Last weekend, I was privileged to speak at the third annual Essentials of Freedom conference – and I do hope to have either the video or, in the least, the audio, of my speeches for you in the near future.
Yet this is not why I am raising this point.
This conference featured talks by both a feminist (Elsa Shieder) and an anti-feminist (Karen Straughan). I actually really enjoyed Karen’s talk, because it was factual, well researched and reality based. You can read the transcript of Karen’s speech here, but, here is just from the intro:
A lot of you who are familiar with this topic might think that feminism’s war against the nuclear family began in the 1960s with the second wave. Prominent writers, activists and thought leaders of that era certainly seemed to have quite the bone to pick with men, the nuclear family and the institution of marriage.Robin Morgan, Catherine McKinnon, Linda Gordon, Sheila Cronin, Andrea Dworkin, and others all viciously attacked marriage above and beyond any other foundational institution of society.From Dworkin: “Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.”Gordon: “The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.”Cronin: “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”
When the United States was first constituted, it was left up to the states to determine who was eligible to vote. In most states, only property owners were eligible. In most states, that included women and free blacks, though a few states did limit the vote to white male property owners.
Now, however strongly cultural Marxism conditions us to react negatively to such ideas, let us not forget that white male property owners are precisely the people cultural Marxism exists to defeat.
So let us put prejudice aside and consider the matter on its merits.
If you want a well-run country, you want savvy voters. And if you want savvy voters, property owners are the people you seek.
Why? Because a fool and his money are soon separated.
If you’re savvy enough to raise the capital to buy some property, or savvy enough not to lose the property you inherited, then you’re savvy enough to vote.
In that regard, property owners of both sexes and all colours are effectively indistinguishable from each other.
John Lott and Lawrence Kenny have shown very clearly that that the real decline of America commenced about the same time as the 15th Amendment extended voting eligibility to women.
Specifically, in every state, they found the government growth curve to be a hockey-stick curve. And, in every state, the kink in the hockey stick happened exactly when women started voting.
The published paper is here: Lott Jr, John R, & Kenny, Lawrence W, 1999: How dramatically did women’s suffrage change the size and scope of government? Journal of Political Economy, 107(6):1163-1198.
Take a good look at figure 2 on page 1171 of the linked paper. It shows the per-capita size of government over a span of twenty years, centered on the time women started voting. For the first ten years, the size of governmnet remained roughly constant. Then women started voting. In the next ten years, the size of government doubled.
Recall that women who owned property were already eligible to vote, so the women who started voting at that time were mostly those who did not own property.
Bottom line: those who own property vote to limit government, and people who do not own property vote to make government bigger.
On a similar note, Vlad had recently sent me another video that explores the sexual dimorphism of our species, with particular emphasis on how male and female successful reproductive strategies differ from each other and how this necessarily leads to differing political strategies espoused by men and women:
Interesting thoughts, no?
What do YOU think?
March 24, 2016 at 20:02
This video is excellent!
In Also Sprach Zarathustra Nietzsche writes
Men shall be framed for war. And women, for the succour of warriors. All else is folly.
Cultural Marxists understand this very well, which is why they have foisted the exact opposite on us for the last century. They have very deliberately transformed the West into a matriarchy, which embraces female values in a secularized form of Great Mother worship.
In so doing, they have transformed men into modern Corybantes (eunuch priests of Cybele).
The Romans called them gallae, meaning hens. We call them metrosexuals.
In The Origins and History of Consciousness, Erich Neumann writes
All lovers of Mother Goddesses have certain features in common: they are all youths whose beauty and loveliness are as striking as their narcissism. They are delicate blossoms, symbolized by the myths as anemones, narcissi, hyacinths, or violets, which we, with our markedly masculine-patriarchal mentality, would more readily associate with young girls. The only thing we can say about these youths, whatever their names may be, is that they please the amorous goddess by their physical beauty. Apart from that they are, in contrast to the heroic figures of mythology, devoid of strength and character, lacking all individuality and initiative. They are, in every sense of the word, obliging boys whose narcissistic self-attraction is obvious.
Those flower-like boys are not sufficiently strong to resist and break the power of the Great Mother. They are more pets than lovers. The goddess, full of desire, chooses the boys for herself and rouses their sexuality. The initiative never comes from them; they are always the victims, dying like adorable flowers. The youth has at this stage no masculinity, no consciousness, no higher spiritual ego. He is narcissistically identified with his own male body and its distinguishing mark, the phallus. Not only does the Mother Goddess love him simply for his phallus, and, in castrating him, take possession of it to make herself fruitful, but he too is identified with the phallus and his fate is a phallic fate.
The castration threat makes its appearance with the Great Mother and is deadly. For her, loving, dying, and being emasculated are the same thing. Only the priests, at least in later times, escape being put to death because, by castrating themselves, they have voluntarily submitted to a symbolical death for her sake.
And this is why, today, women who take young boys as lovers are praised and called cougars, but men who take young girls as lovers are reviled and called perverts. And why every boy who acts like a boy in school is punished and drugged into submission, and every man who acts like a man is imprisoned if at all possible, or if not then at least vilified and banished from polite society.
No wonder a bunch of lice-ridden camel jockeys think they can take us on: they know we have let the women steal our balls.
If we don’t take them back – and damn soon, too – then we had better learn how to say “yes master” in Arabic.