Feminism needs to go

The Western civilization has a reproductive problem. Bill Gates will tell you people in the West aren’t reproducing at a replacement rate or higher because they are economically developed, have excellent health care and all that, but I have a better explanation.

There are two reasons. First, they can’t afford to. Second, feminism.

The first reason is simple. Cost of living in a Western urban environment is so much higher than the historical parameters, it is simply unfeasible for a young couple to buy their own apartment or a house, pay all the bills and food, and raise a child. In order for them to be able to barely afford their own place, by rent or mortgage, they both have to work. If they both work, they can’t have children. So basically people in reproductive age are reduced to obligate wage-slavery until they are almost or fully past reproductive age. This is not conducive to reproduction, and thus the problem.

The second reason is more complicated, not because it’s really complicated, but because people are indoctrinated into assuming it without question. You see, we are being told that men and women are equal. If I tell you they are not, you will immediately come to all the hysterical conclusions you were indoctrinated to, but they really, really are not. Intellectually and emotionally they are different, but the differences are merely a combination of male and female traits that influence behavior, but those can be seen as equally good but different flavors of human. None of this is a problem, and if this were all there is, feminism would be fully justified in trying to pursue equality of sexes. Then there’s the physical difference. Women are significantly weaker than men. This disqualifies them from hard physical labor and jobs that require physical strength to either solve problems or avoid escalation of force, and if you try to pursue equality here, you will have serious problems. For instance, a male policeman can be selected to be physically imposing and strong, and he can solve most problems that require force with merely his presence, that will discourage disorderly and possibly drunk people from getting into even more trouble than they’re in already – basically, if you see a mean looking cop ordering you to stop a fight and go with him into the station, you are more likely to obey than if you’re facing a small, scrawny cop weaker than yourself, or a girl cop. It’s genetics. People, even drunk, can make very quick assessments of physical power based on what the opposition looks like. That’s what promoted survival in the past. People who made bad calls got killed. So, if you make female police officers, they won’t even be able to use batons successfully as a minor application of force, they will have to use guns. I have a hunch that’s why America had such a huge increase of police violence since women were made part of the force. They had to make safety-first rules of engagement, and they can’t rely on physical force to subdue disorderly people, they have to immediately escalate violence to the form a woman can successfully use, because they can’t have one set of rules for men and another for women, that wouldn’t pass. In the armed forces, the problems are similar: if you put women there, you basically have to change patterns of behavior of the entire armed forces, and not for the better. Contrary to what you’ve been told, diversity is not a strength, it’s a weakness. Unity is a strength. That is especially so in the armed forces. As for other physically demanding jobs, let’s get one thing straight. Those jobs are vanishing due to increased mechanization. There will be jobs that require a man’s strength, such as installing an AC unit on the roof, because most men can’t lift and successfully manipulate those, let alone women, and failure to do so will cause serious injury or death. However, a woman can use a front loader, fork lifter or a crane as well as a man. I would have to seriously think about the number of cases where my male strength advantage was really useful, in a sense that I couldn’t do something if I was female, and it’s mostly the extra height that was useful for grabbing things on shelves, and strength is mostly jar opening, which could be compensated for with a simple tool. In essence, humans didn’t get to be the top of the food chain because they were stronger than lions and tigers, but because they used tools. If the tools can give you an advantage over a lion or an elephant, they can surely compensate for the comparatively tiny difference in strength between human males and females. After all, with all the robotized factories in the future, the question is not whether men or women can better lift boxes, the question is who can write better code.

However, the real difference is reproduction, and that one is a deal breaker. Women bear children, they have the mammary glands necessary for feeding infants, and their child-bearing years are limited to young age, because they lose fertility exponentially as a function of time. For child-bearing, age is not “just a number”, and no, 40s aren’t the new 30s. With all the extension in human lifespan, the part that’s been extended is actually the old age; the reproductive age is biologically fixed and cannot be moved. Women have to have children before their 30s or they will have serious problems. That’s just how it is. Feminism tried to tell us it doesn’t matter, but it does, and because it matters we now face extinction, as a civilization, to be replaced by others who didn’t embrace feminism and all its ideas about how equality would be so wonderful it must be true. Something being wonderful or elegant doesn’t make it true. The Greeks had many elegant ideas about how the Universe works, and they were all false. Human equality is one of those ideas. However, unlike the concept of a geocentric Universe or everything being either a sphere or a circle because that would be mathematically most elegant, we as a civilization aren’t emotionally ready, or perhaps even mature enough to abandon equality. Personally, I have no problem with it. I have been surrounded by inequality for my entire life. There have always been people who could do something better than me – they could do sports, or play music, or something else I had no talent for. On the other hand, my thinking was so much better than an ordinary human’s, it’s not even funny. So, equality was never really something I gave much thought. Of course it doesn’t exist. What does exist, is that men are men, women are women, some people look better than others, some are smarter, some have additional skills, just accept it and deal with it in some acceptable manner. Have tall people, have them play basketball. Have smart people, let them solve difficult problems. Have strong people, have them install AC units or physically subdue rioters. That’s what civilization is about: not equality, but the ability to make things work for all kinds of people with their different traits. Not have too much diversity or everything will disintegrate, but have enough diversity so that there’s a place for warriors, poets, healers, priests and scientists. Don’t force everybody into a single mould, because if you try that, things get really nasty really quickly. One of those things that got nasty is the attempt to treat men and women equally.

Initially, we had separate educational systems for men and women. Then we simply erased the female-specific educational system, and shoe-horned women into the male-specific system, because feminism. This was followed by erasing every other female-specific thing in society and shoe-horning women into the male-specific version, and now apparently it’s time for female toilets to go, as well. Basically, what feminism consistently tried to do, since its inception, is to erase the female gender from existence. Feminism is a misnomer. It’s a movement that hates everything female about women and sees female emancipation as a removal of everything female. It consistently attempted to attain equality by erasing all inventions of civilization that were intended to accommodate for the specifics of the female gender and make things easier for women. And later, those revisions were made to seem like progress. In a few decades, removal of female bathrooms will be presented as a great victory against oppression and inequality. If you don’t think so, you underestimate the power of propaganda.

What we had before feminism is a society which was designed around gender differences, in order to accommodate for them and make everything work. This meant women got married young, they had babies in their fertile years, and their education was designed to accommodate for their femaleness. Today, this accommodation was removed, and we were indoctrinated to see it as progress. There are no female-specific schools today, only schools for boys that accept girls as well. Both sexes are intended to finish primary education, high school and college, and then enter the workforce. At 18, they are deemed too “immature” to have a family, and are expected to “settle down” first, by working into their 30s before even considering marriage and children. People who have children early are frowned upon. Women who marry early are frowned upon. There is strong social pressure mounted by feminists against women who decide not to play according to “female emancipation” rules designed to turn them into men with vaginas. “Housewife” is an immensely dirty and humiliating word today. Women who raise a family the way all women raised families before feminism are seen as “unemancipated”, meaning stupid, worthless, lazy, second-rate. Feminists strongly pressure women into obeying their narrative, because they know most women would choose against it if they were given a real choice. So, feminists deliberately made some choices unappealing. Women are encouraged in all ways to go against everything that created the Western civilization. And now, we are facing the consequence of extinction as a result. We will be replaced by Africans and Asians who don’t care about feminism and its nasty pecking order designed to humiliate “housewives” and extol the virtues of “successful women” with careers, trying to have their first child in her late 30s, or adopting. So, as much as feminists would try to tell you their activities resulted in nothing but great successes and victories for women, the truth is actually much nastier. The feminist path resulted in subversion of the foundations of our entire civilization, because if you attempt to eradicate differences between men and women, you basically attack history, culture, religion, and eventually science. You get women who are “emancipated” from raising their children by having to do menial work for strangers who are very seldom kind and generous, and the entire structure of civilization is modified to make it as difficult and as humiliating as possible for them to follow a traditional path. And those women are not happy, let me tell you that. They will give all the lip service to feminism and equality, but my wife tells me what they really think, behind closed doors, at the dance lessons she’s taking. Those “successful and emancipated” women in their 30s think their stellar careers just aren’t worth it, because they are reduced to trying to date someone when they should already be having their kids in high school, and they feel they’ve been screwed over, but they just didn’t think things through and understand that it was feminism that sold them a bullshit story. They were told that they will be emancipated by emulating men, because this story was invented by women who were either lesbian or transgender and always saw their emancipation in trying to be men. For normal women, however, this is far from being emancipatory. In fact, it’s the opposite. What’s emancipation for men – a successful career, for instance – means very little to a woman. Good luck trying to explain that to some lesbianic feminist who was checking whether she finally grew a penis well into her 20s.

So, we are faced with two choices. First, extinction of our civilization, and being replaced by Africans and Asians. Second, change things.

In order for us to change things we must first accept that they are now not working, and I feel this is where we have a problem, since it is quite likely that our entire population is so indoctrinated into believing that we’re doing things “properly”, that extinction might actually be more acceptable than admitting that we’ve been going in the wrong direction ever since the French revolution. Sure, it’s great for the economy to get two genders in the workforce for the price of one, but it was accomplished at the price of civilizational decay and collapse, and that’s not something I count as a success. Sure, women got to live in a feminist paradise, but they are statistically less happy the more feminism they get. I don’t count that as a success either.

The problem with feminism is that it is presented as an unequivocal success story for women, because it falsely claims credit for all the things that happened simultaneously with feminism, and also by painting a false picture of the situation that preceded feminism. As a result, it gives itself credit for things that have absolutely nothing to do with it, and, in a supremely deceptive sleight-of-hand, presents itself as savior of women.

So, let’s take a look at the things that happened simultaneously with feminism but are completely unrelated to it, and have contributed immensely to the well-being of women.

Microbial theory of disease, including vaccination, antibiotics and improvements in hygiene. Reduced mortality of women at childbirth and infant mortality by orders of magnitude. Absolutely nothing to do with feminism.

In-door plumbing. Nothing to do with feminism.

Electricity. Electric lighting, heating, appliances including iron, toaster, oven, microwave oven, dishwasher, washing machine, refrigeration, air conditioning. Nothing to do with feminism.

Petrochemical industry, including internal combustion engines. Improved transportation by orders of magnitude. Nothing to do with feminism.

Infrastructure, such as roads, railroads, shipping lanes, airports. Nothing to do with feminism.

Education. During the industrial revolution education greatly improved for both sexes, in direct correlation with additional wealth available. Primary education is obligatory in most countries. Nothing to do with feminism. The only thing feminism did was force girls into schools designed for boys.

Communication – telegraph, radio, TV, Internet, ability to have a mini-tablet with supercomputing power that’s connected to the global information network and everybody has it in their pocket. Nothing to do with feminism.

Advances in science – modern medical scanners such as NMRI, CT and PET, GPS network for geolocation, spaceflight enabling maintenance of a global satellite network. Nothing to do with feminism.

Voting rights – during the first world war, a general draft was introduced. Since all men were required to fight for their country, the idea was floated that limitations on voting rights should be lifted as well, according to the “no taxation without representation” principle. Essentially, if you get to be drafted into the military, you also get to vote. After that, it was “ok, let’s also give voting rights to women as well”. As hard as that might be for some to accept, voting rights for women also had nothing to do with feminism.

Basically, what feminism actually contributed to society is obligate participation of women in the workforce, because it reduced the price of labor by half so men alone now can’t financially support a family, at least in most cases. That’s what the feminist success story adds up to – it removed societal accommodations that made women’s lives easier, forced them to work outside the home and made it incredibly difficult for them to have a family. Feminism did almost as much to screw up women’s lives as Islam. At the same time, I struggle to find its single positive contribution, and as soon as I think I’ve found something, I think of the drawbacks. For instance, women weren’t allowed to do certain jobs, but then you stop to think why that was the case, and you understand that doing such a job properly would preclude being able to raise a family if you’re a woman. For instance, if something requires you to work all day, that’s fine if you’re a man, but if you’re a woman, who’s going to have children? Who’s going to raise them? Also, the often touted great GDP increase because of female participation in the workforce. Sounds great, until you realize how it’s calculated. If a woman is a “housewife”, her contributions aren’t calculated in the GDP. However, if she’s in the workforce, someone needs to watch her children while she works, so she needs a nanny, add nanny’s salary to the GDP. Kindergarten, add that to the GDP. She can’t tutor the kids if they have problems with maths, so add a tutor’s fee to the GDP. She can’t cook so she eats outside, add restaurant bill to the GDP. She can’t take care of the home so she hires a cleaner and a gardener, add that to the GDP. She also needs a car to go to work, so that’s more expenses that drive the economy. So basically she needs to work all day just to give all the earnings to all the people who get to live her life instead of her, and that’s supposedly emancipation. Yes, it is, if you always wanted to be a slave. Essentially, all those female contributions to the economy are self-cancelling and probably actually reduce the effectiveness of the civilization compared to what we would have without it, because don’t tell me that Saudi Arabia is the alternative to feminism. We didn’t have Saudi Arabia here in Europe before feminism. Before feminism, Victoria and Maria Theresa von Habsburg were the major politicians in Europe, Augusta Ada worked with Charles Babbage on his computer and in every case where it wasn’t awesome to be a woman, that’s because it wasn’t awesome to be human in general; no antibiotics, no vaccines, no electricity, no in-door plumbing, no cars, no communications, horse manure on the streets. Contrary to the claims of feminism, our Western civilization was never designed to oppress women. It was designed to accommodate for the differences between sexes and make everybody’s lives better. Sure, if you were a peasant woman, your life sucked, but so did life of your peasant husband. You died giving birth, he died behind a plough from heat and exhaustion. However, if you were a female member of the higher societal classes, your life was just as good as life of your male peers. Being a duchess was as awesome as being a duke. Remember, we’re not talking about Islamic countries. Islamic countries were always a shitty place to be a woman. We didn’t have Islam here in the west. In fact, we killed Muslims and it was a major point of pride here in Croatia. We killed Muslims so excellently, they didn’t get to invade the rest of Europe because of us. Killing Muslims was the main national sport. In Turkey, they probably still think we’re the worst people on Earth. 🙂 But that’s why our women had it so good here, and theirs got their clitoris cut off and/or got sold into slavery: there are civilizations that actually oppress women, and we successfully kept those out. Until women got the right to vote, and now they are voting to let them in, because compassion and emotions and shit.

So, now that I’m mostly done with diagnosis, I can prescribe therapy. Mind you, it can’t work while everybody thinks they are doing fine. However, we’re not doing fine, and eventually that will become clear to the majority, and then we need to be done with feminism and the feminists, and go back to where we were in the 19th century, and I don’t mean iron that uses hot coals, or horse carriages, or writing letters with goose feathers. I mean designing a civilization around the understanding that genders are different and that we need to make each gender’s life easier, in its respective role in life, while maintaining all the technological progress that we acquired. What that would look like, I don’t know. I can make a few recommendations, for instance education again needs to be gender-specific, but some things need to be common, for instance the languages, maths, science, rhetoric, philosophy, history, etc., but there need to be gender-specific subjects, like home-making, nutrition and pediatrics for girls, and survival training, shooting guns and martial arts for boys, so that they don’t turn faggots like they are today. Also, the society needs to accommodate for women’s child-bearing years, instead of forcing them into the workforce on the same schedule as men. Sure, I’d give everybody the option to do whatever, but guess what, if you made it possible for girls to have children between 18 and 25, and then return to college and enter the workforce if they want or financially need to do so, then by all means, have your careers, and you’ll actually be more successful because you won’t be biologically forced to leave the workforce in your 30s if you want to have children, or work and have children at the same time in which case your kids will turn completely fucked up. Introduce a concept of state-provided dowry for girls between 18 and 25 who want to get married and have children, instead of disrupting the workforce with the present concept of a maternity leave.

And that’s a feminist’s greatest fear: they know that they need to take that choice away from women, because if they don’t, it’s obvious what women would choose. Not all, of course, but a vast majority. Feminism needs to be understood for what it actually is: a worldview of lesbianic and transgendered women who actually want to be men, and is based on lies.

Greta Thunberg

There’s a hysterical, aggressive child out there with extreme media presence, and since she seems to be everywhere, I’m going to tell you what she is.

In ancient Greece, she would be a Maenad, raving about the greatness of Dionysus, telling everyone how they owe so much to him and how they need to worship him more and sacrifice to him more. Since a Maenad spewed out commonly accepted dogma, people awkwardly gave her lip service, fed her and sent her on her way.

In medieval Europe, she would be a “penitenziagite” religious fanatic, raving about how Jesus was crucified for all our sins and how we crucify him again every single day by committing new sins after we have been saved through his blood, and how we should repent, because the day of judgment is near, and we will all burn in hell for all eternity unless we do.

In Nazi Germany, she would be a member of the Hitlerjugend, praising the Führer, telling everybody what a great person he is, and how unworthy they are of such a blessing of destiny, and how much harder they must work and how they need to sacrifice more for the Homeland, to create the bright future for the Aryan race promised by the great Führer.

In communist Yugoslavia, she would be a young pioneer of Tito, telling everybody he’s the greatest son of our nations and nationalities, and that they are straying from the path he had shown to us, the path of brotherhood and unity, and that we need to apply ourselves hard to implement our socialist self-governing system in every aspect of our lives.

In an Islamic country, she would be Osama bin Laden, reciting Qur’an and telling everybody how to be a better Muslim and implement the teachings of Muhammad literally and without deviations, thus obeying the will of Allah and making the world as He intended.

In every single instance, she would be awkwardly praised or even publicly elevated as an example, because she embodies the collective guilt and pathology of the absurd beliefs everybody gives lip service to in public, while disregarding them on the actual real-life level, because they are nonsense. But you can’t publicly state they are nonsense, or counter-productive, because they are the public dogma, and since Socrates the punishment for going against public dogma has been nasty. So when some pompous, aggressive, ugly little shit starts yelling public dogma and asking for more compliance and submission, everybody wants to crush her underfoot like a cockroach that she is, but since she’s the manifestation and embodiment of the public dogma, followed by the priests who explain how she’s ideologically correct, you do what is right and proper for one to do in such circumstances when in a totalitarian state: you clap enthusiastically to show your political and ideological correctness, and prop her up for everybody to follow as a bright example, which of course feeds her ego with self-righteousness of her glorious path. However, when the ideology changes, as it invariably does, she’s something everybody is ashamed of, as she embodies their cowardice, compliance and obedience to complete bullshit.

What really makes me laugh is imagining a Maenad doing her self-righteous thing outside of the natural environment – a Greek Maenad inside North Korea, or a Nazi Maenad inside communist Yugoslavia, or Greta Thunberg the CO2 Maenad in Christian medieval Europe. Without the shield of dogma, such a little shit would be treated exactly as she deserves to be treated.


A birdie told me that Deutsche Bank took hold of 9M oz (around 280 metric tons) of silver in the last month or so.

My interpretation: they know what’s about to happen to the price of silver and they are trying to save themselves from the mess they are in due to their rotting fake paper assets. Basically, this gives additional weight to the hypothesis stating that gold is going up, and silver will rise until it reaches the material scarcity equilibrium with gold, around 1:9 ratio or something similar.

I’ve been buying silver like crazy for the past month. There are too many indicators for me to ignore them. Also, DB is in problems that are too acute for them to get into this as a matter of long-term strategy. They must expect something to happen quickly.


Why economy?

Why am I so preoccupied with economy lately, I’m sure some or all of you might ask. I thought about this, and this is what I came up with.

The way people imagine economy working is you have something of value to offer, other people have something of value to offer, you all trade goods and services and the one providing the most valuable goods and services in greatest quantities ends up with most money.

That’s not how it works. Sure, it works that way on the lowest tiers of economy, but as I went into it deeper I discovered other principles in action.

The way economy actually works is that people with swords tell you what is money, after they more-less grabbed the entirety of that resource for themselves. Then people with money tell you what has value, and what goods and services will make you rich, what will make you poor, and what will get you killed.

The foundation of the US Dollar isn’t gold, or oil, not even the mortgages. It’s the US military. You will use Dollar as money, or an aircraft carrier battle group will visit your country and introduce democracy. When you accept using USD in international trade, all your goods and services are valued against a resource controlled by the people with guns, who control the quantity of the resource in supply (basically can print as much of it as they want), and you have to trade for this resource pretending it actually has the value it trades for on the market, because aircraft carriers and democracy. The situation in the late stages of the Roman Empire was similar. Silver Denarius was debased so badly it was basically bronze with trace amounts of silver. The problem was, their military refused to be paid in that shit, so they had two currencies, one for paying the military and one for common usage, until the fall of Rome finally put everyone out of their misery. How Rome forced everybody to use shit currency instead of simply switching to something that actually has value? People with swords.

Pure, naked force defines what is money, and what you can get it for, on the fundamental levels of the economy. If people with swords tell you copper is money, that it’s the most valuable thing and the only thing you can trade for or you and your family will be killed, and that it’s ten times more valuable than gold, you will sell your gold for one tenth of its weight in copper and you’ll say “thank you, kind Sir”. They would tell you shit is money, but then you could produce it, so that wouldn’t work. They actually found something less valuable than shit to use as money, and that’s how we got the US Dollar.

Basically, money is defined through brute force, its acceptance is enforced under threat of murder, and you are a slave.

That’s what economy is, and that’s why I’m completely preoccupied with it. It is telling me the most fundamental things about this world, about its fundamental laws, and intents of its creator. It might literally be one of the most important things for one to learn, as important as the nature of God. Because if something is designed to forever keep you apart from God, and you are enslaved by it, you tell me what’s the most important thing there is.


How can you tell which country has the stronger economy?

Economy of scale 101: if you produce for a bigger market, you produce in greater quantities. This reduces production overheads per item, allowing you to have lower manufacturing costs per product. Also, it allows you to keep a lower profit margin per item while still earning more on the overall volume. This makes your product cheaper to the consumer, who will therefore prefer it, all else being the same.

Countries with bigger internal markets tend to have manufacturers who are producing for those bigger markets, and therefore have the lowest prices. When such big countries export to the smaller countries who don’t have such economies of scale, they can keep the prices so low, it completely suppresses the manufacturing in the smaller countries, because they cannot hope to be competitive with the technologically superior and cheaper results of strong competition on a big marketplace; it’s like introducing more highly evolved animals to some island that was geographically separated and shielded from the competition that produced better living things. In order to survive, a small country introduces tariffs to make the imported products more expensive and level the playing ground. The bigger country then complains internationally that free trade is great, freedom is wonderful, there should be no borders that separate people, and all other bullshit that is meant to increase pressure on weaker countries to remove tariffs and allow the invader’s products to dominate their markets and destroy their manufacturing industry. Once everyone’s manufacturing is destroyed, the prices will of course be raised.

I’ve been repeating for years that American whining about free borders and free trade has only one purpose, to pressure weaker countries into allowing America to flood their markets with American products, counting on the fact that nobody can retaliate and flood American markets with cheaper products because nobody can match American economy of scale, because they manufacture for a very competitive market of 300 M people. They didn’t really count on China because they saw it as basically their own offshore factory, with labor and location outsourced in an extension of American manufacturing sector’s effort to keep the prices down. What happened is of course that China learned how to make their own products even cheaper than the China-manufactured American products, while keeping the quality the same, or actually stepping it up, because where there’s manufacturing, there’s also experimentation and research that ends up evolving better technology.

That’s why Huawei is a problem for America. It is now actually a manufacturer of superior 5G technology that America cannot match. The roles have turned and now America is a technologically weaker country whose marketplace is to be conquered by a stronger country’s superior products. Also, a technologically superior country that controls the infrastructure can use said infrastructure for its own nefarious purposes if it so desires. America is used to being in that position, but as soon as it smelled the coffee and understood that China is going to replace it in this position, it started raising hell about unjust this and that and switching from a globalized free market paradigm to a “we must protect our small and weak country from stronger countries flooding our market with their products”. It’s really funny to watch.

It also explains why China is now rooting for free trade, no borders and broader international cooperation and other nonsense. It calculated that it has the technological upper hand and nobody can successfully compete with it on its own market, while it can out-compete anyone else. It’s like the osmotic pressure: you can have a porous membrane that allows two-way flow of liquid, but the liquid will always flow in the direction of lower pressure.

Trump’s statements that China is going to pay those tariffs and not the US citizens is of course a blatant lie. Of course the US citizens are going to pay those tariffs, that’s how tariffs are supposed to work. China is not going to reduce their prices for that amount, that’s impossible. The irony is, China will now benefit from all the open borders and free trade infrastructure that the Americans pushed for when they thought they will forever remain the dominant manufacturing and technological power, and they can’t just say it was all horseshit intended to collapse our borders, destroy our manufacturing sectors and make us American colonies. No, it will be “yellow man bad”.