06 February 2013

Want To Preserve Traditional Western Culture? Repeal the 19th Amendment

I love women (I consider feminists an entirely different classification, so the preceding value judgment does not apply to them). I can appreciate their beauty (well, at least some of them) and their charming natures (again, at least some), but they are 100% unfit to have influence on the political system of a nation that seeks to cultivate aretē and be a sterling example of manly virtue to the world. The reasons for this are manifold, but I will condense them into two main ones:

I. Women & men are fundamentally different from one another in regard to their interests, goals, and basic biological drives, and these differences alter the priorities of men & women from a political standpoint.

II. Women have a propensity to break up men-only institutions and organizations, and this is commonly done by turning men against one another, or by distracting them.

The fundamental difference between men & women that so readily manifests itself in the political realm is that men by and large are interested in freedom, whereas women are interested in security. Men seek to push boundaries, to engage in high risk/high reward activities, and to set out on their own to satisfy curiosities. This is why any successful liberation movement or revolution is built on the blood, sweat, and tears of men. They are the ones who are on the receiving end of anti-revolutionary violence. Women in revolutions, while convenient figureheads, are usually either left out, are used as emotional fodder, or in some cases a few bulldyke pseudo-intellectuals get to be a mouthpiece. This is because women are fundamentally interested in safety. They won't rest until everyone is dressed in pastel colors, and the world around them is turned into one massive nest.

Men-only institutions are built around camaraderie, exclusivity, honor, sincere connection, and plain ol' gettin' important shit done. Introducing women to that kind of environment disrupts any lofty goals, and other aspects that men bring to a group of other men. Suddenly, the purpose of the group is no longer one of advancement and excellence - getting laid or impressing the women becomes the new goal. Women introduce their own special brand of mayhem - passive-aggressiveness, dishonor, backhanded compliments (the way women go about them is different from the way men go about them), mean-spirited competition, and an overall lowering of the bar so that everyone can feel special.

In essence, women eventually ruin whatever activities and institutions that were up until recently, men-only.

This delicate flower and others like her, are why we can't have nice things. Women, along with effeminate men, will not go door to door confiscating income or rifle magazines or any other product they either deem necessary to their own survival or they seek to remove from society. When you can't get something done on your own, the next best thing is to pay someone to do it for you. In this context, however, instead of paying Jose $50 to paint your garage door, the manboobs and the shrieking harpies buy the services of politicians with their votes. You think some fucking cardigan-clad tofu-nibbling Wymyn's Stydys professor will take up mugging as a side job on weekends and donate the proceeds to his/her/its political cause du jour? Obviously not - they use their votes and their subsequent tax dollars to hire people who will do that for them. Like the old saying goes, "it's not robbery if you have to fill out a form". They can confiscate property from men in a myriad of ways - alimony, TANF/WIC funding, Title IX, tax dollars that go to public universities that openly demean masculinity and favor women & fashionable minorities, the list is manifold and ever-increasing - all with the help of legislators and their legions of alphabet soup agencies full of affirmative action hires.

Delegation of unattractive policies and procedures to authority figures is a trait that is womanly in nature. Rather than direct confrontation that invites shame, outrage, and the possibility that the other guy will use deadly force to resist your attempts, we send a check to faceless bureaucracies, because we know deep down inside what happens to people who don't send that check. The next time one of your progressive acquaintances (I sure hope you don't have any progressive *friends*) makes mention of increasing taxation, gun control, or any other policy involving the use of force or coercion by a government agency, ask them this simple set of questions: "Is is morally acceptable to personally force someone to __________?" If they answer NO, the follow-up question is naturally "If not, then how is it morally acceptable to have another person or an institution do the same thing on a larger scale?"

Maybe you want to give them an example - "If I'm robbing you at gunpoint in your own home, but I tell you that the money and goods I am taking will be used to put my children through college, or to pay for a necessary medical procedure, do you have any right to demand that I leave your property alone at once, or any right to even be resentful?" Sit back and watch as they try to justify their desire to use government force to accomplish what they wouldn't dare do on their own.

Now that we have awarded the franchise to women, the results have been fraught with emotional knee-jerk policies that demonstrate a very high time preference. This is coupled with a very egotistic refusal to consider long-term ramifications and unintended consequences, and a refusal to blame the real guilty parties. We have seen an explosion in social ills, more government policies to fix problems that earlier government policies created, and a culture of petty tyrants.

Let's hope that when the empire's death rattle is heard from sea to shining sea, we don't make the same mistake twice. Women are wonderful, strange beings who in many ways make existence a worthwhile endeavor, but for God's sake - don't ever let them near the voting booth!