The worst and most prolonged psychological torture you can inflict on a woman is to convince her she's as good as any man. This torture is lifelong, unendurable, and once you set up the initial conditions, the pain becomes self-inflicted. You see, women are genetically programmed for two things. First, to raise children. Second, to select a man who is superior to her to bear those children for. Not equal. Certainly not lesser. Superior. There is no point in arguing about this. It is obviously true to anyone who looks around himself without blinders made of wishful thinking. There is no point in becoming angry at me or anyone else about this. It is true whether I wish it to be or not, and whether you wish it to be or not. There is no point in trying to talk women out of this. It is not a part of their culture or education. It is not an individual character flaw in them. It is part of their genetic recipe. Therefore, if you convince a woman she is equal to most men, she will only be willing to bear children to a small percentage of exceptional men. If you convince her that she is the equal of any man, she will be unwilling to start a family with anyone. And she will remain genetically programmed to do so. When I was a child, and again when I was a young man, in high school and college, I noticed that the older adults who staffed the education system seemed to think "girls' self-esteem" was our most precious resource, perhaps because it's good for stable nuclear fusion containment, or as a growth medium for cancer-curing fruit trees. Well, I sure hope they're making good progress on that nuclear fusion thing, because it sure is hard on the women they grow up into. Perhaps they thought having a high self-esteem is the same as feeling good. Perhaps they thought half of humanity's potential Newtons, Einsteins, and Da Vincis were hidden among the ranks of the fair sex, waiting to be unlocked by "Project Self Esteem", and no, I did not make that name up. Perhaps they were retarded. They did, after all, work for the government. Self-esteem is not being happy. Self-esteem is not even feeling good. Self-esteem is how awesome you think you are. And if you think you're awesome, when you're mediocre, then you're miserable, because everyone around you treats you a whole lot worse than you think you deserve. High self-esteem is great for young men. It makes them take risks. And to thrive men need to take risks, and achieve things, for many reasons, one of which is that women only mate up. High self-esteem is not so good for young women. It doesn't get them anything they wouldn't have already had. It just makes them less happy with it. Sure, there's such a thing as self-esteem too low, but if a woman can look you in the eye, instead of in the shoes, when she talks to you, she's pretty much good to go. Anything more than that is superfluous at best, and at worst... well, eyeball the video for a moment and you'll see what I mean. But the misery isn't just personal. This is the fertility crisis in a nutshell. We, Western civilization, have spent the past five or six decades telling little boys that they are worthless sacks of protoplasm, and telling little girls that the sun shines out of their collective girl parts. And look what's happened. The fertility crisis is stupidly simple. When you elevate the status of women by giving them a greater share of respect, and of society's wealth, which is created by men, they refuse to have children. You can reverse this by allowing men to keep the wealth they create, instead of giving it to women. Then they will give it to women themselves, but the women will look up to them, and there will be children again. During the Trump administration so far, 94% of new job went to women. This is not natural or organic. This doesn't happen on its own. This is not happening because women are "crushing it". Women are the same women they have always been, risk averse, clustered around average intelligence, prone to wait for others to lead. This is not an accident. This is spin on the ball. Women vote. And pandering is an easy way to get those votes. But give a moderately pretty one a single email job at a Silicon Valley startup, and pretty soon she thinks that the father of her children should be a "post-economic" jet-setter with the body of a professional athlete who ticks all the boxes her therapist thinks are important. And she thinks she can pick him off a shelf at age 35. This is a vote, conscious or not, willing or not, for the extinction of humanity. Throughout the genetic history of humanity, approximately 80% of women had children, as opposed to 37% of men. Those numbers don't lie. Most men either weren't exceptional enough to breed, or died trying to become exceptional enough to breed. Women just had to not be in the bottom quintile. Not to be horrible, or horribly unlucky. This bears out what we already know. And this is why Western civilization told women they were the weaker sex, the dumber sex, the more fragile sex. Why Eve was said to made to serve Adam. Because this preserved civilization and the species. Women were actually happier that way, because women don't want to win. They want a winner. But even if it didn't, what choice would we have? The only nations and tribes in the world which are still breeding are the ones where women are still of low status. And if you try to replace Westerners with them, try to make them into Westerners, not only will you fail, but even if you succeed, they'll stop breeding, too. And we know now why there are no matriarchies. Its not because men have superior strength, and enslaved women with violence. It's because matriarchies don't breed. Humans are an animal, like any other animal. Every animal has mating rituals, and if those rituals can't be conducted, there will be no next generation. This is why some animals can be bred in zoos, and others cannot. We know what's wrong. We just lack the political will to fix it. Because it's "not fair". Well, of course it's not fair. But look around you. Look at the universe. Look at history. Whatever made you expect that things would be fair?

Of course capitalism isn't natural, you incomplete set of plastic picnic utensils. What's natural is theft, robbery, and murder. What's natural is anarchy, chaos, the rape of the weak by the strong, and nature red in tooth and claw. The free market, which you call "capitalism", is not called "free" because everyone is free to do whatever they want. Because what a lot of people want to do is steal. You'll know which ones by the hammer and sickle logo they draw on things. No, the free market is called free because it is freed from coercion and violence. And of course it was spread by violence, you factory-defective lawn flamingo. Because it was spread by hanging all the bandits and robbers, and if hangings aren't violence I don't know what is. And of course it's maintained by coercion, you British pub food connoisseur. If you don't coerce thieves not to steal, then they will steal everything you build faster than than you can build it. You have to use violence to stop the violent, and coerce the coercers not to coerce. And of course it's maintained by the superficial facade of liberal democracy, you Vogon poetry appreciator. The global average citizen is a mentally retarded third-world savage with less emotional self-control than my cat. If we let them have candidates that truly represented their agenda, then every useful thing humanity has built for the last twelve thousand years would be torn down in a week to buy them more party drugs. Followed by every woman being raped to death, and then uncomprehending starvation as they slowly and painfully learned that grocery stores don't spontaneously spawn food pickups, like in video games. Jesus Christ, woman, you're talking about a species that evolved to live in hominid tribes of 100 apes, and throw rocks at zebras. In modern civilization, the so-called "average" person is so far out of his depth that the fish have lights on their noses. And the more complex and sophisticated civilization gets, the more investments in the future that we need to protect, so that the retarded monkeys don't steal them all to buy more vodka and cigarettes. Yeah, sure, sometimes capitalist systems end up defending property that someone's great-grandfather stole. But so fucking what? You think communism is gonna fix that? You think communism is gonna bring justice? Communist nations can't afford justice. They can't even manage to feed themselves half the time. Get back to us when you've mastered the agricultural revolution, we've only been waiting since the beginning of recorded time. The trick is to put the seeds in the dirt, guys.