Is there any reason for the state to not give foid to every man?
Foid's relatives wouldn't be a problem since in marxism-rodgerism foids are taken to the government found camps just after the birth.
Foids fighting back wouldn't be a problem since they would've removed eyes, tongues and most of muscles, so they couldn't even punch.
The general population would be much happier, since the lies of foids couldn't be used against nonchads.
There would also be no inceldom.
With given foids just for them, many men would be constantly loyal to the state.
Cancer that foids are couldn't longer backstab the state with their hypergamy.
Central planing of childbirth would make demographics much better.
Are there any cons? Don't try to come with "human rights" that are "owed" to everybody. There's no such a thing as "being owed", if somebody say people are "owed" rights this would imply there's somebody to make them i.e. God. If I would refuse his existence, it would mean that all humans have natural liberty either for everything or for nothing. In second case I should consider every act, even such as breathing, as injustice, what makes this concept moronic. If I accept the first case, everything is allowed to man from nature. It means, that without a contract (agreement) with another man there could not be any injustice in their deeds against each other. Thus, without the social contract, which was broken, there are no tidings for liberties of nonchads, therefore, if the only right that punish nonchads is based on strenght and if I was to consider such strenght-based law a good thing, the inobedience towards the laws that banish their liberties is an even better thing, since they used the same strength-based right to overpower previous lawmaker. Thus foids being graped or killed isn't injustice, foids aren't owed life nor "autonomy".
Foid's relatives wouldn't be a problem since in marxism-rodgerism foids are taken to the government found camps just after the birth.
Foids fighting back wouldn't be a problem since they would've removed eyes, tongues and most of muscles, so they couldn't even punch.
The general population would be much happier, since the lies of foids couldn't be used against nonchads.
There would also be no inceldom.
With given foids just for them, many men would be constantly loyal to the state.
Cancer that foids are couldn't longer backstab the state with their hypergamy.
Central planing of childbirth would make demographics much better.
Are there any cons? Don't try to come with "human rights" that are "owed" to everybody. There's no such a thing as "being owed", if somebody say people are "owed" rights this would imply there's somebody to make them i.e. God. If I would refuse his existence, it would mean that all humans have natural liberty either for everything or for nothing. In second case I should consider every act, even such as breathing, as injustice, what makes this concept moronic. If I accept the first case, everything is allowed to man from nature. It means, that without a contract (agreement) with another man there could not be any injustice in their deeds against each other. Thus, without the social contract, which was broken, there are no tidings for liberties of nonchads, therefore, if the only right that punish nonchads is based on strenght and if I was to consider such strenght-based law a good thing, the inobedience towards the laws that banish their liberties is an even better thing, since they used the same strength-based right to overpower previous lawmaker. Thus foids being graped or killed isn't injustice, foids aren't owed life nor "autonomy".
Last edited:
