This always struck me as hilarious. I'm happily married and absolutely hate most women. I developed this hate and complete disregard after getting jacked and absolutely slutting my way through college. It was quite literally because of my massive SUCCESS with women that I found them mostly utterly contemptible.
I had a similar experience when I finally figured out how to attract women in my 20s. Once you actually sit down and talk to them, you realise that most modern women are achingly vapid and uninteresting. You realise you were chasing after a thin, pretty veneer over an empty, hollow shell about 80% of the time.
Get /fit/, dress well, cultivate aloof uncaring attitude (that last part comes naturally). Wear lifts in your shoes and lie if under 6' mark. That's it.
Modern women are little more than self-propelled holes and they know it. Why do you think "arts and entertainment" are trash now?
When you say /fit/ you mean six pack and biceps or just be regular lean with no stretchmarks and beergut? When you say dress well, you mean classic white shirt with rolled up sleeves or whatever fashion magazines dictate? Got the last bit down due to age and god blessed me with 6.10.
Feminism is really simple. If a woman gets her way, she is empowered. If she doesn't her way, she is oppressed. This means that woman's success is her own while her failures are always someone else's fault.
They have to frame it as SK being a dystopia is men's fault, else they'll have to admit feminism hasn't done anything good, not only for women, but for society at large
Will misogyny become central to democratic elections?
Nah sis, it's just trying to keep up with the misandry. Stop pulling ahead so far and making the game uneven!
Write the same article but swap the genders around. Will that still get published, shared and championed as an important political news piece of the era?
Talk about hegemonic abusive centralised privileged power flexing its oppression muscles!
Male seizure of power may be the only shot at preventing that future. SK men can be radical, even deranged, so it won't be pretty. But I don't see any other option.
SK men can be radical, even deranged, so it won't be pretty.
Korea is such an interesting country. As late as the 1980s they were similar to places like the Philippines- ruled by strongman, endemic poverty, assassination a frequent political tool, etc. Then they just stopped that and basically became a modern Western-style nation overnight. I'm not really a student of Korean history, but I'd love to read something about the why and how behind that written by someone that knows.
They still have the occasional fist fight in their parliament, so I'm guessing it wouldn't take too much to strip away the veneer of civility there.
South Korea seems like a modern, advanced country, but they've had I think one peaceful transfer of power since South Korea has existed as a distinct country. Almost every single president has either been couped, arrested, impeached, or assassinated.
This is the most comically misandrist article I think I’ve ever seen.
Alternative article: why are 90% of men suddenly virgin losers who won’t break their backs to provide endless beta bux for our population of irredeemably selfish and insufferable radical feminist cunts?
There is not enough replacement people to catch the wave of needs and economic weight the current old and eldery will have by the time 2060 rolls around to make up for the deficit.
They are already at 2 people working pays into the social security and propping up everything needed for a single old person.
They are going to hit a bottle neck of not enough people to prop up the industries necessary for their own well being, much less be able to keep society together.
They are at less than a third of replacement birth rate. This should be the only concern of the SK government until it is fixed, but women don’t care about maintaining civilization.
but women don’t care about maintaining civilization.
Which is why they should have absolutely no say in how it gets run.
I genuinely hate the fact that I've come to this realization, that it is true and that the the solution is readily obvious but no one is willing to even look at it. We all just keep pretending that women having any say in society is a good thing rather than the catastrophic mistake that it actually is. Civilization is headed straight off a cliff and everyone's cheering because they're afraid to be mean to the women by wrestling the steering wheel away from them.
A bitter pill to swallow but it's been proven time and again in all western nations that women seem to be ruining civilisation and women should never be in charge/make important decisions on a macro scale. Everything we've been told in history lessons about women's right to vote, even the early feminist movement etc is all just a lie.
I've seen what Koreans did in their north/south split. A country doesn't have to collapse when the population gets too old. South Korea's definitely a country that would start putting old people in ditches rather than ruin themselves trying to support them. Middle aged ladies in Korea better enjoy themselves whilst they can.
A non-insignificant amount of old people right now would agree to it regardless of starving or not, because they are simply ready to die. Not even suicidally, but just to stop fighting off the ravages of age.
We just force them to stay alive, often against their own will, because a lot of people are horrifically selfish about holding onto them or just cannot comprehend someone not being afraid to die. So we stick them in homes, force them into hospitals, and generally just violate their entire autonomy.
Of all the ones I've personally met, its a problem of doing too much to accommodate them.
They are prideful and stubborn people who've lived a full life and conquered it, and at the end often want to just be left alone to wither and rot away in their homes without fuss. But too many people want to shove them full of so many meds and pull them into treatments that they simply do not want, even if it gives them more time to live.
Not enough. They'd need to remove women from offices, take their right to vote also. There's no way to fix this mess SK is in and we're moving towards this, too in ALL western nations.
The surname "Tepfenhart" is likely of German origin, and while it's not a common Jewish surname, it can be found among Jewish families, particularly of Ashkenazic descent
None of this could be a backlash against feminist poisoning the minds of women making them insufferably entitled.
Must be those ''incels'' that must be put on a terrorist watchlist and forced into reeducation.
I'm sure it will do wonders for SK's 0.6 Fertility Index
( 2.1 is the minimum for population to stabilize, that is without something killing anyone of fertile age in any significant numbers ).
Of course Globalists' solution to low fertility in Whites and East Asians is mass black and brown immigration to replace them. In other words : genocide.
or.. men can take control again and force women back into where they came out of. just saying ;s... seems its the natural order of things as history has shown.
Unfortunately for this line of thinking, and I guess fortunately for us, our feminists aren't nearly as organized, powerful and capable as theirs are. Meaning they keep self sabotaging before they reach the peak of the pendulum necessary to really push back hard enough.
Like, they literally had an all female shadow cabal install a puppet president in their nation and got caught doing it so hard she was actually replaced. We aren't nearly at that level yet.
Intersectionality stopped feminism in the West from reaching this peak level by fracturing trying to spin the plates of gays, trannies and every racial group too. A problem the Worst Koreans didn't have.
I doubt that this 90% figure means much of anything. So much of what was once regarded as, and objectively is, feminist is no longer regarded as such. The label 'feminist' has lost almost all of its content, and most of its content is accepted even by 'conservatives'. The label is dirtied but the referents remain sanitized, and so if they refer to the referents by another name, the voters will remain accepting of them.
Remember, for instance, that it was the South Korean Centre-Right, the People Power Party (the then Saenuri), that gave South Korea its first and only female President, the disastrous Park Geun-hye, whose only reason for being popular was being the daughter of former military ruler Park Chung-hee. Yet this is the party that most of these self-proclaimed anti- or non-feminist men vote for. What does it mean to be anti- or non-feminist when you support a political party that believes that a female president—and one with corrupt friends who she brought into the government and whose corruption later led to her political demise at that—is a good idea?
By contrast, the comparatively Leftist Democratic Party (Minjoo) has yet to field a female Presidential candidate. This reminds one of Britain, where the three female Prime Ministers, Thatcher, May, and Truss, were all Tories whilst Labour has yet to field a female Prime Ministerial candidate. Shifting briefly to race, the only non-white Prime Minister, Sunak, is also a Tory, whilst Labour has yet to field a non-white Prime Ministerial candidate. Thus one observes that the more Leftist and feminist of the two major British political parties is, paradoxically, more White- and male-dominated. The point is that mainstream parties commonly identified by the mass media as Right-Wing or Far-Right are rarely ever what they are drummed up to be. Contra the mass media, the lesbian Weidel is obviously not a new Hitler, for instance.
But South Korea is a particularly strange case, since men in their teens and 20s are Rightward of men in their 30s and 40s, albeit still Leftward of men who are aged 50+.
My suspicion is that the difference between the latter two groups is political-systemic. Men aged 50+ grew up in the Park and Chun military rule eras. Men in their 30s and 40s are only familiar with the post-democratization era (August 1987 onwards). Thus younger South Koreans, unlike older South Koreans, have nothing else to compare their political system to.
But the political-systemic explanation does not work for the former two groups, since both groups were brought up under the current political system. My suspicion is that it is the result of having of one of the world's greatest underfertility crises. If you're a young South Korean, there is a lot of uncertainty. You will probably, not merely possibly, die unmarried and/or childless. So it is indeed an 'incel' generation. It does not seem implausible to me that this could be a potential cause of 'Right-Wing extremism' for men, whereas it bothers women less, for instance, because women are statistically less bothered by such things as the loneliness that is part and parcel of a sufficiently atomized, individualized society.
Either way, I see elections such as the 2022 one, in which both the People Power and Democratic candidates claimed to oppose feminism, as meaningless. The Democratic candidate, Lee, clearly supports feminism, but without calling it such. For instance, he claims that women are still discriminated against and he calls for the further expansion of abortion rights.
My prediction is that the next election—which, because of Yoon's impeachment being finalized today, will now occur this year—will be won by Lee and the Democratic Party, and, once in office, they will go on to further feminism in all but name. Whoever the post-Yoon People Power Party candidate is, that candidate will clearly suffer a greater defeat than usual. Opinion polls of the Yoon presidency were only approving up to the one month mark of his presidency and then became entirely disapproving from that point onwards, and this candidate inherits that mess.
Now Yoon was impeached by the National Assembly, then Han was impeached by the National Assembly, the National Assembly tried but failed to impeach Choi, and then the Constitutional Court reversed Han's impeachment such that Choi was also removed and Han reinstated. In other words, the presidents went from first > second > third > second within a few months. This utterly farcical end of the Yoon presidency demonstrates even clearer than the numerous previous political crises (e.g. the corruption-related impeachment and later suicide of President Roh, and the corruption-related impeachment of Park Geun-hye) that Koreans are clearly incompatible with this liberal democratic political system.
As for my future predictions, it is clear that South Korea will continue moving along on a Leftward trajectory. One obvious reason is that the most Rightward voting bloc is the age 50+ voter bloc. Another obvious reason is that this anomalous age 18-30 male voting bloc is small because of the underfertility crisis. There are just not enough of them to shift the political culture Rightward. So South Korea will keep moving Leftward for at least thirty years. Then it is the turn of the more Leftward age 30-40 voters to start dying off. Thus that Leftward drift will slow down or slightly reverse by the 2060s and 2070s. But by that stage things will have degenerated exponentially: the number of unmixed ethnic Koreans won't even be half of what it currently is, and South Korea will suffer from numerous new problems, in particular, the masses of immigrants that the wretched Democratic Party in particular are already advocating for. It is quite conceivable that the soon-to-be Lee administration will be the one to conclusively open the borders. (Of course, there are already sizeable non-Korean communities in the country, such as the Nepalese.) Lee's position is that he supports immigration but not 'mass' immigration. This will pave the way, serve as a springboard, for future Democratic Party presidents to go one step further and embrace mass immigration.
In short, feminists and/or Leftists do not have much to worry about in South Korea. Things are going the way they want them to go: you disliked Yoon, but he did not last very long, and you will soon have a president that you will find tolerable, a sort of Korean analogue of Biden.
Fast forward far enough in time and ethnic Koreans will no longer exist. Racially, they will be mixed predominantly with Chinese and Indians, with some other groups such as Filipinos, Pakistanis, and even Africans of various kinds also in the woodpile. They will remain predominantly Asian for a very long time to come, however. Whether the Korean language survives in this future 'proposition nation' remains to be seen—it might survive merely to facilitate communication between all of these groups, just as English will probably survive in many countries for the same reason—it is less realistic to expect that everyone in the country embrace Hindi and/or Mandarin and/or the bastardized Spanish and Portuguese of Latin America than it is to expect that newcomers simply embrace English. But little else that is Korean will survive the coming centuries.
You can survive atomic bombs, and you can rebuild in their aftermath; but you cannot survive this contemporary Left-liberal ideology once it has become sufficiently entrenched. Thus it would have been better for Korea if a few atomic bombs were dropped on it and all else was left alone, than to embrace this political culture and these ideologies that inexorably lead whomever follows them to extinction. Even Kim Jong-un made an impassioned plea on television for his people to have more children: indeed, North Korea is arriving at the same destination, but merely by a different path. We in the West are often so preoccupied with our own myriad problems that we are unaware that there are others who have these problems the same or worse than we do.
Why they all "incels"? Married and dating guys are tired of women's bullshit too. Chads should be the most anti-feminist because they know women best.
This always struck me as hilarious. I'm happily married and absolutely hate most women. I developed this hate and complete disregard after getting jacked and absolutely slutting my way through college. It was quite literally because of my massive SUCCESS with women that I found them mostly utterly contemptible.
I had a similar experience when I finally figured out how to attract women in my 20s. Once you actually sit down and talk to them, you realise that most modern women are achingly vapid and uninteresting. You realise you were chasing after a thin, pretty veneer over an empty, hollow shell about 80% of the time.
Mind sharing the knowledge? PM please.
Get /fit/, dress well, cultivate aloof uncaring attitude (that last part comes naturally). Wear lifts in your shoes and lie if under 6' mark. That's it.
Modern women are little more than self-propelled holes and they know it. Why do you think "arts and entertainment" are trash now?
When you say /fit/ you mean six pack and biceps or just be regular lean with no stretchmarks and beergut? When you say dress well, you mean classic white shirt with rolled up sleeves or whatever fashion magazines dictate? Got the last bit down due to age and god blessed me with 6.10.
A wise man said you can either love women or understand them.
Feminism is really simple. If a woman gets her way, she is empowered. If she doesn't her way, she is oppressed. This means that woman's success is her own while her failures are always someone else's fault.
They have to frame it as SK being a dystopia is men's fault, else they'll have to admit feminism hasn't done anything good, not only for women, but for society at large
It's a damning indictment of women when they admit the only thing of value they bring are their holes.
They're not. The word is a reddit based pejorative used mostly by faggots who refuse to use the word faggot.
It has basically the same meaning as "chud" but has a bit more sting for young men who actually haven't managed to secure a piece of pussy yet.
Feminazi cognitive dissonance. God forbid men have any say in how things THEY PAY FOR should be run
Read: society
Nah sis, it's just trying to keep up with the misandry. Stop pulling ahead so far and making the game uneven!
Write the same article but swap the genders around. Will that still get published, shared and championed as an important political news piece of the era?
Talk about hegemonic abusive centralised privileged power flexing its oppression muscles!
Isn't South Korea having the lowest birthrates in the world? They will be replaced by pajeets soon enough.
Male seizure of power may be the only shot at preventing that future. SK men can be radical, even deranged, so it won't be pretty. But I don't see any other option.
Korea is such an interesting country. As late as the 1980s they were similar to places like the Philippines- ruled by strongman, endemic poverty, assassination a frequent political tool, etc. Then they just stopped that and basically became a modern Western-style nation overnight. I'm not really a student of Korean history, but I'd love to read something about the why and how behind that written by someone that knows.
They still have the occasional fist fight in their parliament, so I'm guessing it wouldn't take too much to strip away the veneer of civility there.
South Korea seems like a modern, advanced country, but they've had I think one peaceful transfer of power since South Korea has existed as a distinct country. Almost every single president has either been couped, arrested, impeached, or assassinated.
Yes, but that's something globalists don't want you to notice
Sounds like it's not as involuntary as they think. Maybe men are just thinking about women less on purpose
This is the most comically misandrist article I think I’ve ever seen.
Alternative article: why are 90% of men suddenly virgin losers who won’t break their backs to provide endless beta bux for our population of irredeemably selfish and insufferable radical feminist cunts?
There isn't going to be a south korea by 2060.
There is not enough replacement people to catch the wave of needs and economic weight the current old and eldery will have by the time 2060 rolls around to make up for the deficit.
They are already at 2 people working pays into the social security and propping up everything needed for a single old person.
They are going to hit a bottle neck of not enough people to prop up the industries necessary for their own well being, much less be able to keep society together.
They are at less than a third of replacement birth rate. This should be the only concern of the SK government until it is fixed, but women don’t care about maintaining civilization.
Which is why they should have absolutely no say in how it gets run.
I genuinely hate the fact that I've come to this realization, that it is true and that the the solution is readily obvious but no one is willing to even look at it. We all just keep pretending that women having any say in society is a good thing rather than the catastrophic mistake that it actually is. Civilization is headed straight off a cliff and everyone's cheering because they're afraid to be mean to the women by wrestling the steering wheel away from them.
A bitter pill to swallow but it's been proven time and again in all western nations that women seem to be ruining civilisation and women should never be in charge/make important decisions on a macro scale. Everything we've been told in history lessons about women's right to vote, even the early feminist movement etc is all just a lie.
I've seen what Koreans did in their north/south split. A country doesn't have to collapse when the population gets too old. South Korea's definitely a country that would start putting old people in ditches rather than ruin themselves trying to support them. Middle aged ladies in Korea better enjoy themselves whilst they can.
Ancient Japanese in desperate times would carry their elderly parents to the nearby mountain and leave them to die.
A non-insignificant amount of old people right now would agree to it regardless of starving or not, because they are simply ready to die. Not even suicidally, but just to stop fighting off the ravages of age.
We just force them to stay alive, often against their own will, because a lot of people are horrifically selfish about holding onto them or just cannot comprehend someone not being afraid to die. So we stick them in homes, force them into hospitals, and generally just violate their entire autonomy.
Of all the ones I've personally met, its a problem of doing too much to accommodate them.
They are prideful and stubborn people who've lived a full life and conquered it, and at the end often want to just be left alone to wither and rot away in their homes without fuss. But too many people want to shove them full of so many meds and pull them into treatments that they simply do not want, even if it gives them more time to live.
A way this could become positive is if they make up the biggest voting block, get in and repeal ALL feminist inclined laws.
Not enough. They'd need to remove women from offices, take their right to vote also. There's no way to fix this mess SK is in and we're moving towards this, too in ALL western nations.
Oh, no. Anyways…
None of this could be a backlash against feminist poisoning the minds of women making them insufferably entitled.
Must be those ''incels'' that must be put on a terrorist watchlist and forced into reeducation.
I'm sure it will do wonders for SK's 0.6 Fertility Index
( 2.1 is the minimum for population to stabilize, that is without something killing anyone of fertile age in any significant numbers ).
Of course Globalists' solution to low fertility in Whites and East Asians is mass black and brown immigration to replace them. In other words : genocide.
(most) Modern women are insufferable.
or.. men can take control again and force women back into where they came out of. just saying ;s... seems its the natural order of things as history has shown.
That's what you get for trying to secure the pendulum to your end, it swings back wildly with all the force you've been building up in it.
I take this as positive news that South Korea might save itself.
Unfortunately for this line of thinking, and I guess fortunately for us, our feminists aren't nearly as organized, powerful and capable as theirs are. Meaning they keep self sabotaging before they reach the peak of the pendulum necessary to really push back hard enough.
Like, they literally had an all female shadow cabal install a puppet president in their nation and got caught doing it so hard she was actually replaced. We aren't nearly at that level yet.
Intersectionality stopped feminism in the West from reaching this peak level by fracturing trying to spin the plates of gays, trannies and every racial group too. A problem the Worst Koreans didn't have.
I doubt that this 90% figure means much of anything. So much of what was once regarded as, and objectively is, feminist is no longer regarded as such. The label 'feminist' has lost almost all of its content, and most of its content is accepted even by 'conservatives'. The label is dirtied but the referents remain sanitized, and so if they refer to the referents by another name, the voters will remain accepting of them.
Remember, for instance, that it was the South Korean Centre-Right, the People Power Party (the then Saenuri), that gave South Korea its first and only female President, the disastrous Park Geun-hye, whose only reason for being popular was being the daughter of former military ruler Park Chung-hee. Yet this is the party that most of these self-proclaimed anti- or non-feminist men vote for. What does it mean to be anti- or non-feminist when you support a political party that believes that a female president—and one with corrupt friends who she brought into the government and whose corruption later led to her political demise at that—is a good idea?
By contrast, the comparatively Leftist Democratic Party (Minjoo) has yet to field a female Presidential candidate. This reminds one of Britain, where the three female Prime Ministers, Thatcher, May, and Truss, were all Tories whilst Labour has yet to field a female Prime Ministerial candidate. Shifting briefly to race, the only non-white Prime Minister, Sunak, is also a Tory, whilst Labour has yet to field a non-white Prime Ministerial candidate. Thus one observes that the more Leftist and feminist of the two major British political parties is, paradoxically, more White- and male-dominated. The point is that mainstream parties commonly identified by the mass media as Right-Wing or Far-Right are rarely ever what they are drummed up to be. Contra the mass media, the lesbian Weidel is obviously not a new Hitler, for instance.
But South Korea is a particularly strange case, since men in their teens and 20s are Rightward of men in their 30s and 40s, albeit still Leftward of men who are aged 50+.
My suspicion is that the difference between the latter two groups is political-systemic. Men aged 50+ grew up in the Park and Chun military rule eras. Men in their 30s and 40s are only familiar with the post-democratization era (August 1987 onwards). Thus younger South Koreans, unlike older South Koreans, have nothing else to compare their political system to.
But the political-systemic explanation does not work for the former two groups, since both groups were brought up under the current political system. My suspicion is that it is the result of having of one of the world's greatest underfertility crises. If you're a young South Korean, there is a lot of uncertainty. You will probably, not merely possibly, die unmarried and/or childless. So it is indeed an 'incel' generation. It does not seem implausible to me that this could be a potential cause of 'Right-Wing extremism' for men, whereas it bothers women less, for instance, because women are statistically less bothered by such things as the loneliness that is part and parcel of a sufficiently atomized, individualized society.
Either way, I see elections such as the 2022 one, in which both the People Power and Democratic candidates claimed to oppose feminism, as meaningless. The Democratic candidate, Lee, clearly supports feminism, but without calling it such. For instance, he claims that women are still discriminated against and he calls for the further expansion of abortion rights.
My prediction is that the next election—which, because of Yoon's impeachment being finalized today, will now occur this year—will be won by Lee and the Democratic Party, and, once in office, they will go on to further feminism in all but name. Whoever the post-Yoon People Power Party candidate is, that candidate will clearly suffer a greater defeat than usual. Opinion polls of the Yoon presidency were only approving up to the one month mark of his presidency and then became entirely disapproving from that point onwards, and this candidate inherits that mess.
Now Yoon was impeached by the National Assembly, then Han was impeached by the National Assembly, the National Assembly tried but failed to impeach Choi, and then the Constitutional Court reversed Han's impeachment such that Choi was also removed and Han reinstated. In other words, the presidents went from first > second > third > second within a few months. This utterly farcical end of the Yoon presidency demonstrates even clearer than the numerous previous political crises (e.g. the corruption-related impeachment and later suicide of President Roh, and the corruption-related impeachment of Park Geun-hye) that Koreans are clearly incompatible with this liberal democratic political system.
As for my future predictions, it is clear that South Korea will continue moving along on a Leftward trajectory. One obvious reason is that the most Rightward voting bloc is the age 50+ voter bloc. Another obvious reason is that this anomalous age 18-30 male voting bloc is small because of the underfertility crisis. There are just not enough of them to shift the political culture Rightward. So South Korea will keep moving Leftward for at least thirty years. Then it is the turn of the more Leftward age 30-40 voters to start dying off. Thus that Leftward drift will slow down or slightly reverse by the 2060s and 2070s. But by that stage things will have degenerated exponentially: the number of unmixed ethnic Koreans won't even be half of what it currently is, and South Korea will suffer from numerous new problems, in particular, the masses of immigrants that the wretched Democratic Party in particular are already advocating for. It is quite conceivable that the soon-to-be Lee administration will be the one to conclusively open the borders. (Of course, there are already sizeable non-Korean communities in the country, such as the Nepalese.) Lee's position is that he supports immigration but not 'mass' immigration. This will pave the way, serve as a springboard, for future Democratic Party presidents to go one step further and embrace mass immigration.
In short, feminists and/or Leftists do not have much to worry about in South Korea. Things are going the way they want them to go: you disliked Yoon, but he did not last very long, and you will soon have a president that you will find tolerable, a sort of Korean analogue of Biden.
Fast forward far enough in time and ethnic Koreans will no longer exist. Racially, they will be mixed predominantly with Chinese and Indians, with some other groups such as Filipinos, Pakistanis, and even Africans of various kinds also in the woodpile. They will remain predominantly Asian for a very long time to come, however. Whether the Korean language survives in this future 'proposition nation' remains to be seen—it might survive merely to facilitate communication between all of these groups, just as English will probably survive in many countries for the same reason—it is less realistic to expect that everyone in the country embrace Hindi and/or Mandarin and/or the bastardized Spanish and Portuguese of Latin America than it is to expect that newcomers simply embrace English. But little else that is Korean will survive the coming centuries.
You can survive atomic bombs, and you can rebuild in their aftermath; but you cannot survive this contemporary Left-liberal ideology once it has become sufficiently entrenched. Thus it would have been better for Korea if a few atomic bombs were dropped on it and all else was left alone, than to embrace this political culture and these ideologies that inexorably lead whomever follows them to extinction. Even Kim Jong-un made an impassioned plea on television for his people to have more children: indeed, North Korea is arriving at the same destination, but merely by a different path. We in the West are often so preoccupied with our own myriad problems that we are unaware that there are others who have these problems the same or worse than we do.
Combine this with mass turd world migration and it's a recipe for disaster. Of course they'll go to their graves cursing White men to the last breath.
When
How are they going to have kids though?