too off-topic.

The cat-woman power move

Both liberals and conservatives engage in cultural wars.

And the “childless cat woman” is part of the conservatives’ effort to bend the cultural norms to their liking.
Or, if you prefer, to set their “frame” for what’s “good and proper female behavior”, and what’s not.

The “childless cat woman” is a shaming power move for women who opted out of child-bearing.

Frame her as a loser, shame her, and try to embed into the cultural fabric that childless women are despicable.
And hopefully other women won’t do the same.

Cat woman combines an attack on femininity and an attack on competence:

• The cat woman is not a “real woman”. Or, at least, not a good one. She replaced real human beings with cats
• The cat woman is a loser because she failed her #1 task in life

She is the female equivalent of the lowest-status men.

Politics & Cat Ladies

The above is the reason why conservatives focus on children-promoting policies.

Mussolini wanted more children.
Orban today wants more children -and fails because everyone wants to leave his country-.

And it’s the reason why it’s conservatives who resent childless women the most.

Elections, JD Vance, and cat ladies

We’ll discuss here the 2024 elections.

But what we say can apply to any election.

As we said:

The democrats are generally seen as kinder, but lower power.
And republicans are seen as more selfish, but higher power.

Nobody could represent the “selfish but dominant” more strongly than Donald Trump.

In the “childless cat ladies” spat following JD Vance’s remarks, the power dynamics were still the same:

• Republican JD Vance was a dominant ahole
• Democrats were kinder but weak

In a way, it’s the good old “too nice guy” VS a**hole” dichotomy.

You can also see these dynamics at an emotional level.
JD Vance attacked, and the Democrats got offended.

The two most popular democratic counter-offensive include:

• Tim Walz at the DNC: touching, but low-power
• Jennifer Aniston: touching, but low power

They both appealed to already democrats.
But in terms of gaining respect -and possible votes- from new higher power men? Total net loss.

JD Vance was an ass, but he was still higher power.
And in the competitive winners/losers view of the world, the Republicans were “offensive aholes, but winners”.

This is when Taylor Swift changed the dynamics:

Taylor Swift: Alpha Female to Democrats’ Rescue

Taylor Swift endorsed the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.

And she signed herself “childless cat lady”.

Swift, so far, chose not to have children.
And chose is the keyword.

But Swift turns the cliche’ of the loser cat lady on its head.

She is the ultimate high-power “alpha female“.
Stunningly beautiful, tall, thin, blonde hair and blue eyes.
And smart, talented, and uber-successful to boot.

Liberals need high-power representatives (& men)

Always at risk of being the low-power losers and whiners, liberals desperately need higher-power representatives.

Without some high-power representatives, they risk becoming the party of the also-ran.
Losers, whiners, left-behinds…

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that liberals also need high power men.

Women are seen as kinder and more collegial, and that doesn’t help to bridge the power gap.
The hand-holding, warm smiling, and Brene’ Brown style of vulnerability only get you so far.

There is a reason why the party looks back at Clinton or Obama as their golden presidents (Clinton even more than Obama).
If not super dominant, they were still high power, and very charismatic.

Bonus: Why Criticizing Trump Cost Us $$$

In 2016 Trump took over the Republican party.

And held on to it for years.
While some loved Trump, some said Trump turned it into a personality cult.

But I’m not in the latter camp.

It’s my belief that:

• Trump is a danger to democracy, and that danger is heavily under-estimated
• Dark narcissists make for poor country leaders
• Charismatic dark narcissists negatively shift the culture into accepting more ahole, bullying, and aggressive behavior that is not good for society

Among his “merits”, Trump is very good at fomenting hatred and divisiveness.

And because Trump took over the GOP, a “no” to Trump for many means denying the will to power.
Rejecting Trump means rejecting powerful men, “alpha males“, and winners.

It’s not all Trump’s -and dumb followers- fault though.

In the same period, part of the left went too left.
And into stupid territory:

• Forced equality of outcomes
• Cultural determinism in social sciences
• Feminist animosity toward men
• Cancel culture
• Open border immigration in politics
• …

And just writing this article I got another example of that left-leaning stupidity:

Supporting the Democratic candidate because anyone is better than Trump gets you confused with that type of left.

However, it’s my belief it’s the right thing to do.

So, I’ll keep doing it.

And soon enough we can go back to talking about winning at life, without divisive politics.