With the overturning of Roe v. Wade stateside, many are asking many questions, many of which concern women’s so-called rights in the name of reproduction. Whether you think birth begins at conception or isn’t a human until birth, whether the state will move in to giving women benefits for having families (they likely won’t) or whether we are entering a new dark age where there is no place for a woman except the home and household. However, overseas, in the Netherlands, home of brothels and marijuana cafes, one would expect to find a den of iniquity and sin and vice. But they’re already one step ahead of the game in a strange, almost unthinkable way.
In the Netherlands, if you are unable to engage in consensual relations with someone, they, by their own laws, believe you are on the same level as someone who struggles with day to day living, something stateside would be considered incorrigible to think about. One of the many pitfalls with sexual selection is that its primarily the choice of the woman whether genes will rise to the cream of the crop or sink to the floor of the earth, traits get passed down solely by female choice. I have written about this subject before but it pays to restate it again.
Why is this the case? If we’re going into a legal direction, why are men not guaranteed a “right to reproduce” like women, short of calling it murder, given a “right to choose”. This is something many people would rather not discuss as its always been a given that eugenics was primarily driven by whatever a woman, by her own admission, sought out to select from the myriad of genetic material available to her by competing males. But why should we continue the charade of men having to turn against one another just for a crumb of sex? The logical route, since we have gone throughout history basically letting this be the “iron law of the land” and look where it got us. The fairer sex contributed little to the building of civilization, be it laws, scientific discovery, or exploration of new lands and building of new technologies and only provided civilization with its inhabitants, just to turn around and demand equal treatment, which led to voting rights, which led to the sexual revolution, which led to bra burning, and then, eventually hook up culture and the whole #metoo nonsense which put many an innocent man behind bars, why should we just let this stand?
There is not a single statue in Weimerica saying I have a right to engage in relations with women, that I’m either not tall enough, good looking enough, charismatic enough, or whatever dumb excuse broads have dreamed at this point. No, I call upon all men to protest that if women have been able to do something which not only is worse, and involves another life in the mixture, that I should be able to select what women will carry on “my” genes, and I only ask for the most eloquent, astounding females to honor that request. Because of all this talk about “hooman rights” and related nonsense that Carl Schmitt mostly famously stood against invoking its name, that it should be our turn, as men, to not run the risk of losing the genetic rat race against other men and join together, to “seize the means of reproduction” and declare that, we too, should not have to lose our “choice” in making sure we’re not raising some other man’s child or end up without passing on something like our intellect, or charisma, or knowledge just because we’re not “tall enough” “strong enough” or “smart enough”. Enough is enough, every one of my fellow males deserve to be happy, contended men who can look forward to making sure his genetics are equally as valued as someone who is “chad” or whatever lingo the manosphere is using these days. Because I hate to see a man who is miserable because no one loves him or cherishes his existence because his genes weren’t optimal for the rising, unrealistic, monkey-branching standards of the modern western woman.
In the Netherlands, if you are unable to engage in consensual relations with someone, they, by their own laws, believe you are on the same level as someone who struggles with day to day living, something stateside would be considered incorrigible to think about. One of the many pitfalls with sexual selection is that its primarily the choice of the woman whether genes will rise to the cream of the crop or sink to the floor of the earth, traits get passed down solely by female choice. I have written about this subject before but it pays to restate it again.
Why is this the case? If we’re going into a legal direction, why are men not guaranteed a “right to reproduce” like women, short of calling it murder, given a “right to choose”. This is something many people would rather not discuss as its always been a given that eugenics was primarily driven by whatever a woman, by her own admission, sought out to select from the myriad of genetic material available to her by competing males. But why should we continue the charade of men having to turn against one another just for a crumb of sex? The logical route, since we have gone throughout history basically letting this be the “iron law of the land” and look where it got us. The fairer sex contributed little to the building of civilization, be it laws, scientific discovery, or exploration of new lands and building of new technologies and only provided civilization with its inhabitants, just to turn around and demand equal treatment, which led to voting rights, which led to the sexual revolution, which led to bra burning, and then, eventually hook up culture and the whole #metoo nonsense which put many an innocent man behind bars, why should we just let this stand?
There is not a single statue in Weimerica saying I have a right to engage in relations with women, that I’m either not tall enough, good looking enough, charismatic enough, or whatever dumb excuse broads have dreamed at this point. No, I call upon all men to protest that if women have been able to do something which not only is worse, and involves another life in the mixture, that I should be able to select what women will carry on “my” genes, and I only ask for the most eloquent, astounding females to honor that request. Because of all this talk about “hooman rights” and related nonsense that Carl Schmitt mostly famously stood against invoking its name, that it should be our turn, as men, to not run the risk of losing the genetic rat race against other men and join together, to “seize the means of reproduction” and declare that, we too, should not have to lose our “choice” in making sure we’re not raising some other man’s child or end up without passing on something like our intellect, or charisma, or knowledge just because we’re not “tall enough” “strong enough” or “smart enough”. Enough is enough, every one of my fellow males deserve to be happy, contended men who can look forward to making sure his genetics are equally as valued as someone who is “chad” or whatever lingo the manosphere is using these days. Because I hate to see a man who is miserable because no one loves him or cherishes his existence because his genes weren’t optimal for the rising, unrealistic, monkey-branching standards of the modern western woman.
