>She is really pissed brings it up again today. Ask her to explain how it’s your fault. After dumping her. >I try explaining jews destroying the country and she doesn't give a fuck? Of course not. Women can’t comprehend these things. They have absolutely no business voting. Every nation that gave women the franchise fell within 150 years. >the country their offspring will grow up in is being destroyed by jews and they don't give a fuck Women, as a group, tend to vote for tyranny. Do they do this consciously? Or are they just naïve–believing the lies politicians tell them about free education, free health care, free child care, free food, free housing, and free everything? The majority of women are not evil people who wish to destroy the best development of human history. Though there are many genuinely evil people–and groups–who do wish to destroy and harm others, the vast majority of women are well intentioned, caring people. Unfortunately, good intentions don’t count for anything if you’re naïve–or ignorant–to the point that you’re objectively wrong. Facts trump feelings, in other words. If you don’t know truth, your incorrect actions, taken out of ignorance, will have the same effect as truly evil, malicious actions. The first and most obvious of these is money. Money is neither the “root of all evil” nor a tool of control by “evil capitalists.” It is a representation of your time. It is your life. Money is what you get in exchange for forfeiting a fraction of your finite life by engaging in labor. You then use money as a means to support yourself–keeping you alive. Does that sound evil to you? The freedom of speech is one thing. The freedom of religion is another. But the freedom to be entitled to the majority of the money you make is the most important freedom as it is your life. Women think nothing of voting in tyrants who want to take that from them or the men around them. A short aside on that point: men are net taxpayers. Only men. The government policies for which women vote are paid for entirely and solely by men. You’re aware of what the government takes from you every year, and you know that government spending and debt far outstrip GDP. In the United States, 70% of the annual budget goes to income redistribution–welfare. You know these things. The average Western female voter does not. She is stuck in “stage one” thinking where she: 1. Wants to solve a problem, but… 2. Doesn’t know how much it will cost, and… 3. Doesn’t care, because she never looked at the budget anyway because... 4. She thinks “the government has unlimited money” because… 5. She really doesn’t know the difference between a million and a trillion, so... 6. She votes for more government spending anyway. The problem is she literally does not realize that money just doesn’t come from “poof” out of nowhere. She doesn’t understand how when the government prints ever more currency to pay for its ballooning budget that she’s welcoming hyperinflation. After close to 150 million women voting for four generations, the US has a debt to GDP ratio of 110%. Government spending is 40% of that GDP. Our economy is on the brink of a depression worse than 1929. And the government is larger and more powerful than any in history. Women do this because it’s how they think. So how do they think? There is a commonality in the psychology of a majority of women–not understanding reciprocity, particularly when initiating a confrontation. A woman will avoid taking responsibility for her actions and then blame the person who wronged her. She will do or say whatever she pleases to a guy and then say, “If you hit me, you will go to jail.” Perhaps he doesn’t care and will still hit her. She will go to a stranger’s house and say, “If you touch me, I will call the cops.” Perhaps he doesn’t care and will still sexually assault her. This manifests culturally through the behavior of believing the world is “how it should be” instead of how it really is. For example, modern “liberated” women simultaneously champion the following ideas: “I should be able to wear what I want,” “I should be able to walk anywhere without being harassed,” and “A man should take care of these responsibilities for me.” Women choose not to take personal responsibility for their actions. They don’t want to be prevented from engaging in behaviors which have a greater statistical likelihood of causing them harm. They would rather put themselves in those situations and demand external protection from said harm. Women confide in the punishment–established by society–their abuser or assailant will face after the harm has taken place, rather than prevent the harm entirely in exchange for receiving less personal pleasure. This is one of the primary psychological differences in men and women. >“But it’s not all women!” No, but that’s also a fallacy. We’ve covered this in other topics, of course, but it bears repeating. “Not all [x] are like that!” is an irrelevancy to statistical reality. The NAXALT fallacy is an inversion of the overwhelming exception fallacy. Instead of a single bad thing overwhelming many good, NAXALT holds that a single good thing overwhelms all the bad. The use of “women” in this section accords with the statistical average and majority. Women’s mistakes are treated with a lighter hand–by both law and society–than men’s. This is the same way in which children are treated, both by law and by their parents, as they simply don’t know better. Belief in justice, for example, is a precept that relies upon one’s ability to look at the world rationally, dispassionately, and objectively. Often, however, women’s groups will forgo a sense of justice for the sake of female favoritism. If reality doesn’t conform to their wishes, they engage in tirades until society and the law are exhausted and acquiesce. This is the same way in which children behave. Women want to be treated like weak, vulnerable, helpless children when it’s convenient for them, but they then complain when they have fewer rights and privileges conferred to them by society. When a woman wants to be in “child mode,” a man is told he is “not being a gentleman/real man” if he tells her she has to be responsible for herself. What happens when the same men–who were demanded by law to protect women and be accountable for anything that happens thereto–decide to pander to a woman? If men walk on eggshells, be overly protective, lie to a woman to spare her feelings, or not give her a dangerous job, that’s when she changes from “child woman” into “adult woman” and says, “I’m a big girl.” “I don’t need no man.” “Why can’t guys be ‘honest with me’?” “Why can’t guys grow up?” “I can do anything a man can do.” “If a guy can do it, a girl can do it ‘better.’” “Guys are pigs.” “Why aren’t there more female construction workers?” “Why does the sign say ‘MEN working’?” “Why do men earn more (even though they work more)?” The reason there are fewer construction workers, by the way, is that fewer women take those jobs. Some they simply can’t do, biologically, and some they prefer not to do. They prefer to take jobs in the comfortable offices of the buildings that men build so they can use a computer that men designed to write articles about men being useless, how much women don’t need them, and how unfair it is that they “earn 30 cents less” than men (despite not doing so, which we will soon see). Then they look with scorn at the same men in their sweaty clothes and dirty boots who helped build the fancy restaurants, malls, and spas at which they relax. Then they write articles about how men don’t “man up” when men decide that marriage is a bad deal for them. A woman will try to feed a man humble pie by telling him “women are smarter than men” or “women are stronger than men” whenever he displays superior intelligence, strength, or acts too egotistic. But when a woman gets into trouble or hits a man and he allows her to figure out her own problems or hits her back, she is automatically “the weaker sex.” He had “no right” to hit her back and “should be ashamed” he let a lady do all that hard work by herself or didn’t offer her his seat or didn’t open the door for her. Speaking of women-only, the Western world is slowly slipping into matriarchy. Women-only parking, lanes, residences, restaurants, and gyms… but what of men-only equivalents? Don’t even think of a men-only anything. A men-only sport is sexist. Men-only clubs are being destroyed left and right. The Boy Scouts now allows girls to join. The Girl Scouts, however, is still girls-only. A men-only bathroom is chauvinistic (“transphobic,” they say). If women aren’t included in the activities of men, that’s “discrimination,” but women may have their own groups free from men. >“Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honor is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.” **~ Arthur Schopenhauer**; *On Women*