Homeostasis Part I

“Men and women should have exactly equal legal reproductive rights.”

I’ve been saying this for at least 5 years. In that time, I have never heard an intelligent rebuttal to it. Not once. I’m going to attempt to do what none of my critics have been able to do thus far: articulate an intelligent counter response. If nothing else, I hope it will help my critics step their game up because the sheer boredom I feel when they try put together syllables is nearly as intolerable as the inherent injustice of their position. On a personal level, it’s easy to see why there have been no intelligent rejoinders to my stated position: How can you refute what I’ve said without looking like the unscrupulous scum bag that you are? To be clear, I have heard several responses to what I’ve said. What I’m saying is none of them have been intelligent. Let me recap the two most common responses:

“Men and women already have equal rights.”

That response is like beginning a conversation about mathematics with the assertion that 2+2 = 5. I try to simply block those people because there is literally nothing to be gained in conversing with them. They’re so remedial that they would have to study to be stupid. Conversing with then is like roasting a severely retarded kid. I mean, yeah, you can do it, but would she even truly understand how bad she’s being roasted? You’ll also find that people around you quickly get uncomfortable seeing you take apart the mentally handicapped, especially when they’re female. It’s too easy to make that the issue instead of the stupidity of what she’s saying.

When I first came across this idiotic response years ago, I first had to make sure they weren’t kidding. They weren’t. Some believed what they were saying; others knew they were lying. But all of them were very serious. Let me just briefly answer it even though it pains me to do it. If a woman elects not to be a parent through abortion or even after giving birth by giving up that child for adoption, what are the possible negative consequences imposed by the State? The answer is none. If a man decides he doesn’t want to be a parent anytime throughout the pregnancy or just after she gives birth, what are the possible legal consequences imposed by the State? If you cannot answer in the same way to both scenarios, please do not ever let the above quote escape your lips. If you believe the answer to both is the same, then I would refer you to your nearest family court or DFACS. If that requires too much effort, you can literally find as many cases as you like on YouTube of men who never wanted to be fathers dragged into court, threatened with imprisonment, and turned into human batteries like in The Matrix to financially power a woman’s unilateral reproductive choices.

Here’s one example of many.

To pretend not to see the glaring differences between how men and women are treated under the law with regard to parental self-determination requires you to be so blind to the truth that I wouldn’t trust you to do anything that matters to me. If you are the one fulfilling my fast food order, I need the supervisor to check your work. I trust you to do absolutely nothing properly and I know you have no moral compass.

Here’s the other common response:

“He should’ve wore a condom.”

The above statement is often quickly and summarily dismissed when presented back to the speaker as a reason to eliminate all abortion rights for women. After all, if she didn’t want to have children, she should’ve used a (female) condom, right? Setting that aside, what they are saying is men can decide up to sex if they want to be a parent and women can decide nearly a year after sex if they want to be a parent. Read my opening thesis again and this time with a dictionary so you can look up each word. There are other slight variations of the above responses, but they’re all equally terrible. My thesis is irrefutable from a personal, ethical, standpoint.  And yet, the march towards justice is always a slow, arduous one at best.  At worst, it is, perhaps, a march with no destination in sight.  But why? Why does it take so long for so many people to embrace what’s morally correct? The short answer is because most people are not moral beings. For most, morality is simply a tool of persuasion. It doesn’t stand independent of them and their actions; rather, their “morality” is an extension of themselves and their belief system. In other words, there are no objective moral standards for them. This is why appealing to morality is typically a fruitless endeavor. They never believe they are wrong. From a personal, ethical, standpoint, there is absolutely no way to justify the difference in treatment between men and women with regard to reproductive rights. In order to understand why one might justify the mistreatment of men, you have to understand the guiding principle of this county.

“This country was founded and continues to run on the economics of social cohesion.”

In other words, it has to keep people in their place. This country would cease to exist if all people were treated fairly. The United States was founded on the backs of black people. We made this county possible. When industrialization coupled with increasing social, political and economic pressure from both inside and outside the county made slavery less profitable, a new paradigm was introduced. Instead of outright chattel slavery, what followed was Jim Crow and mass incarceration which approximates slavery while simultaneously obfuscating the moral issue and lessening some of those internal and external pressures. Some might feel some type of way about enslaving someone who did nothing wrong, but it’s OK to enslave a criminal because they earned that punishment, right? Queue the 13th amendment. There are articles from all over the country that document the predatory behavior of police and the criminal justice system against black people.

Here’s one example of many.

What they are doing is fleecing those least able to defend themselves to fill county coffers. Industrialization made fewer people necessary so part of the population (black men in particular) were converted to a product to be warehoused by the next level up in our racial and economic caste system(black women and poor whites). When a body is starving it starts to devour itself. Well, black people have been particularly nutritious for this county, but even that won’t be enough as we see the continued commoditization of communities. It starts with us, but it won’t stop there. Make no mistake that many cities would have already declared bankruptcy or, more accurately, been unable to deny it were it not for the continuing sacrifice of its most vulnerable members, namely us.  Of course, it’s inevitable that some others will get caught up in the net. If they could save the Union without sacrificing one white person they would, but there is an unavoidable cost of doing business. And that cost is going to go up over time. More and more of your unintended targets are going to get caught up.

Black people are the designated sacrificial lambs, but men are also considered expendable by the State and most women. In this way, black men are the only example of a doubly oppressed people to ever exist in the history of the world. Let me be careful to distinguish between our treatment as black people and our treatment as men. Our treatment as black people has been this county’s original and never ending sin. Our treatment as men worsens that treatment. It is a compounding factor. Both are rooted in the economics of social cohesion. We all have our gated communities, don’t we? It’s hard to get inside the white…right one and hard to get out of the wrong one. In any case, I’m going to focus on the gender aspect in this blog, but understand this a secondary issue, a compounding factor. Race is the primary issue.

Now that I’ve said that, let’s get to it. There’s a reason why paternity fraud is allowed to run rampant. On its surface, how can you justify naming someone the father without any evidence at all? Could you imagine that being the case for any other legal situation? Black men can, but this blog isn’t about that. Can you logically justify naming someone the father of a child with absolutely no evidence that he even met the woman? In paternity cases, all a woman has to do is come down to the courthouse with the name and an address. The courts send up a smoke signal or put a message in a bottle and toss it into the ocean. If you don’t respond by whatever arbitrary date they select, you are the father. How do you justify that? The answer is you can’t; yet, it goes on every day.  But why?  Here’s where I will provide a rationale that my enemies can use to make themselves slightly more interesting to me and others.

Imagine if you had to have prove that a man fathered a child. You would have to find a way to get that man into court and get him to take a paternity test. It could take months or even years. And, in that time, the ultimate consumers that are women and their children would still be consuming resources. You think your city is bankrupt now? They wouldn’t be able to pay benefits. They would have to either raise taxes and/or cut benefits. Eventually staff would lose their jobs. You don’t need as many family courts, DFACS, jails, CO’s or the ancillary personnel and services that feed into it if you aren’t imprisoning men at the same rate that you can under the current system. More people out of work would result in an increase in crime. And I’m talking about real crime, not the fabricated crimes black people get charged with. Sorry, I’m spilling back over into the racial aspect again. I’ll focus on that in my next entry. In any case, do you see how pulling on this one little string of establishing paternity could end an already decaying society? And that’s a minor thing.

A simple answer to the problem would be to make DNA testing mandatory. Well, you run into the same problem as above. Women with a higher body county than Killmonger are increasingly the norm. How many DNA tests do you want to pay for? And while you’re paying for those tests, she and her children are still consuming resources, right? You would be burdening a system already at the breaking point. The real reason why they haven’t made paternity testing mandatory yet is because they haven’t found a way to properly monetize it. It’s still far more effective to simply take any man with a pulse and harness him for the purpose of supporting women and children. But trust and believe when they do find a way to properly monetize the process we may see a paradigm shift yet again all under the guise of justice and fairness. It will be another opportunity to obfuscate the moral issue and lessen some of the pressure caused by Mgtows, Redpillers, etc. It will then take another generation or several to see through the new smoke screen covering up the same old predicament. Maybe in the future they will have DNA profiles where they can tell, based on your genetic profile, what type of things you might be interested in. If you have a genetic predisposition to sweets or impulsive behavior or salt or whatever, that may be very useful information to corporations looking to sell you products as they tailor their goods and services from particular demographics down to particular people. The bottom line is there’s always a bottom line and it must be met or things start to fall apart. Giving men reproductive rights would negatively affect the bottom line.

If you give men the same reproductive rights as women, society would collapse in months and I’m being generous with that timeline. Like with an attempt to end paternity fraud, there would be a lot of unintended or unforeseen consequences. You would end up with a significant number of men who would financially abort because they aren’t financially ready or responsible enough to be parents which, as far as reasons go, are better than any women are asked to give when they decide to have an abortion or give up a child for adoption. You would have a glut of women and children still requesting aid with no way for the government to recoup that aid. The women haven’t been properly socialized to take responsibility for their actions so they wouldn’t start practicing greater reproductive responsibility until after a good portion of them and their children were prostituting themselves and/or starving in the streets with no help coming. You ready to see young women holding up pieces of cardboard at each exit like homeless vets? I know women aren’t and neither are many otherwise red pill or rational men. Those feral children and their prostitute mothers would be running loose in the streets. To understand what that looks like, just imagine your modern day ghetto but much worse and constantly expanding. This is what societal collapse looks like. Instead of that, it is far better to deprive men, black men in particular, of what should be basic human rights. And that’s why men and women can’t have equal rights. It would be the end of society as we understand it. The liars and other women don’t usually think too deeply about why they say what they say. They just like having power with no responsibility and will do anything to keep it so they rehash the kind of drivel I quoted from my critics at the very beginning. The smartest ones probably suspect the things I’ve said, but they don’t have the courage to think about it deeply and confess what they find. Well, I’ve done it for you.

You’re welcome.