Egregoros

I have a coherent and internally-consistent theory of what has happened to us, from which I’ll pull a few salient bullet points.

•women vote to redistribute male production away from men and toward themselves. This is both direct, in terms of welfare and social spending, and opportunities, such as equal opportunity laws. With those opportunities, they enter the workforce and displace men directly. By taxing away these male products and socializing them, a woman’s need to choose one man falls precipitously.

Without the incentive to be manly, men won’t be.

•women vote to reduce the agency of men to act in male ways to affect the world. Mild corrective violence, and even hurty words, are outlawed. Only female ways of behavior are permitted. Men who act like women are more likely to get ahead. Men who act like men are shunned by this new supermajority of feminine culture.

•with the advent of no-fault divorce and strict DV laws interpreted liberally, a man cannot guarantee that committing to a woman will be fruitful, peaceful, or safe. Likewise, any divorce will likely result in the man getting divorce raped financially and socially.

•with the overwhelming wave of brown immigration, a huge boon to women as they are now subject to increased sexual selection, the men who are at the margins of this new regime find greater competition for resources and mates. Again, legislation favoring the savage hedges out the native man from even that which he would nominally be entitled to.

•at the same time, the dramatic increase in population coupled with the shrinking family size means a catastrophic increase in the demand for housing and transportation. Rents are too damn high.

•finally, the unlimited quantitative easing erodes the buying and saving power of those who are left.

At some point, being a hard man doing hard things is just masochism. Mise well work the bare minimum and drown in video games, sports book, marihuana and porn.

And I haven’t even cracked the precipitous decline in the value of the average woman.

I would suggest also the element of having a complex financial system, and in particular the central bank.

Before 1913, each bank issued its own money, and that worked as long as each bank had enough gold to back it up. If they ran out of gold then they were bankrupt and went out of business, so their printing was restrained.

After 1913, the central bank issued a common money and it was not backed by gold (caveats abound, but people in the US could not demand redemption for gold so it was essentially NOT backed).

Instead, the printing was restrained by Inflation Targets. If they printed too much money, prices would go up too much, so their printing was restrained.

But in this difference is the devil. Because once inflation targets became the goal, then the field of Economics was developed to study it, and people were hired to figure out how to reduce it.

> Convince people to stop eating butter and eat oil instead.

Maybe bad for their health, but oil is cheaper, and if people eat cheaper food then there's "less inflation", so the government can print more money.

Everybody loves printing money. When they print money, the stock market goes up, more business open and there's more jobs. People are happy and politicians get re-elected.

Then they go back to the economists again and say "how can we reduce inflation?"

> Encourage women to join the workforce. More workers will depress wages, which will make inflation less.

> But, without families the nation will slowly die!

> You asked, I answered. If you want to reduce inflation, encourage women to join the workforce.

And so it goes... The quest to reduce inflation eventually results in the destruction of every thing that is beautiful and worthwhile in this world.

> The middle class is buying too much stuff, it's driving up inflation. Make them poorer. Sell crack on the streets so that they don't have money to buy steak dinners, then the steak dinners will stay cheap because they won't be getting bought up.

> Import 100 million Indians who will work for one dollar per day because then wages will stop going up so much.

And so on until the nation eventually collapses. As did Rome, so does America.

> issued by an enemy tribe, consumed by the desire to eliminate us

I don't wanna let Jews off the hook for their actual shenanigans, but I also want to push back against oversimplification because casting this as a pure race war is "too comfortable" and will lead to wrong conclusions.

This "consumed by the desire to eliminate us" is objectively true of some Jews - particularly some of the Epstein people. But it's also true of some people that are not considered Jews. It was the Bush family that dumped crack and heroin on America, and they must never be allowed to slither away from that.

What we know is that of the 11 guys at Jekyll Island, only one was known to be a Jew. You can of course hypothesize that The Rothschilds were behind everything and everyone - and people do, but the amount of logical leaps that you need to make in order to make this square are revealing of its nature as a psychological crutch.

And then you have countries like Poland, Romania, Iran and so on, which have essentially no Jews. But they still manage to come up with central banking. Conversely, you have Switzerland which is home to lots of Jews - but only abandoned the gold standard as recently as the 1970s. Finally you have Israel, which one would expect to have no internal tribal warfare, and yet it has a central bank.

So I think the correct framing is that Jews and immigrants ARE less likely to be loyal to their home country than legacy families. And some super-wealthy people ARE insanely psychopathic. But above all else, Weak Men Make Hard Times, and the blame for that cannot be scapegoated.

Are you familiar with the short video Rules for Rulers?

In it, the narrator lays out the game theoretical reason why benevolent dictatorships do not actually exist in the world.

In dictatorships, power is taken by force, and you must spend all of the public treasury buying the loyalty of those who project that force - or by replaced by coup.

In democracy, power is taken by votes, and you must spend all of the public treasury on buying them - or be replaced by election.

But in either case, those who will not allocate all of the treasure to buying support will find themselves replaced by those that will.

And when "all of the treasure" means all of the money that can be printed - it means EVERY country will print itself into a death spiral, without exception.

---

And this is what I mean when I say that scapegoating the Jews will take you to the wrong conclusion.

If you expel the Jews but keep the money printer - you will find yourself in the exact same position they're in. You can print and sell out the soul of your country, or you can refuse and be replaced.