IF CONTROVERSIAL, CONTRARIANISM Just to state something terribly controversial:

http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2015/10/22/empowering-women-tackling-income-inequality/NECESSARY IF CONTROVERSIAL, CONTRARIANISM

Just to state something terribly controversial: women currently live in an extreme period of privilege never before extant in history, and despite that privilege continue to seek to expand it even further: a demonstration of hyper-consumption without regard to the future that matches the uniqueness of their privilege.

I understand that just as the State-Military-Industrial complex served the interests of males and the expansion of the Absolute Nuclear Family, the State, Academy, and Media Complex is incentivized to advance the interests of women, in order to advance the rate of consumption, at the expense of the accumulation of intergenerational capital, and to profit themselves by doing so, just as the church profited by the sale of indulgences: the closest thing to a non-stem-degree history provides for us as analogy.

But that does not mean that either feminine privilege, expansion of the State, Academy, Media Consumption-Complex, or further expansion of female ‘privilege’ is anything more than an attempt to “Harrison Bergeron” males, destroy not only the Absolute Nuclear Family, but the Nuclear Family, and the Traditional Family as both the central institution of the reproductive, normative, and productive economy, at the expense of males, and transfer rates of reproduction from the productive to the unproductive classes, in total reversal of over three thousand years of soft eugenics through various forms of manorialism, and a thousand years of aggressive eugenics (hanging half a percent of the population or more every year). Both of which were essential to the development of the high trust society and the corresponding economic velocity that made female participation in the work place as well as in politics, a unique possibility.

Given that the data shows that women voters have been entirely responsible for the constant leftward shift that has granted them greater privilege than was ever available to males, Given that they have voted to ensure the impoverishment of almost all in old age, Given that they have destroyed the family, starting with black families now white. Given that they have voted to destroy rule of law. And given that none of this would have been possible without women voters, and given that the incrementalism displayed by the left continues from equality under the law, to equality in voting, to equality of opportunity to equality of outcome, to privilege for women in outcomes at the expense of increasing suicides and impoverishment of males, it is somewhat hard to ‘make the case’ that more privilege should be given to females, and that instead, perhaps, we should separate the houses by gender, and return to separation of houses by class, so that such privilege is prevented from occurring ever again.

We just had the female century and the ashkenazi century, and we are overthrowing the mythos of both – mostly generated by Boaz, Marx, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School, the Postmodernists, the feminists, and the Rawlsians – using old fashioned modernism and empirical science. In retrospect these authors have been pseudoscientists, novelists masquerading as philosophers, and outright liars.

It would perhaps be superior for all if we ended the fallacy of majority rule and returned to a government consisting of a Market For the Production of Commons Between the Classes, in which we conducted voluntary exchanges rather than majority induced ‘privileges’.

Rule of law was enough. Equality under the law was enough. Voluntary exchange was enough. Science and Public Speech as Truthful Testimony was enough.

As Hayek warned us, the twentieth century will be remembered in history as one of great wars, the suicide of the west, and as a reaction to Darwin an era of reemergent Mysticism, and the second attempted Conversion of the west by that ‘intentional’ attempt at conquest by conversion of women to the new religion. He unfortunately used the word mysticism rather than pseudoscience and failed to understand the power of the media to implement pseudoscience was just as great as the pulpit was for christianity, and the printing press was for protestantism.

That is the Contrarian View of Things.

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine