Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Blame Women (Disproportionately) for the Collapse of Western Civilization

THE GREATEST GIFT

Human history has basically been the struggle for freedom.  And it has been a struggle against two things:

1.  Natural elements or "limitations" (such as starvation, thirst, disease, famine, cold, heat, predators, etc.)

and

2.  Other humans.

The natural elements that limit human freedom have been fought against (and largely won) with advances in technology, agriculture, economics, and science.  We've eliminated starvation and thirst through agricultural technology, cured diseases through medicine, and though we have yet to unlock the secrets of immortality, the majority of people today do not spend their time searching for a clean water source or worrying about where their next meal is coming from.

However, whereas "natural limitations" to human freedom can be solved through vaccines, technology, and other cures found in the physical world, the human-induced limitations to freedom (called "tyranny") cannot.  By their very nature they are human, which means in "eradicating" humans would wipe us all out, tyrants and innocents alike, leaving no human history to speak of.  Thus, instead of "simple" solutions such as vaccines, farming methods, economic advances, etc., the solution to human tyranny has been 6,000 years of

blood
toil
slavery
war
tears
torture

and other incalculable amounts of human suffering.

However, slowly, but surely human kind has made advances in pushing back the tyranny that once enslaved us all.  First it was fighting against the warlords and tribal chieftains who merely enslaved entire tribes for their own enrichment and pleasure.  Then it was against religious theocracies who, again, merely used deities and the threat of hell (or burning at the stake) to enslave entire populations for their own advancement.  Monarchs and kings were nothing more than glorified warlords who were "benevolent" enough to let their peasants participate in the euphemism of slavery called "serfdom."  And even today, after billions of gallons of human blood has been spilled we have outright dictators and despots who, again, use their people as cattle to live high off of.

But still, after all of this, some humans have managed great advances against tyranny.  And after many wars, reformations, revolutions, Magna Carta's, and constitutions, a genuinely free society in the form of Western Civilization formed, arguably with the United States of America as its most refined product.  For the first time in history humans can do what they want, say what they want, believe what they want, but above all else, be entitled to the vast majority of the fruits of their labor.  They are no longer slaves to a tyrant, slaves to a theocracy, or serfs to a king.  They are their own masters who self govern themselves.  And it is this - that man has freed himself from not just nature, but other men - that is the pinnacle achievement of human kind.

This freedom, which has cost more than anything else in terms of human blood, time, toil, suffering and sacrifice, is the greatest gift humans have ever given themselves.  In letting people keep the majority of the proceeds of their time and have agency over their own lives humans have made the most incredible of advances over the past 300 years (which is roughly when freedom started to become prevalent in Western Civilization).  We have solved hunger, we discovered automation, we discovered electricity, we achieved flight, we've eradicated disease, founded computing, unlocked chemistry, and a million things more, all of which have allowed us to create lives for ourselves that are so amazing and rapidly advancing they were incomprehensible to merely a single generation before.

It is the proverbial finger free men can give the past 6,000 years of tyrants.

But all of this, ALL OF IT, hinges on one thing - that people are allowed to remain free and be entitled to the vast majority of their own production and be the masters of their own lives.  And if we lose that, we lose everything.

Enter in women.

WOMEN

Women, in a historical context, of course have always been here.  They are a part of human history as much as any man.  However, they are not the primary actors, participants, or determiners of human history, largely in part because of biology and nature's "natural tyrants."  Women are physically weaker, thus less prone to wage war and participate in battle.  They also are the ones to get pregnant, again physically limiting what they can do in a world largely ruled by "might makes right."  They also are more nurturing, psychologically predispositioning them to stay at home and rear the children.  And they also have boobs (which if you didn't know) was nature's kind of authoritative way of saying, "Yeah, you're the one who's going to stay off the battlefield and rear the children."

This is not to belittle or besmirch the role of women in history (of which there are many examples of women in history).  It is however to point out that the vast majority of human history has been determined and made by men.  Consequently, this greatest gift of freedom, that was so hotly contested for over these past 6,000 years, was bought and paid for by the deaths, blood, toil and suffering of hundreds of millions, if not, billions of men.  Additionally, it is men who have availed themselves of this freedom, well beyond that of women.  The VAST majority of all scientific advances have (once again) been discovered through the mental sweat and toil of men.  And while we can all certainly rush to point out the occasional female scientist or inventor, this fact is blatantly apparent, even today, where the majority of STEM students are men, and the majority of "social work" majors are women.

The point, however, is not a competition as to "who created what" and what the sex ratio of corpses were on history's battlefields.  The point is this freedom, and the commensurate AMAZING technology and INCOMPREHENSIBLY easy life that came with it, was available to both sexes even though men largely earned it.  And with these amazing advances in technology, life got so easy (in historical terms) that humans no longer had to worry about the natural tyrants that historically oppressed them (disease, starvation, sanitation, etc.), but could now focus their efforts on much lesser problems.

What were these problems?  Well, more of the sociological variety.

Egalitarianism
Education
Health
Family
Crime
Psychology
Etc.

However, a very interesting one was the issue of women's suffrage and equality.

Previous to this, and admittedly by nature, women were just plain not allowed into the management and leadership of society.  Men had paid the price, literally, in blood, sweat, and toil, and it was laughable at the time that women would have a say in economic and political affairs.  However, with technology (invented by men, afforded to them by the freedom they paid a dear price for), pressing matters such as war, famine, disease, etc., were becoming less and less frequent.  Additionally, labor saving devices created by the industrial revolution (*COUGH*, MEN!) allowed women not to be anchored at home, as well as allowed them to work, earning a keep just like men.  Furthermore, it wasn't as if raising children and maintaining a home was not work itself.  Ergo, there was a good and compelling argument to consider letting women have the vote.  And so, in 1920 the 19th Amendment was ratified in the United States and women were allowed to vote.

However, whatever the logical, economic, philosophical, not to mention, MORAL reasons there were to let women vote, you cannot deny there would be HUGE consequences in literally DOUBLING the voting population to include a group of humans who are biologically, psychologically, mentally, and emotionally different than men.  And the primary fear that would result from such a dramatic shift in voting rights is that the world's greatest gift humanity gave to itself (freedom) would be undone.  Women would vote for more state intervention, reinstating the human tyrants, essentially undoing what hundreds of millions of men had fought for over the past 6,000 years.

Of course, on the face of it, this is laughable.  No doubt such concerns were scoffed at during the early days of women's suffrage, just as they would be today.  Why would women CONSCIOUSLY vote themselves and the rest of humanity back into tyranny?  Who wants to be ruled by a dictator?  Who wants to slave away for the government?  However, if we are to look at the empirical data and see how women have handled the responsibility of voting we see that is PRECISELY what they're doing.  And there is sadly no debate about it.

Again, the vast majority of human history has been a struggle for freedom from its oppressors.  It has been minimizing the government that lords over them and maximizing the individual.  It has been allowing people to keep the majority of the fruits of their own labor and control over their destiny.  And the way you can tell whether somebody in Western Civilization is for freedom or not is quite simply this:

Do they vote for more government?
Or do they vote for less?

This further simplifies into the direct actions of:

Do they vote left?
Or do they vote right?

Do they vote labor?
Or do they vote conservative?

Do they vote democrat?
Or do they vote republican?

And while admittedly, there are certainly flaws with ALL political parties, it is the voting action that belies the intention of the individual.  And women's intention has been for more government, a larger state, and less freedom.

Unfortunately, the data is not perfect as it only goes back to the Eisenhower administration (and please provide me better data if you have it), but it will suffice.  The best data I could find on voting patterns for women is the presidential Gallup Poll that measures the lead (+) or deficit (-) democrat candidates had among men and women.  (This graph takes a bit of thinking to understand, but for the sake of simplicity it's best to read it as (if there's a positive sign) men/women like the democrat +X or (if there's a negative sign) men/women hate democrats -X.)





























But regardless of the complexity and shortcomings of the chart, the point is very clear.  Women prefer a larger state and less freedom to men.

However, within this chart there are two other important observations.

One, (you have to read the numbers, not just look at the right column) originally women actually preferred the republican candidates over men, especially during the Eisenhower administrations.  They even preferred the ugly Richard Nixon over the hot and handsome John F. Kennedy in 1960 (though not by much margins).  It wasn't until 1972, and especially 1976 did women switch to preferring a larger state.

Two, this switch accelerated rapidly from 1976 to 2012, going from just an 11 point preference over men for a larger state to a full 20 point preference with Obama's second election.

This doesn't make a lot of sense since if women were supposed to be the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse for Western Civilization, then why did they wait a full 50 years to start voting in a larger state?

The answer may be found in a study conducted by Dr. John Lott and Dr. Lawrence Kenny















Just because women were granted the right to vote didn't mean they all went to the polls that day in 1920.  A lot stayed home.  A lot voted the way their husbands told them.  Some of them still didn't find it their place or right to vote.  It takes about a generation or so for different groups of people to fully avail themselves of the franchise.  This makes a lot of sense in that if you add roughly 50 years to 1920 you get 1970 where women voted "in force" and showed their true "pro-government colors."

But while this may explain the increase from Gertrude voting in 1924 to Janis Joplin voting in 1972, it doesn't explain the increasingly passionate love-affair, nay, stalker-like-obsession women have had with the government from 1972 to today.  Why are women increasingly fanatic about having a larger government?

Well the answer can also be found in the dates.  1972.  Feminism.

While the Susan B. Anthony's of the 1890's wanted the right to vote, own property, and sign legal contracts, the radical feminists of the 1970's were nothing but outright marxists who cowardly hid behind their genitalia claiming it caused sexism and thus entitled them to a lifelong government check.  While for the most part they could be written off as such, unfortunately they largely got into a key position in society that would further influence future generations of women to come.  The only place that would take them.

Academia.

And it was from our colleges, universities and other educational institutions that feminists have very successfully convinced two full generations of young girls (Gen X and the Millennials) to vote against freedom and for an increasing state.

Now I could go on measuring the various ways women vote for tyranny over freedom, but the point is that for whatever reason they do.  And worse, increasingly so.  They vote for the government at the expense of the individual.  They vote for dependence rather and independence.  They vote a government check before a paycheck.  And while we can sit here and debate about whether that's the price we have to pay for equality, or that maybe men were wrong this entire time, and that maybe its time for a different approach, they ARE doing precisely what we feared.  They are undoing what all of human history fought for these past and painful 6,000 years.  They are undermining freedom.  They are destroying Western Civilization.

The question is whether we as a people, both male and female, love the freedoms afforded to us by the countless sacrifices of countless generations before us enough to have the courage to merely state this fact.

THE COSTS OF NAIVETY

But while women (as a group) tend to vote for tyranny, the question is whether they do this consciously.  Whether they do it maliciously.

Do women wake up every morning, licking their chops saying, "I can't wait to bring down Western Civilization today!"

Or are they just naive, blissfully believing the sweet lies politicians tell them about free education, free health care, free child care, free food, free housing and free everything?

The answer is rather clear.

Very few people are genuinely evil and wish bad things upon others.  And we can safely say that the majority of women are NOT evil people who wish to destroy the best development of human history.  And though there are some genuinely evil people who DO wish to destroy and harm others (feminists and SJW's) the vast majority of women are well intentioned, caring people.

The problem, however, is you can be the sweetest woman with all the best intentions in the world.  If you're naive or ignorant to the point you're wrong, you'll still have the same effects of being an evil, malicious person out to cause damage.  Thus, whether out ignorance or evil, society is going to pay the exact same price no matter what your intentions.  And so, as women vote and make other decisions in life about how the country should be run, Western Civilization suffers because of their ignorance and naivety.

The first and most obvious of these is money.

Money is not the root of all evil or some kind of tool of control of evil capitalists.  It is your time.  It is your life.  It is what you get in exchange for forfeiting a fraction of your FINITE life in the form of labor.  You then use this "root of all evil" as a means to SUPPORT YOURSELF and KEEP YOURSELF ALIVE.

The freedom of speech is one thing.
The freedom of religion is another.
But the freedom to be entitled to the majority of the money you make is the most important freedom as it is your LIFE.

But women think nothing of voting in tyrants who want to take it.

Readers of my blog are already intricately aware of the amount of money governments take from their citizens every year.  They are aware of government spending to GDP.  They are aware of government debt to GDP.  They are aware 70% of the state's budget goes to income redistribution.  They are aware of the difference between a million and a trillion.

Your average Western Civilization female voter is not.

You average female voter is a by product of her evolution, environment, genetics and upbringing.  And therefore your average female voter is stuck in "stage one" thinking where she:

1. Wants to solve a problem, but
2.  Doesn't know how much it will cost, but
3.  Doesn't care because she never looked at the budget anyway because
4.  She thinks "the government has unlimited money" because
5.  She really doesn't know the difference between a million and a trillion

so

6.  Votes for more government spending anyway.

The problem is she LITERALLY does not realize that money just doesn't come from "poof" out of nowhere.  And she CERTAINLY does not understand how the government just "printing off more money" would result in hyper-inflation.  Thus, in a very naive and child-like way, she will do what is logical to a 7 year old.  Vote for more government money, consequently voting the country that inch further into tyranny and enslaving us all that micro-second more in taxes.

Now, you multiply this times 150 million women, over the course of now four generations and you get what we're all familiar with.  Debt to GDP of 110%.  Government spending as a percent of GDP of 40%.  Slowing economic growth, etc.  But the larger point is the relationship between women voting and government is not merely one of more "socialists" being elected, but increased government spending which DIRECTLY lessens the amount of money and TIME we have to ourselves.






































Unfortunately, the costs female naivety does not stop at a simple increase in our tax bill.  The consequences cascade horribly from there.  For in voting for an ever increasing government, you by default crowd out the people it governs.  And with government accounting for now 40% of GDP


















"something's gotta give."

The first thing that gave was men, specifically in their role as fathers, husbands, and heads of households.  Previous to women's suffrage and the massive expansion of government, men were the nucleus of society and the economy.  It was around a man families and society were raised.  And it was his economic production that supported them all.

However, as women voted in more and more social spending they effectively replaced men with the government.  It was no longer the man who brought home the bacon, but the mailman who delivered the government check.  It was no longer dad who would feed the kids, but the EBT card afforded to you by Barack Obama.  And it was no longer father who paid the mortgage and kept a roof over the family's head, but HUD and their section 8 housing.

Soon women started asking the question 1970's feminists were dying them to ask all along:

"Why do we need a man?"

And sure enough 73% of black women, 51% of Latinas and 28% of white women agreed.  Why did they need a man?  And those respective percentages of women went forth and had illegitimate children thinking a government check was a superior substitute to a father.

Sure enough, without purpose or agency in life, and their birthright as a man taken from them by a government check, more and more men lost all hope and started checking out of society.  They started marrying less, working less, substituted real women with porn, and lived vicariously through video games.  They were no longer the strong and intrepid men like their WWII ancestors, but unincentived lifeless men with no direction and purpose.  And with the economic nucleus of Western Civilization disheartened to the point of inaction, economic growth started to slow.

With the engine of Western Civilizaiton sidelined from their original roles of fathers and husbands, the next chip to fall was, naturally, the family.  Without a father around the American family started to disintegrate.  There were of course pre-ruined families called "single parent" home, denying children from birth the right to a stable nuclear family.  But even those children "lucky" enough to have been born to a husband AND wife, only stood a 50/50 shot of having a normal childhood as half of all marriages ended in divorce.

The wife wasn't "haaaaaapppyyyyy"
And she needed to "fiiiiiind heeerselllllffff"

and the feminists were there egging them on every inch of the way.

Sure enough more than half of all children born from the 1970's on would be brought up in non-stable, non-nuclear families.  And while this may have been championed by feminists and other true enemies of Western Civilization, it took a devastating toll on those children who were the future generations of America.  Depression, suicide, crime, debt, divorce, alcoholism, nearly every single social and psychological ailment you can think of is positively correlated without having a stable, nuclear family to be brought up in.  Alas, not only did half of America's future endure this, it left such a bad taste in their mouths the smart ones said, "never again," swearing never to have children, tanking the birthrate and putting an end to American families.

This relates closely to the third domino to fall, lost sovereignty. 

Since leftist politicians (as well as rightists) want to stay in power, they will do whatever they can to ensure they are in control of the government.  This not only means bribing the naive portion of the population with "free everything," but it also means sacrificing the nation itself.  As long as these tyrants don't have to work real jobs they, will do whatever they can to stay in power.

Enter in immigration.

I find three things cute, endearing, and ironically tragic:

1.  The "refugee crisis" going on in Europe
2.  The illegal immigration debate in the US and
3.  The rape epidemic in Sweden

In all three cases men and women, rightists and leftists alike, are against, if not aghast at what is happening in their respective countries when it comes to immigration (and well, that whole rape thing).

In Europe nearly everybody is against the allowance of 2 million "refugees," but their governments still allow it to happen.

In the US 76% of democrats are against illegal aliens and amnesty, but again, our government allows it to happen.

And in Sweden, ahhhhh, lovely socialist, very pro-feminist Sweden.  There's a "bit" of a rape epidemic going on due to the immigrant Muslim population there.  But nobody dares grow the balls to kick them out in fear of being accused of racism.

Now in all three cases the women, I presume (and especially in Sweden), are against these immigrants coming into their respective countries.  However, even with broad support from people all across the political spectrum the governments (leftists ones mind you) ignore the desires of their people and let these immigrants in knowing full well they will never return to their countries of origin.

Why?

Because it will keep the left in power.  It will expand and ensure future government control.  Those are all future leftist voters who will demand future leftist politicians.

Alas, this is the perfect example of how women's naivety deals another blow to Western Civilization.  Even though women are generally against illegal immigration (and I would presume also rape), they never get past stage one thinking of:

"Well the democrats/labor/left is for children/the little guy/the poor/the old/fluffy bunnies, so I'm going to vote for them."

But then are surprised when leftists like Tony Blair or Jack Kennedy sell the sovereignty of their nation to foreigners who plain don't care to adhere to Western Civilization, if not outright hate it, so they can ensure they and their party remain in control of the government.

Again, it doesn't matter what women's intentions or expectations are when they vote.  If they vote for the wrong people the effects will be the same as if a malicious and evil person, intent on destroying the country, voted.  And allowing a people from a culture that is non, if not anti-Western Civilization is arguably the final blow to the long term survival of Western Civilization.

THE SOLUTION

To be frank there is none.  This entire post is merely one for posterity wherein I will be able to say "I told you so" for the rest of my life, as well as an exercise in philosophical and theoretical thought.  The left is too heavily funded, well too positioned in education, media, government, and the universities, and have done such a great job of brainwashing women that there will never be a significant percentage of women that will wake up and heed the points I've made above.  Additionally, (in a comedic, but still 100% truthful sense), in the wise words of Bill Burr,

"Women are surrounded by this tornado of misinformation [about how great they are], and nobody corrects them because we want to f#ck 'em!"

However, if we are serious about not throwing away the best gift humanity has ever given itself, and we do not wish to dishonor the untold number of men who paid incalculable prices over the past 6,000 years, we need to look at who has the right to vote.

The obvious solution is to rescind women's suffrage.  The various leftist political parties in western nations would never recoup from such a loss and we could very easily enact (or rescind) the legislation necessary to put Western Civilization back on the fast track.  However, this is not the answer.  If we rescind women's right to vote, then why not blacks?  If not blacks?  Why not Jews?  If not Jews, why not dashingly handsome half-Irish economists with a penchant for video games and motorcycle riding?  That road merely goes back to the tyranny we're wishing to stave off.

The answer lies in the founding principle of Western Civilzation - Merit.

Admittedly, I've been very hard on women in this treatise (but rightly so).  However, while the majority of women do vote against freedom we all know women personally who are not naive, who do not vote with their hearts, who are not stuck at stage one thinking, and actually do know the difference between a million and trillion.  We know women who DESPERATELY love their husbands, desperately love their children, and take the time to study the finances, economics, and politics of this nation before ditzily casting off their vote for the politician who promises them the most money.  Concurrently, we also know blacks, hispanics, asians, Jews, Madagascarians, gays, eskimos, Indians, Muslims, agnostics, Catholics and lesbians who also earn their keep, study the country's finances, and also desire to vote for freedom and against the state.  Ergo, we cannot rely on mere physical traits or religious beliefs, but rather whether they are contributing members of society who have EARNED the right to vote, not merely "spat out of a vagina within the US' borders."  And there ARE ways to do that, some of which have already been done.

For example, in the embryonic years of the United States you not only had to be a white male to vote, you also had to own property.  The founding fathers had this requirement because not only did they not want blacks or women to vote, but because they also didn't want stupid white men to vote!  You couldn't just have been "born a white male."  You also had to prove you could work and manage your finances accordingly that you were a productive member of society.  And requiring ownership of property was a proxy for that hurdle.

However, while that may have had the intended effect in 1790, today we have the technology that a much better and much more meritorious voting franchise can be given - taxes.

Very simply, if you want to vote you need to have paid taxes.

If you collect a government check.  No.
If you're on EBT.  No.
Are you on TANF?  No.
Disability?  No.
Social Security?  No.
Housing assistance?  No.
Attending a state university and getting a subsidy from the taxpayer?  No.

You MUST BE a contributing member of this society, paying into the government to have a say in how the country is ran.  You must NOT BE a parasite collecting a government check making you by definition a ward on the state.  This discriminates against no one, but ensures those who are paying for the government are the ones determining how it is managed, and is thus far in my economist's mind of thinking the best way to award the right to vote.

Of course, sadly, as I said before, this is all academic.  Too many people who are too vested in the demise of Western Civilization already have the vote.  And too many people (both men and women) are just plain too damn stupid, ignorant and naive to listen to reason, evidence, logic, and reality.  But let it be said and noted that when Western Civilization finally collapses, when Rome v. 2.0 falls, when humanity's greatest gift to itself is taken away it was the female voter and her naivety that was disproportionately to blame.  And those 6,000 years of human pain, suffering, sacrifice, blood and war was undone by 60 years of childish, spoiled, petulant feminism.

Enjoy the decline.
_________________________________
http://aaron-clarey.podomatic.com/
http://www.assholeconsulting.com
https://www.youtube.com/user/AaronClarey
https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey
My Books
Amazon Affiliate

52 comments:

Thon Brocket said...

Your dinner's in the dog.

TroperA said...

Historic post. I would make some changes to the list of approved voters:

Combat veterans get to vote for life even if they get injured/sick and go on disability. They put their lives (and future earnings) on the line so anyone who serves a tour of duty where their lives were in actual danger gets a lifetime right to vote. (Also, they have to serve on the front lines for a certain amount of time - no rotating female soldiers or pencil pushers to the front line for a couple of weeks then yanking them back out so they can qualify for voting privileges.) No gaming the system.

Any president or owner of a company that receives government subsidies is barred from voting. Farmers who receive subsidies are barred from voting. The President of the United States, all members of Congress and all government workers are barred from voting.

The electoral college is struck down and replaced by direct voting. We're no longer a nation of dirt farmers who have to rely on mail delivered by burro for our communications system. The technology to implement direct voting is here. The population that will vote under our new system is presumably educated and intelligent enough to be trusted with the franchise, so why would a politician support an artificial construct that "keeps Americans from voting for the 'wrong' people? (ie: voting for people who might not support the inane policies put forth by the politicians?) Sure, there may be some gag, write in votes under the system, but the vast majority of working Americans who have a stake in this country are not going to waste their votes on fictional characters or wrestling stars.

That's about it. DO this and the country will turn around in no time...

grey enlightenment said...

wow this is probably your most epic article to date, and I agree feminism is a blight on Western civilization.

But the problem is not so much with feminism, but with too much freedom, that I think you mistakenly present as some unalloyed 'good', which ultimately gives rise to feminism, excess entitlement spending and other other forms of social liberalism. It's like building a house of wood and then complaining about termites. The 'liberal democracy' is a relatively new concept in the history of Western civilization, and there were good reasons why it was that way.

Anonymous said...

Cappy, this essay may well be your finest to date! Enjoy a blast of the REALLY good, VERY old single malt in celebration of your superb opus! This explains SOOOOO much, so clearly, that only a loony fact-free leftist would even attempt to dispute it. Keep up the great work!
Davers6

Unknown said...

Hi Aaron,

Hear hear. You actually used logic to deconstruct the emotional cognitive dissonance under which most women/leftists/immigrants/stupid people suffer. As a Gen-Xer who's in the process of checking out I do believe that a solution is going to come down the pike, but in the interest of full disclosure I have to admit that this solution will contain more than a bit of schadenfreund on my part. This is how I predict everything will shake out:

1. Women/leftists/immigrants/stupid people will keep drinking the socialist fruit punch and vote for an ever increasing number of government subsidies;
2. One day a candidate will promise them all the benefits they could possibly receive for merely existing, and said candidate will be elected in a landslide.
3. The first year will see a spike in government spending, all while the true numbers are kept under wraps.
4. The second year the women/leftists/immigrants/stupid people get a tax bill that is a multiple of what they previously paid, and they'll go ballistic;
5. The government will come down on them like a ton of bricks - "You begged for this, and now you're whining about it? You are obviously a radical right-wing domestic terrorist who rapes babies and spits on those suffering from your predations!!!" - and women/leftists/immigrants/stupid people will cast about for some sort of solution;
6. They will start reading, and learning, and discover something horrifying... that it's too late to fix. They've hit the steep part of the slippery slope, and all the demons of Hell are licking their chops at the buffet sliding their way;
7. They will turn to those of us with the foresight to actually start planning well before the collapse - and we'll take one look at them, sneer, and say, "Not my problem. Good luck!"
8. They will finally - FINALLY! - see reality for what it is, just in time to leave their bodies on the battlefield (metaphorically or not - I can't decide).

My response to your thesis - women/leftists/immigrants/stupid people will see the light only when they are kneeling in their front yards, hands behind their heads and a muzzle pressed to their skulls, helpless to watch as everything they hold dear is taken from them... just before the trigger is pulled. Your proposal is wonderful, but it suffers from one fatal flaw - you can't fix stupid.

I personally have a plan - it has to do with paying off my debts (getting there!), finding a nice place in the wilderness, and sipping home-brewed beer on my porch as the mushroom clouds rise into the sky. And when the huddled masses come begging for help, I'll merely shrug, pick up my shotgun, and tell them that their end came because they were stupid - and then I'll go inside for a nice venison dinner.

BillyHW said...

This is epic.

Survivorman said...

I've read (somewhere) that Adolph Hitler was elected to office largely by women's votes. Because so many German men were killed in WW-I, the demographics were such that women had disproportionate influence at the ballot box in ~1932.

Who said women don't make history, eh?

Merlin said...

Aaron Clarey for President!

On a serious note, I've maintained for a long time that "Government Check" = "Not eligible to Vote" should have been part of the rules from the start. No way to introduce it now, of course, but we really blew that one originally.

But you're right, I don't see any way to fix it now. Just go through the whole dreary mess, and see if we can dig ourselves out of the wreckage after the crash.

Bob Wallace said...

Women's default position is socialism/fascism, which is why even now they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

tj said...

Interesting. My husband made this point 10 years ago. Everyone in the room... mostly young men.... looked at him totally aghast. I laughed, knowing that I would be the only one to agree with him. When I did so, they had a look of pity on their faces for me, presuming he "beat or abused me somehow". Glad to say we are still happily married, going on 25 years. He blames the right to vote, which brought on easy divorce (which he is a victim of - mother left but fortunately his father raised him) and single parenthood.

Ofay Cat said...

Well done and well written. I usually don't make it to the bottom of such lengthy articles, but this one was well worth the time. I have often thought along the same lines as your piece implies .... I understand and study human nature and as you did, the nature of the two main genders.

You have it right when you say "it's too late" ... while we men were working and living our lives the left took over the educational industry, the healthcare industry, the media and the civil service. That is an army that you won't likely vote out of power ... it would take a violent revolution by motivate men who want to save us all .... I don't believe enough of that type of man still exits to affect much.

I have read and am enjoying "the decline". I believe I was born at the best moment in history and in one of the best places to be born, Canada 1943 ....It's been a great ride. I have enjoyed my freedom and made the most of it ... I was self employed my whole working life and the first 15 years of adult life was as a pro pop musician ... it doesn't get better than that, other than no money in music unless you are a rock star. From there onto small home based, but lucrative business ... now retired and watching it all come apart while appreciating that I won't be around for the time that the new global feudal sate is fully formed where freedom and prosperity are but a memory.

Bob Wallace said...

"Combat veterans get to vote for life even if they get injured/sick and go on disability. They put their lives (and future earnings) on the line so anyone who serves a tour of duty where their lives were in actual danger gets a lifetime right to vote. (Also, they have to serve on the front lines for a certain amount of time"

This is what Heinlein wrote in "Star Ship Troopers" a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

"Unfortunately, the data is not perfect as it only goes back to the Eisenhower administration (and please provide me better data if you have it),"

You might like this study called "Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" -- by Lott & Kenny

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf

(Good article you wrote, btw)

Cheers,

Jeb

1432fpchero said...

well said, but i will craft a response, it is not too late...yet

Tony Hui said...

While I mostly agree with the author's points, I think a better solution would be to weigh the vote of individual with the amount taxes one pay. We can give each citizen half a vote regardless if he/she pays any tax, with the other half vote weighted by the amount of taxes paid in the last four years. This way someone who pays more taxes will have a bigger say but will not shift all political power to the rich. Hey, I am even okay with letting people buy election. If someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet wants to give all their money to the government, I am okay with them having a little bit more influence on their next election votes.

Tony Hui said...

While I mostly agree with the author's points, I think a better solution would be to weigh the vote of individual with the amount taxes one pay. We can give each citizen half a vote regardless if he/she pays any tax, with the other half vote weighted by the amount of taxes paid in the last four years. This way someone who pays more taxes will have a bigger say but will not shift all political power to the rich. Hey, I am even okay with letting people buy election. If someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet wants to give all their money to the government, I am okay with them having a little bit more influence on their next election votes.

J.J. MacBocephus said...

Brilliant writing Cappy. You have a knack for putting to words the complex issues and observations we are all enduring.

Wayne Richards said...

Slogan:

NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!

Sound sort of familiar?

Wayne Richards said...

Slogan:

NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!

Sound sort of familiar?

Ed said...

"They started marrying less, working less, substituted real women with porn, and lived vicariously through video games."

You could throw PUA culture into the mix there. This isn't a result of men losing all hope. Instead, it is the result of something which I am sure you are very familiar - the cost-benefit analysis. I'm 47, and recently I've looked back on the last 30-odd years of my dealings with women, and asked myself "has all the time, money, and effort been worth it?" And the answer is no, no it hasn't been worth it. And there are millions of middle-aged and younger men who are asking the same question and coming up with the same answer.

Matthew Bailey said...

This was a great article and I shared it everywhere, though like usual nobody likes to read lengthy informative, stacked with empirical evidence, articles. But I digress. This is probably one of my personal favorites right next to "What could have been"! But I have a question, and I crunched my own numbers. You always stress that government spends 40 percent of our GDP. The federal government spends around 20 ish percent of our GDP. So I went out of my way to average out all state spendings and local spendings and came up with, on average, that state and local spending is also 20 percent. So did you reach this number by adding the two of those? Federal and State/local spending? Because damn that's crazy! But it's okay, seventy five or so percent goes to wealth redistribution and the rest to defense spending! Enjoy the decline!

JK Brown said...


Thus at first the American people got the notion of law-making; of the making of new law, by legislatures, frequently elected; and in that most radical period of all, from about 1830 to 1860, the time of "isms" and reforms — full of people who wanted to legislate and make the world good by law, with a chance to work in thirty different States — the result has been that the bulk of legislation in this country, in the first half of the last century, is probably one thousandfold the entire law-making of England for the five centuries preceding. And we have by no means got over it yet; probably the output of legislation in this country to-day is as great as it ever was. If any citizen thinks that anything is wrong, he, or she (as it is almost more likely to be), rushes to some legislature to get a new law passed. Absolutely different is this idea from the old English notion of law as something already existing. They have forgotten that completely, and have the modern American notion of law, as a ready-made thing, a thing made to-day to meet the emergency of to-morrow.
--Popular Law-making: A Study of the Origin, History, and Present Tendencies of Law-making by Statute
by Frederic Jesup Stimson (1910)

Leif Christensen said...

The corpse of every fallen culture has given rise to new cultures, and there's no reason outside of global nuclear war to presume that this won't happen with the West. I'm sure that many nations in Europe and the Americas will no longer exist, and new nations with new names and new borders will grow. This will almost certainly happen in the lifetime of many of the readers here.

Historic writing such as this should be promoted not merely as a means to stave off disaster, but most importantly so that new cultures will have some idea of the traps that killed the West. Certain parts of Africa are getting their shit together and Eastern Europe is growing balls again, to name a few areas of potential future civilization. Mileage may vary.

Eve'sBlog said...

If this goes viral you're in for a shitstorm

SR said...

As a female I applaud the achievements of the patriarchy, because you are correct, it is the blood and sweat and ingenuity of males that have made the successes of modern society. Women have contributed, but the males made it happen.

Like any dictatorship, the patriarchy had to fall when it could no longer be brutal enough to put down insurrections through violence. Therefore, women got the vote because men were no longer had the will to refuse in sufficiently nasty form. This was an inevitable step in civilization. At that point it would have been good to circumscribe the vote only to taxpayers, but even that probably would not have been possible. Now, you will not even be able to keep non-citizens from voting.

Please note that married women vote differently from unmarried women. The ones, like myself, who are committed to marriage and family and do not rely on government, vote in patterns similar to men.

The only chance there is to pull back from the brink is to improve marriage rates (I do not know how), and to destroy the public school monopoly (through school vouchers). Then we may be able to restore citizenship with respect for freedom and property in some minimal way. But even this is just nipping at the edge of the welfare state; it may come to complete collapse. I can only hope that it is as great as Kevin Williamson writes that it will be.

Captain Capitalism said...

Eve, you mean like the Mad Max Feminist Road one that got international attention? And coincidentally boosted my subscribership by about 15% in a week?

Let it rain and thunder shit all day!

Anonymous said...

So, having paid into social security for 45 years, I no longer get to vote because I'm getting back a fraction of what was paid in.? That's the only disgreement I have with this otherwise "spot on" essay. If I missed something here, please point it out.

Anonymous said...

I really like your solution to the problem. It seems self-evident that the people who pay into the country should decide how its run. Whatever happened to "no taxation without representation"? The people who pay taxes are about as equally without representation now as during our forefathers days as colonists.

Do all of our leaders really not care about the country? Do they really not care about running our nation into the ground? Is it not obvious to them that that is what they are doing? What is the point of having power if your not going to use it to advance what's good (at least in your own mind)? I really don't understand.

MidKnight (#138) said...

On the disability thing....

How did you get it?

Sure, I "receive" disability - twelve years as a navy nuke, a munged knee and (mild) radiation exposure. I wasn't front lines, but still was under more than 200 ft of water a lot of my career, and dealing with more fires and equipment casualties than I care to think of.

The $100/month is nice, but I still pay more in taxes.

Also, I'd known that "E4 on Wic" with kids and a family. It's not a proud choice, but needs must when the cost of living is what it is in Taxachussetts and you're not living near a base with a Commissary - and taking bimonthly trips a couple hours away because the savings are worth the gas and tolls.

For better or worse, I'd argue veterans and active service, even if the MOS/Field is not particularly dangerous, should have the right even if they end up using some form of govt. aid, or get discharged with medical disability.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Its not that women are necessarily stupid, its that their brain has no role in their choices to begin with. Women don't do things because they think they are good, they do them because they feel good. Why do you think the Marxists went with feminism first? They would all be hanging from ropes soon if the stupid women didn't buy their softsoap about being disgruntled. Tell a woman she can have more than she does and you have an instant sucker.
Democracy and voting in any form never works. The Founding Fathers were fools to believe they could limit the franchise to landowners. Voting is no way to choose leaders. Leaders should be made by hard work and combat. Soft-headed pinhead intellectuals should be roasted on spits simply for wanting to lead. Leaders do not need affirmations, they take the reins by necessity. No one who covets power should ever have it. Only those that see the reins of power as a somber and serious responsibility are ever fit to lead.
Revolutions are a fitting start to a strong Fatherland. By combat, the weak are culled and removed. Only the strong and able will be left. Afterwards, they should test each other by force of will and ability to get the best to wear the title of ruler. In the posterity, only victorious commanders and able leaders of men should ever be considered. Women should have children and make homes, their meager contributions have been overly exaggerated. Many so-called feminists have become childless old hags with no companions. Their sad skill sets have not yielded the rewards they were falsely promised. Patriarchy is a meaningless made up word. Except for bees and ants, there are no matriarchal societies on this planet.

Anonymous said...

Every "meritocratic" system always becomes gamed by sociopaths. The only proven way to put a neurotypical human into office is by birth, that is to say monarchy.

Anonymous said...

Just beautiful, just beautiful. Now I have to get back to enjoying my decline on my terms. I laugh at all the lefties now, I don't engage anymore it's more fun to do my own thing.

Thank you for this post. I need to frame it somewhere.

Troy Tagoota said...

I've said most of this for some time. Most women often vote with their hearts instead of being fiscally responsible. I do have a bone to pick with your article though. Social Security is NOT simply a government check. Social Security is funded from workers contributions and no one ever gets out what they put in. It's not government money, it's money we worked for that was withheld by the government. There are also many situations in which social security is taxed by the government. There are a few Social Security benefits other than retirement that may fit the bill of government handout but that retirement check is YOUR MONEY, not the government's. It is not an entitlement (although many politicians keep branding it as one).

Joshua Sinistar said...

Actually Troy, it is an entitlement. Because they spent your money. There is no Social Security Trust Fund, they already spent it. This whole idea was bullshit all of it. When this Ponzi Scheme was started they gamed it so most workers would be dead before they started collecting. Now Americans are getting damn old and the system is already paying out more than it takes in. They won't admit it, but Social Security is ALREADY BROKE!

Chris W said...

Someone above said ; "Women don't do things because they think they are good, they do them because they feel good "

I was going to say something similar.

Women tend to want or care about what gives them an immediate result, men tend to think long term and are better at understanding the consequences of things in the long run.

Which is why it is men who care about building and inventing things while women care more about decorating their home and themselves ( shoes, clothes, jewels are decorations )

Men think big, women think mostly of themselves; what is in it for them.

I read somewhere women are not very good with money, they spend too much because they have trouble seeing the big picture and seeing in the future the consequences of their actions.

WOmen are also often bad at mathematics thus have a poor understanding of interests ( such as on a credit card)

I could go on and on.

All those things make women more likely to do things that in the long run will destroy Western Civilization.

And they are doing a lot of bad things.

We are in trouble in great part because of feminism.



Anonymous said...

Democracy: The God That Failed.

-it's a book.

PS: "You must NOT BE a parasite collecting a government check making you by definition a ward on the state." This includes all active military members and retirees. If you're property of the U.S. Government you don't get to help the government decide how much to fleece citizens.

Women Have Agency said...

The Most Dangerous Idea In The World: Women Have Agency

While liberals, conservatives, and many other groups have different ideas, one thing they will agree on is that women have no agency. Here is a sampling of answers you would get if you asked members of various groups if women have agency (and they answered honestly).

Liberals: No, anything bad a woman does is the fault of the patriarchy and sexism. The world is ruled by misogynistic conservative men, and women have no power. Anything good that happens to women is the result of “benevolent sexism” which women have no control over. Women are forced into becoming housewives and mothers they do not want to be.

Conservatives/Men's Rights Activists: No, anything bad a woman does is the fault of liberals and feminists tricking and brainwashing them. Women don’t even have agency when it comes to abortions which are the result of trickery by men. Women are forced into jobs and careers they do not want. Women vote for Democrats because they were brainwashed by the leftist academia.

White (Vagina Worshiping) Nationalists: No, anything bad a woman does is the result of the Jews and minorities tricking them into feminism and multiculturalism. The Jews have been so successful in tricking women that they can convinced (white) women to act against their own race. Everything bad a woman does is caused by the Jews so women aren’t responsible for the bad acts they do.

Conspiracy Theorists: No, anything bad a woman does is the result of the Rockefellers, the Jews, and other rich people conspiring to trick women into feminism. The real enemy is the Rockefellers, the Jews, etc. (and minorities) who are conspiring to depopulate the world so women aren’t responsible for their behavior.

PUAs/Gamers: No, women’s bad acts are the correct biological/evolutionary response to men who have no game. Women can’t be held responsible for their own biology.

I could list many other groups, but its always the same. They all believe women have no agency. In fact the only group that believes women have agency is MGTOW.

Women having agency is the most dangerous idea in the world right now, dangerous to women and manginas at any rate. If a person has agency, then that person is responsible for their own actions. If a person doesn’t have agency then that person is not responsible for their actions and choices. If you want to avoid being held responsible or accountable for your actions, then you need to convince the world that you have no agency, and that is what women did (except for MGTOW). The idea of women are responsible for their own behavior, actions, and choices, is dangerous because if enough men start believing it, those men will hold women responsible for their actions. Women will be forced to deal with the same standards of accountability as men. This would be an outright disaster for women because they would be exposed for the frauds, feral children, and in some cases criminals that they are.

The Plague Doctor said...

"Muh veteran's benefits!"
"Muh veteran's benefits!"
"Muh veteran's benefits!"

This expression indicates a welfare recipient's lack of understanding when informed that his "service" in a world-wide occupation force is of no benefit whatsoever to actual American citizen or their interests, but is in fact a multi-trillion-dollar liability to Americans, and that his participation is motivated by his own personal gain, advancement and personal enrichment. When confronted with the reality that the USA could quickly and effectively exclude all 'terrorists' by simply ending all 3rd world immigration and mass Visa denials, at no cost to taxpayers, the subject usually mumbles "muh benefits" or "muh benefits muthafucka". This is generally followed by 75 year occupations of docile nations, and an incoherent lecture about "dumbocracy", "defending freedumb" and "freedumb isn't free".

recidivist said...



The obvious problem with Merit is 'Who determines it?', and for that we need big government & academia to establish standards, set guidelines, punish slackers, dispense credentials and enforce the whole meritocracy thing with an ever tightening Catch 22 noose of rewards, punishments & forfeits. "Hell is other people," said Sartre.

Red Knight said...

If you want to understand history and society, it helps not to try to force it into a predetermined paradigm. There is way more to history than the struggle between two opposed forces. Whether they be freedom vs tyranny, working class vs upper class, the true religion vs infideldom, or any other dichotomy that matters to you.

The "struggle for freedom" presented in the start of the post is woefully inaccurate. The typical medieval serf paid something like 10% to 20% in taxes, so if freedom is a low tax rate, he is freer than most contemporary Westerners. Even Switzerland, which has the smallest government of the contemporary West, has a government spending to GDP ratio of 35%.

No, the fact is simply, the two struggles for freedom, that against nature and against other humans, are interconnected. Our modern, post-industrial society has enabled us to win over nature, at the cost of being mutually interdependent with other humans. Which, in turn, has required government to take on roles that it didn't in the past.

Mindstorm said...

A compelling post. One quibble: automation is an invention (or rather an ongoing series of inventions), not a discovery.

Sol gardener said...

The fastest way to return things to their natural order is to give the women what they seek- tyranny. Once they become subjects instead of benefactors, they will begin to seek strongholds for defense. Those stronghold are, and are created by, men. When men are in a position to return to their natural state, which is in a position of authority, tyranny will be battled back into submission. It may take another 6K years to get there, so we'd better get started.

We get started by overwhelmingly putting Hillary in the WH. Let them wonder why she won by 95%. They'll gloat at first. Then they'll grow suspicious. In that suspicion, tyranny will take root.

Anonymous said...

Quite accurate. A possible solution is in "The Albany Plan Re-Visited", wherein the author posits the separation of local government and federal government, then, federal citizenship with the right to vote in and be employed by at all levels, the federal government is limited to those proven altruists who have volunteered 3 years in federal service, either civil like Americorps or the Peace Corps, or in the military. State/local government would not have this requirement, so the 'women' factor would be localized, and local economic systems would have to compete with other local economic systems, thus limiting socialist parameters.

There is also an argument for secession of the red states that would include this plan located at www.justplainbill.wordpress.com .

oughtsix said...



How to understand women??

"I think of a man. Then I take away reason and accountability."

Jack Nicholson, in some movie 'r other.

Simplest possible terms.

John Work said...

Great essay! Your proposed solution for voting is also very good, but as you say unlikely to be adopted. Voting and Democracy are a major part of the problem even with limiting the vote, but that's another issue. During the very likely coming collapse of civilization women are also going to die disproportionately. And single women even more so. The problem will be preserving the knowledge of the major causes of the collapse. This essay should be engraved on stone in multiple languages and seeded all over the world. The rebuilding after this collapse could take centuries or millennia. Our current industrialized civilization is so fragile, and men's knowledge of basic survival is so limited that the fall will most likely be very, very hard. The death toll will be unimaginable and living conditions at the bottom may be more like stone age than merely pre-industrial.

Anonymous said...

Lott & Mustard did a paper on this very subject out of U Chicago some 20 years ago correlating women's suffrage and the growth of the social welfare state.

Lesjob Morework said...

As Good As It Gets

Lawrence Ashcroft said...

Awesome post. I had heard of your blog before but what brought me today was a link posted on VNN Forum, which by its turn I found at my own blog which aggregates RSS feeds from over a hundred Alt Right sites and blogs: Shitlord Hub. I have just made your blog available on my blog. It's been up for just some 12 days but it already has around a thousand daily readers and growing. If you find it useful, please spread the word. Thank you for your attention and keep up the great work you've been doing.

Axel Mckibbin said...

Wow. I came to virtually the same conclusions on slightly different logic a few days ago.

http://theanti-puritan.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-women-cant-be-trusted-with-voting.html

Axel Mckibbin said...

Wow. I came to exactly the same conclusion a few days agon under slightly different logic.

http://theanti-puritan.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-women-cant-be-trusted-with-voting.html

Anonymous said...

Janis Joplin didn't vote in 1972.

Dead people can only vote in major cities.

Anonymous said...

Finally someone who gets it. Women have won the battle because men have let them. It's called "pussy power" once let loose it cannot be put back in the bottle.