UNCOMFORTABLE THOUGHTS ON MEN AND WOMEN At some point we are going to have to co

UNCOMFORTABLE THOUGHTS ON MEN AND WOMEN

At some point we are going to have to come to terms with the fact that women are property of families in all of history, and men fight for that form of property just as they do for slaves, domesticated animals, and territory. And that those peoples that retain the treatment of women as property of the family kin-corporation (a capital asset) will always, over time, defeat those that do not (us).

Now, when we say something is property, we generally refer to that which lacks sentience. But even with property we do not confer a monopoly of control, but a limited one. For example, I may purchase the Mona Lisa or another great artwork, and I may purchase a full-granary, and I may purchase a lake. But we do not grant one another the right to destroy the art, destroy the grain, or pollute the lake. This is called the right of “ABUSUS”, and it is rarely granted – it is only granted for those things that are not productive in and of themselves. In other words, you are prohibited from causing negative externalities by the consumption or destruction of a good. In this sense you possess rights of USUS (use) and FRUCTUS (the fruits of) property that can cause externalities, and are always and everywhere not in monopoly control of property.

Men do not tolerate defectors, nor traitors in their responsibility to the kin-group in matters of war. They are profiting from the taking of an asset from the kin group. Why a woman can profit from the taking of a reproductive asset, produce externalities by doing so, and deprive future generations of her offspring, is no different from acting as a traitor or defector.

If a woman is to exit her kin group, she deprives the kin group of an asset. It’s up to the kin group whether they will defend against the loss of an asset. those groups that prevent assets from defecting will defeat those groups that do not.

Conversely, if a woman is to bear children at the cost of her people, then she acts parasitically.

This is not to say that any other right other than ABUSUS can be withheld from women – or from men who wish to import women from non-kin groups. So the door swings both ways. So to limit outbreeding from either direction seems a retention of capital. Except that there are marginal undesirables that breed themselves out of the ingroup by doing so, and into the lower groups.

We are not the higher evolved unless higher evolution succeeds in competition. We do not choose what is a greater evolutionary strategy. Our survival does.

It is no more possible for a people (tribe of men and their property) to survive the loss of warriors and producers, than it is for a people (tribe of men and their property) to survive loss of their women and their childbearing.

Moroever, it is merely an act of ABUSUS for a woman to profit from the gains of the people (the men and their property) while not bearing children, just as it is an act of ABUSUS for a man to profit from the gains of the people (men and their property) while not policing property, maintaining property, and defending property.

Once we understand this set of evolutionary necessities much of the rhetoric of human life (Moral excuse making) is just a convenient set of lies by which to avoid paying the cost of persistence of a people.

And while women may not care for their people (men and their property) men must care. And if men do not care, then they are not men, they are just domesticated animals that are either costly or profitable, but unable to demonstrate capacity for political (group) decisions.

I don’t particularly like this stream of reasoning. But it is what it is.

if the west is to continue to drag humanity into transcendence we who CAN RULE, must return to the costly but profitable industry OF RULE.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.