Social Justice

Tom Leykis bashing a trashy single mother

One of my readers posted a link to a Tom Leykis interview with a single mother, which deserves to greater attention. Listen to the entire interview! It is embedded below.

That was quite a train wreck, wasn’t it? To recap, she had two kids with a junkie who apparently spends more time in jail than outside nowadays. Also, it seems that she is drunk, judging from her slurred speech. What I found most hilarious, though, is that she doesn’t seem to get that Tom Leykis is making fun of her when he tells her what caliber of guys she is likely to attract — she think’s he is joking, but it’s her sad reality. Consequently, the irony of her joining in on Tom Leykis’s joke is lost on her.

From a societal perspective, this caller represents a big reason why the Western world is crumbling. People like her should get sterilized, and if that isn’t possible because we’re not in a well-organized fascist society that runs like a well-oiled beautiful machine, then certainly social engineering efforts could be undertaken to prevent her from procreating. Keep in mind that social engineering created all that mess in the first place.

That woman, who is complete human garbage to begin with, had two children with a guy who would be better of if he got shot and left dead in the streets. What do you think her two “great” children will eventually turn into? They will turn into the exact same human garbage as her mother, if not worse. This is an example of selective breeding. However, instead of making an effort to pair up high-IQ men and women and financially incentivizing them, Western society disincentives the intelligent and hardworking while it showers the utter dregs of society with benefits so that they can laze around, take drugs, and produce low-IQ children. If their benefit payments don’t cover the cost for their drugs, they only need to pump out a few more kids. The current system couldn’t be any better designed if you deliberately wanted to destroy a society.

22 thoughts on “Tom Leykis bashing a trashy single mother

  1. My obstetrics rotation was insane. Some states have stricter penalties, but in my current state there are literally no consequences for having children that happen to be addicted to any certain substance.

    As far as social engineering goes, why not have routine urine and blood samples taken during prenatal appointments to test for drugs, alcohol and nicotine etc.? At that point you could have all your rights taken away in regards to having children. It’s not much different than a felon losing the right to bear arms.

  2. Aaron, do you have some suggestions in terms of incentives for high IQ people to become parents (other than just money), how would you set up society?

    1. You need a meritocracy in which smart and productive people rise in the hierarchy, not faggots with purple hair who had their dick cut off because they think that they were born in the wrong body. Money and power are very powerful incentives. In the West, though, that’s a thing of the past, due to quotas and diversity and all that nonsense.

      Let’s say you have Guy with an very high IQ who does fairly well for himself, and Gal with a similarly high IQ. Due to the heredity of IQ, their offspring will be highly intelligent as well. Consequently, their kids can be expected to do at least as well as their parents, after going through an educational system that rewards smarts and perseverance. A society like that would certainly motivate me to have children. On the other hand, Western degeneration acts as a very strong deterrent to having children, at least for the high-IQ crowd, as they realize what is going on.

    2. So… at some point intelligent people like us will die out.
      And then evolution will kick in, as there’s no one left to feed the dumbfucks and will reward the fittest.
      And we’ll start all over again.
      That’s pretty fucked up and sad somehow.

    3. OK, I see.
      Can we spin this a bit further. Wouldn’t that mean, that at some point in time, people who have a 140 IQ will be considered low-IQ?
      Would we see, after extreme (incetivized) breeding and after a few generations, IQ levels of say 350?
      Or is there sth like “peak-intelligence”?

    4. IQ tests are calibrated so that 100 is the average. If those tests keep getting calibrated, the nominal IQ will never rise. However, if people get smarter across the board, then an IQ of 100 may be the average in the year 2100, but that would correspond to an IQ much higher than 100 in the year 2000.

      I don’t think that there is no limit to intelligence. The prime reason is that the human brain is very costly to maintain. Think of a different aspect of human physiology: there is a limit to how tall humans can be, due to limitations of the joints and the heart, among others. Similarly, speaking as an armchair physiologist who has barely an inkling’s worth of knowledge of that discipline, I would assume that there is a limit with regard to how big a brain the human body could maintain. Thus, there likely is a limit. Brain size is positively correlated with intelligence, in case you are wondering about my seeming leap to the conclusion.

    5. When talking about motivation of having kids: “….after going through an educational system that rewards smarts and perseverance. A society like that would certainly motivate me to have children.”

      What i’m asking myself lately is, is it nowadays less motivational for people to put kids into this world, than it has been back in the days when the cuban missile crisis happened?
      It says on wikipedia “The confrontation is often considered the closest the Cold War came to escalating into a full-scale nuclear war.[1]” and in my history book “It was the first time, that the american population got aware of the tremendous danger of a possible nuclear war”.

      I know its a difficult comparison, another case would be in the 80ies when the chernobyl disaster happened and media published “kids are most in danger to get radioaktive infested”.

      Both – cuban crisis and chernobyl – have been a good reason for each one to not put any kids into this world, and could be an explaination if i look at the birthrate picture here: and here

    1. “A society like that would certainly motivate me to have children. ”

      A society as such existed in the minds of the sage, but not in real life.
      People with perseverance can bite through a much harsher life than the current European continents. They need to strike fast since time is running out. Intellectualization will not solve anything at all.

    2. “Intellectualization will not solve anything at all.”
      This means violence then.
      Violence and murder against the dumb and against the culturally backward.

    3. “This means violence then.
      Violence and murder against the dumb and against the culturally backward.”

      Maybe the high IQ class could use technical advancement in an asymetrical way to essentially stop the dumbfucks to reproduce.
      Or we could see the rise of a leader with brains and balls, but in this interconnected world it seems very hard to make bold and fast moves. (I think if e.g. Putin could, then he would be much less diplomatic about pretty much everything.)
      Anyway, I agree with you that we need a revolution-style change. Otherwise the slow eecay is just gonna turn into the race to the bottom.

  3. I’m tempted to chime in that such societies do exist today even if they may not be perfect, but unfortunately just not in Europe. I truly feel sorry for the sensible Europeans left, who are hapless as their own people run the civilisation that gave the world so much, into the ground.

    It was sombre, listening to Helmuth Nyborg’s speech:
    “Think of Skagen’s (in Denmark) most northernmost tip. From there, travel a little west to England, Scotland, and cut down through Europe. Make a turn by Rome and then go up through central Europe, and cross over to Skagen’s northern tip again. Then you have actually outlined the area where the people who have been born since the 14th century created 97% of all the scientific and artistic progress, that at least 50% of authoritative sources agree are historically unique. Some of these Nordic people later travelled to the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and spread democracy, welfare, and civilisation like nobody else in history…” (

  4. “such societies do exist today even if they may not be perfect, but unfortunately just not in Europe”

    What countries specifically where you thinking of?

    1. [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], *cough cough*, although the former may be [REDACTED]. I obviously can’t claim that these are the only functioning alternatives out there as I don’t know what I don’t know, but feel free to bring up other countries if you can think of any.

      [Edit: Let’s keep this to ourselves for the time being, sweetie! 🙂 Sorry, Neutralrandomthoughts. ]

  5. “Or we could see the rise of a leader with brains and balls, but in this interconnected world it seems very hard to make bold and fast moves. (I think if e.g. Putin could, then he would be much less diplomatic about pretty much everything.)”

    Putin’s balls lie in the court of his ministers, his shifting allies and even his guards. I used to blush when one said that Putin is corrupted. I joked back half seriously that if he was not corrupted, they would shoot him.

    Putin is a potent politician, but he is no Iosef Stalin. But even Stalin’s life lies in the hands of his dogs anyway, in this case Beria. But what do I know? That dog is the head of the NKVD, so that is the limit of what we can know from historical resources.

    Limit as a concept in History is markedly different than that in Mathematics. The former marks the end of all serious researches though not of all gossips and speculations, the latter implies continuity into infinity, which has reached a high level of consensus. Debates are still opened though…

  6. I mean to say that there is no point of putting so much hope for a leader like Putin. Everyone has their limit of power.

    The sadness of our current society is already too much for the elders to bear and the youngs to even contemplate.

    As a student of Linguistics, I have always been worried very much about the vagueness of language, the uncontrollability of analogies, and the need for a appropriate mood to intepret correctly written materials. This is why I have shyly looked at Mathematics and Logics, inspiring by the man who taught us so much about life, to teach me the importance of clarity in thought and pureness in the heart.

    May Mathematics and Language joins hands in hands.

  7. I recall spending some time around couples trying to have kids. It seemed to be a rule of thumb that the people who wanted to be parents, and had the wherewithal to raise children had the biggest struggles to even conceive. In contrast, the people who should never have had children could seemingly pop them out at will.

    1. Age is most likely the problem. Trashy teens and early adults having a go will find it a lot easier to conceive than some “woke” feminist who first had to get her PhD in Literature from Yale. Now she’s in her early to mid thirties and her eggs have already started drying up.

  8. There are certainly a lot of deluded women that wanted to wait for the late 30s to have kids. I also knew a lot of couples in their late 20s who were in fertility clinics.

Leave a Reply to Isidia Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.