Applications of Animal Husbandry to Feminist Shortfalls
“Maximum Human Female litter is 27”
NOTE: Beware this sketch will be added to later along these lines so be tender in its regard (You may end up looking ridiculous)
Jonathan Swift had an amusing solution to supposed problems in Ireland: he suggested boiling babies in sauce and eating them. We shall apply only half un-seriously his solution to correcting feminist economics (we’ll boil them in poison and feed them to our enemies.) By the following proposal
Masculist Economic Tenet number one: The maximum human female litter has been hitherto approx 27 not counting multiple births or fertility drugs. Since population economy shortfall is some 4,000,000 (Yes, Four Million!) from feminist depredations in New Zealand alone over the last 30 odd years we urgently need to make up these numbers to avert economic meltdown. From the youngest possible to the oldest providing body weight and health combine: we could perhaps increase that over a fertile life of 45 years, one sprog a year or one multiple birth pregnancy a year/every ten months or so to over 100 individual survivable babies. Per woman. This can be done with modern science in a full Masculist economy. This would act as a marvellous stimulus to our fledgling New Aotearoa economy. This of course would be a republic. If we all made a determined national effort we could do it. See Taxocracy.
Hence tenet 1 is this, maximise the litter output of the breeding stock. Infertile women shall assist as midwives and childminders under close supervision.
Tenet number two is this: Each life is worth $4 million dollars. Calculated from average current lifetime earnings in constant 2008 dollar terms. We have lost 23 trillion dollars over the next seventy years from eco-feminist statistical genocide. What a vast sum. Feminists must hang their heads in shame and sorrow.
Population pressure maintains asset values: This is tenet three. The effective loss of the above two prior tenets means a complete Soviet Union type collapse of our economy. (probably) An empty City or a ghost town is worthless: there are no people there. Invercargill is losing people: thus houses are cheap. Russia is losing 700, 000 people a year thus it collapsed. Japan is stagnating and undergoing severe financial distress as its population reduces from 123 million down to 111 million in current history. Falling population automatically means failing economy. No exceptions. There is not a singe example on this planet where you have a falling total population and a currently rising economy. Not one example! How stupid do we have to be to believe feminist lies? Not only that but falling off from expectation also comes as an inverted percentage cost. Read on…
TENET FOUR: Failure to grow by fullest potential birthrate is to exactly reduce your economy by the percentage of shortfall.
That is: if potential was for NZ to grow to 8million by 2010: but only achieves four million in population then economic shortfall is 50%. So an economy of $130 billion in 2009 will rapidly decelerate to $65 billion by, say, 2 years afterward.
Tenet five is related: Adverse effects of population economy depredations occur one generation later. Unless unusual economic devices (like extreme marketing, high-risk credit extensions, unusual fiduciary instruments, highly-leveraged finances) extend the ‘generation’. This is exactly what we are seeing. Proven.
Tenet six concerns immigration as false solution. Why it does not work economically: despite occasional good anecdotes — and is always a potential social disaster.
Yes, for women voters have the overwhelming preponderate influence within advanced democracies (45% men to 55% women advantage in VOTING cohorts!) and this has distinct downside effects for the estate of men. Here is shown how excess female influence distorts any notion of democracy being a sustainable system of government. Some alternatives are sketched as future possibilities. In these 6 tenets of a putatitive Masculist economy (also known as a population economy or population economics: a new field) is shown how men must not and cannot support a biased feminist liberal economy for it cannot ever work long term. Notions of a homosexual or amazon society must be impossible myths bolstering immorality. They can not be sustained, as they do not breed their own captive demand.
While our governance appears run visibly by named and titled men is it from out of felt female initiatives and electorate influence that they must respond and be responsible to. Thus eco-feminism is at the root of all our economic problems.
UNFAIR ADVANTAGE EQUALS PRIVILEGE?
Thus all false leadership may rest on the electorate being larger in the number of female voters in the population. Women can vote almost two more elections in a lifetime than men, a 10% to 12% advantage depending on which country. This is an excessively privileged position and completely dangerous and unwarranted by either history or wisdom. So women won not only the vote in the twentieth century but also total social, medical and political control of creating the underlying voting population in the first place. How is it that population, which is bigger than history, bigger than politics and bigger than democracy itself (in fact it determines the entire realm of political economy, not the reverse), the biggest thing on earth there is, yet in a democracy only 55% of voters get the entire one hundred percent say in a matter that effects everyone, and almost everything, within the political economy? To win the vote is one thing but to win the vote OVER the total vote entirely another: A neat controlling move that de-legitimizes democracy as a governance type, supportable by men. Do we jump then to executive systems of government? Who can tell, perhaps democracy is dead. So, should women totally control the underlying real vote in any democracy? No.
Democracy came into being against a background of monarchy. Monarchy is a dynastic system derived from a series of successful local warlords or barons.
Within any system we can see almost all its physical structures; bridges, roads, dams and buildings were constructed by men. These structures everywhere take men below and above ground to a degree that endangers their lives. Even two feet above ground or below is sufficient to kill or drown men should they fall or suffer a blow. Men today still lose their lives in industrial accidents at far greater rates than women from other causes. This is why men are paid more. Men build sewers, halls, pipes, drains, shelter and other useful structures and risk their lives doing so. Yet historically these achievements create greater public good and health more efficiently than any system of hospitals ever did for all. They are directly cost effective, tremendous social bargains. Much of our interior and domestic world is also usefully constructed by men. This invisible, unacknowledged work by men is never finished, upgrades are always underway. Men do the dying building these but seven times as much is spent on women’s health? Is that right or fair? Look around you: almost everything you see is built by men, painted by men, maintained and cleaned and repaired by men. So are women responsive governments unfair to men? So could it be that men, where earning more, it is the fair reward for the risk of death they run? And where is the gratitude for the things men do? All we have is a bad, vindictive, vicious moaning from feminists. Yet they are the ones destroying us. Men are constructive.
EMANCIPATION OF MEN UNFINISHED
Early democracy is the story of the long emancipation of men. Barons and the aristocratic classes were the first to feel out their need for greater freedom of action. The political freedoms of the aristocrats were then extended to the merchant classes. Then this freedom to the trades and craftsmen. Finally arriving to the common peasants and labourers. Roman citizens in earlier republican forms enjoyed different degrees of liberty. A direct citizen of Rome enjoyed more rights. Free bread became a policy that distorted and weakened the Roman democracies. Greece is considered the fountain of democracy. The cities of Sparta and Athens vied for dominance of Greece. No early democratic states remained so for much longer than 200 years. America has been a free state for just over two hundred years. Social welfare policies can take funds from other important areas of a countries developments and upgrades. Health and education, a favourite of women, can take a bottomless pit of funding. No one wants to die, so should emotional appeals sway a fair budget? So women’s underlying influence can directly harm a modern economy. Critics of democracy have long pointed out these defects. In sum, saying, democracy can swerve in the direction of providing popular wants (that are secretly costly and totally distracting) to the neglect of needed projects, policies and protections. It must be that women’s governance, shown here to be attractively and seductively unreasonable, by subtle influence, is actually undermining the economy, as an entire population unborn cannot buy or sell things ( and be in everyway economically productive: this, in the case of our own young, without any competition while they are growing up, to already existing businesses. In contrast migrant numbers include competing adults, plus other tax dependents; so it is not just about numbers alone.) which are both the fruit and means of the continuance of democracy. Long live a reasonable democracy.
Within democracy it is almost impossible to vote entire parties out except for crisis conditions. Democratic elections cost money and election years cause a pronounced ‘dip’ in economic activity because of uncertainty. Executive government could be attractive for this reason. It is extremely frustrating that our popular parties do not appear to actually stand for anything as each borrows ideas off the other and both react as favourably as possible to any current fashion in ideas. The default tendency is for democracy to be women’s government; hence the greater number of countries leaders being women in democracies rather than other forms barring monarchy. Democracy is not male governance and tends not to favour men. Men are virtually locked out of nursing and primary school teaching and all population decisions affecting everyone. Especially contraception in New Zealand, except for research and otherwise total acceptance, for example-…..notes….Votes for women ushered in immediate seeking for control over contraception. This is a disaster long term for the survival of the European Ethnos. Europeans were once 20% of the world family; today just 8%. In thirty more years Europeans will be just 3% of the world population. Anyone can see where this is going. Who cannot lament the extinction of a human species? All this from one damnably wrong headed philosophy.
Let us end feminism in our time before it destroys us all.