The average age of a woman marrying in the United Kingdom is 35. The majority of adults in the U.K. are single. The majority of babies in the U.K. are born out of wedlock. In South Korea the fertility rate is now .78, the lowest in history and lowest on Earth.
You have to understand that each new statistic showing women's empowerment and liberty, their choice not to marry or have kids, impacts others. For each woman who feels empowered there is a man who can no longer achieve his dearest desires in life, a wife and kids. For each woman who doesn't give birth there is a child who is now not alive who should have been. This child then misses out on all the joys of existence due to the selfish non-mother. The woman is basically hogging all the fun in life and depriving everyone else in the country of everything.
And after all that selfish hogging, all that refusal to do her duty and pass on to her descendants what she was gifted by her ancestors, what is the result? The highest mental illness, unhappiness, substance abuse and suicide rates in history among women. Yes, it is women who are the least happy, the most mentally ill, and the most depressed all over the world.
They destroy everyone and everything around them for nothing. At least a Viking raider would enjoy his rapine and pillage. What do women get out of destroying the world?
If you say women would love to marry and have children but they can't afford to because they need to work to pay the bills, then don't worry. My society wide transformation includes a citizen's dividend that gifts $12,000 a year to every citizen of the country with no strings attached. This means women can earn as much staying home and taking care of their kids as they would going to work, and it also means that no matter what kind of deadbeat dad they marry they're guaranteed an extra $12,000 pouring into the household finances as a result. There is no economic reason to avoid marriage and children. The children each bring $12,000 more into the household too, they all pay for themselves. Nobody is left behind. A family of four, as mandated, would be earning $48,000 a year just by existing. That's a perfectly middle class lifestyle before the first person works their first hour on the job. You don't have to pursue a college degree, you don't have to get a career, you don't need a promotion first, you can marry and have kids immediately just like the law requires.
Since per capita government spending on Americans is already above $12,000 a year, the citizen's dividend can be funded out of current tax rates, in fact, we could cut taxes if we wanted. This does not represent an undue burden on productive workers. If they're willing to pay their taxes now that already answers the question of whether they can fund my plan. Yes, they can.
There is nothing physically stopping this plan. There is no impediment to marriage and children. It is purely a matter of will. Are we willing to stop the slow and inexorable slide into extinction, as represented by South Korea's childbirth numbers (like in most countries controlled by feminism, South Korea has more deaths than births), or not? Are we willing to gift the nation with a future or not? Are we willing to give men and women a natural, normal life they evolved to be suited for, which includes love, sex, living together and raising kids together, starting from an early age when love and sex are the most desirable and beneficial? (I guarantee you the guys marrying 35 year old British girls are not that enthusiastic about it)
The average woman can be happy with the average man. Why do I know this? Because in the 1950's the average woman was married to an average man, by the age of 20, and they self-reported being happy, and their lifestyle choices reflected that -- i.e. no need for therapy, anti-depressant pills, drugs, alcohol or suicide. If we force women to simply stop dithering and choose a boy, any boy, and settle down with them already, they will be infinitely better off than their sad careerist wine and cat life they have now. Every boy improves with marriage, this is an unalterable facet of human nature. Men who have something to strive for, someone to protect, will redouble their efforts. Male earnings after marriage always increase compared to before marriage, they literally work harder. The reason men are 'unsuitable' to marriage (other than criminals that's not the case, every male is suited to marry because they evolved to marry) is because they see it's pointless to try hard or achieve anything because they won't be rewarded with a wife or kids even if they do. If they're rewarded with a wife and kids upfront they will see that life isn't pointless or empty and they will vigorously start living it again.
Not that we need men to be working super hard. In this technological society, where a barrel of oil can produce thousands of hours of manpower, it is not true that only the most hardworking, rich and diligent men can raise a family. The citizen's dividend takes into account the fact that machines, not humans, produce all the wealth of the world today, and that therefore the main task of a family isn't to produce wealth but to produce domestic felicity. A man who can make his wife or his kids happy is more valuable than a man who can produce wealth. Unless the man is given the chance to make someone happy, how can he do so? The real benefit of a human being is the social interaction they can do with you, not the amount of canned beans they can put on your living room table. This isn't 2,000 B.C. and we have no shortage of mammoth hunters. A good husband is basically a nice guy who likes you. That's it. That's all a good husband needs to be. There shouldn't be any further hoops.
So if your husband is an ambitious hardworking guy who buys you trips to exotic locations and mansions, or a guy who just likes to play catch with the kids, or sit down to watch your favorite television show together, or hugs you close and compliments you at night, any and all of that is 'suitable' husband material. That's already far better than this dystopia where nobody marries, nobody has kids, and we all die knowing nothing of human warmth or loyalty our entire lives long.
All the complaints women have about why they can't do what their ancestors did for 10,000 years are vapid and specious. There is enough money, guys are good enough, and life is not worse when spent around other people. There is nothing holding them back or stopping them except their own demonic impulses to be anti-love, anti-life, and anti-future. What women say they want isn't what they actually want, or they wouldn't all be so unhappy. For whatever reason, due to media pressure or education or whatever, women have been told to want to stay single, stay childless, or even cut off their breasts and grow beards. They are told this is the true route to fulfilment, and they slavishly follow this advice. But it doesn't work. They're dupes, saps, suckers and fools. None of them actually reach the promised land. Saying we must honor women's wishes and choices, when all they're choosing to do is self-mutilate and self-medicate with various drugs, is obscene and absurd. It's like honoring lemmings for their choice to rush off a cliff.
Sapience, sentience, says we should not honor the dishonorable. So why should we honor women's choices when they're so clearly fallacious? When in South Korea they're literally dying off? Where did this infinite respect for women come from? We don't honor self-destructive choices when children do it, we discipline them. We don't honor self-destructive choices when men do it, we put them in jail. So why only women? Why do women alone get to choose anything, no matter how destructive to the world and the people around them, by virtue simply that they chose it? Lots of people choose lots of things and we tell them 'no.' So why women? What's the difference? Why are their choices, just by being made by them, automatically unquestionably right and inviolate?
If you can mandate people wear masks or get vaccines, why can't we mandate marriage and children? What's the difference? It's okay to force women to do one thing, so why not another? Surely everyone has realized by now that a doctor's proscription of love, marriage and children would be far more beneficial to the patient than a Covid vaccine or face mask. It would also be far more beneficial to the public and nation as a whole. So why is one okay but not the other? What is the reasoning here? Liberty is already dead as a concept, people don't even have the right to control their own DNA anymore, so it can't be on the basis of liberty. Libertarians already lost that argument, it is established protocol that the government can make anyone do anything if it's 'for their own good' or 'for the greater good.' You can be locked in your home and not allowed outdoors. You can be kept from visiting your ailing grandparents or kicked out of school. The government can do anything it wants to you for as long as it likes. This is established precedent. So don't talk to me about liberty. Nobody, obviously, cares.
Meanwhile, Love Live Superstar S2 is out subtitled in blu-ray over at nyaa.si. It's always good to upgrade your archives of great shows to their most pristine and authoritative states.
No comments:
Post a Comment