Essay:Degeneracy is when you elevate the inferior over the superior

From Nathania, Nathan Larson's bliki
Jump to: navigation, search

Any time you elevate the inferior over the superior, it causes degeneration by propagating what's bad and destroying what's good.

So for example, if you wife up a thot, when you could have wifed up a young virgin, that's degenerate because it encourages girls to follow their impulse to become thots. The young virgin will find herself without a husband (because you wifed up a thot instead of her), and decide to become a thot herself since she has nothing better to do. Meanwhile, the thot you wifed up will tell younger girls, "Go ahead and become a thot, because there'll be a man waiting to wife you up when you're done riding the carousel. It worked for me."

One might ask, "Why would a man marry a thot instead of a young virgin?" It happens all the time. I worked at a place where the Director of Purchasing had a going-away party at which he told a story about how the HR Director (female, of course) encouraged him to marry a lawyer chick he was dating. (He was moving to a different state to be with her, hence the going-away party; not a good sign that he was already handing in his balls from the outset by prioritizing her career over his.) She probably did not remain a virgin all through college and law school. Also, even if she did, she wasted her years of peak fertility on school and career instead of having kids, which is degenerate, because she probably had above-average intelligence but didn't pass it down to a bunch of offspring. Instead, those with less intelligence will probably end up having a bunch of kids, like in _Idiocracy_. Hitler writes:

>It is in the interest of all to assure men of creative brains a decisive influence and facilitate their work. This common interest is surely not served by allowing the multitude to rule, for they are not capable of thinking nor are they efficient and in no case whatsoever can they be said to be gifted. Only those should rule who have the natural temperament and gifts of leadership. . . . . The destructive workings of Judaism in different parts of the national body can be ascribed fundamentally to the persistent Jewish efforts at undermining the importance of personality among the nations that are their hosts and, in place of personality, substituting the domination of the masses. The constructive principle of Aryan humanity is thus displaced by the destructive principle of the Jews, They become the ‘ferment of decomposition’ among nations and races and, in a broad sense, the wreckers of human civilization.

The reason the Jews' Marxism was so destructive was that it was all about elevating the inferior masses over superior individuals. Feminism too is destructive because it elevates a sex that is less suited for leadership to a position of superiority over men. What is supposed to happen is that men compete with one another for power and then the powerful men get their choice of mates. This is eugenic because the best men will be paired with the best women, and produce lots of high-quality offspring. The man should have authority over his wife, since trying to run a household as a democracy produces some of the same problems that Hitler identified in parliamentary systems: >Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered. Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success?

A woman, if allowed an equal say in running a household, will prevent her husband from leading effectively, and then blame him when the results are poor. He will not have a chance to prove that he knows best, because she will refuse to cooperate with his plans. Just like how under Marxism, the superior individual has to devote his resources to the central planners' schemes, which will lead to mass poverty and famine, the divorced husband has to devote his resources (including his children) to his ex-wife, who will mismanage them.

Men's Rights Activists propose a degenerate solution when they say that divorced mothers and fathers should have equal parenting time with their kids. This too elevates the inferior over the superior, since the kid will be forced to spend 84 of the 168 hours in the week under the leadership of the inferior parent (the mother) instead of the superior parent (the father). Superiority is proven by success; if she proved herself to be an inferior decision-maker by breaking up the family (which statistics show is harmful to kids), to treat her as though she were an equal is degenerate.

One might argue, maybe it was the husband who was the loser and that's why she left him; but in a patriarchal society, it would be her father who would bear the responsibility of choosing a husband for her who isn't a loser. If a father were to choose a loser for his daughter to marry, that would (1) mean he's kind of a loser too, and (2) hinder the propagation of his own genes, which would be the just punishment for his loserdom. So patriarchy tends to elevate the superior, by giving an advantage to superior fathers (whose daughters end up in the best marriages) and superior husbands (who are able to run their households as they see fit). This makes patriarchy regenerate.