How to Secretly Rob a Nation

How does one rob an entire nation? There are quite a few ways, actually. Most under the name "taxation", but I want to look at one that is done secretly, where very few people even realize they're being robbed. I'm talking about printing and loaning fiat currency.

Say, that some nice property you got there.

It'd be a shame if something... happened to it.

First let me explain what I mean when I say taxation is theft though.

All taxation is theft and extortion by definition. If Fat Tony rolls around demanding "protection money" from the local laundromat, we call that out as extortion, and rightfully so. The laundromat owner had no choice about contracting the mafia to protect him. They simply threatened him into accepting their "services".

But how is this different from the actions of a government? You do not "sign up" to be governed. If you think you're government's charging too high a price, you can't switch over to another company. The government is nothing more than the biggest mafia in town, both pretending to have some kind of "rightful claim" to your money, when you really have no choice about it. The only real difference here is that the taxman might actually believe his claim.

Your money or your life!

All government taxes aren't quite so obvious though. If I want to find out how much money was robbed from me directly in a sales tax, for example, it's right there next to all the legitimate trades on the receipt. I think I'm right in saying that people aren't "shocked" to find out the government took their own cut of a deal that had nothing to do with them.

Other ways are a little more surprising. For example, the inflation of a fiat currency.

Now what is inflation? How does it work? The simple answer is, money is a good, and like any other good, it is subject to the law of supply and demand. With a high supply of something, it's price drops because it's more easily attainable. We value rare things more highly *because* they are rare. If we gained the abilities of King Midas and could turn things to gold with a simple touch, the price of gold would not be very high.

So when the supply of money rises, when it inflates, the value of money falls. It has less purchasing power. You can't buy as much with the same amount of money any more, because that money is less valuable. The supply of something rises and falls for many natural reasons, like the discovery of a new gold mine for example, so you'd expect inflation in any society with any currency. However, as total supply is really hard to upset naturally, the value of money normally stays pretty consistent.

However, the inflation of a fiat currency is *not* a natural reason. Have you ever heard the phrase "money doesn't grow on trees"? The phrase means that money is not something easily attainable, and is used to encourage someone to save and to be more thrifty. People need to act responsibly with their money, and not be wasteful.

Well, for the Federal Reserve, money does grow on trees. Better yet, they don't even need to wait on the trees to bear fruit, they can just print the money themselves. If these banks are ever strapped for cash, they can literally just print money for themselves. This is not earned money. This is the creation of money ex nihilo.

How does this work out as theft from you and me though? That new money is getting it's value by stealing it from your saved money. While the central bank and government now have a lot of new money, the money you have is worth less and less. It is *exactly* the same as a tax.

Luckily for the ones printing the money, they are the last ones to feel the effect of the inflation. After they've printed the money, they still hold basically the same purchasing power as they did before. People haven't figured out that the money supply has gone up yet, and haven't had time to readjust prices.There are absolutely no downsides to them for printing more money. They have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

And it doesn't just stop there. Then these bastards have the nerve to loan the new money out and charge interest on it! But hey, I can't condemn charging interest entirely. After all, people need to be compensated for the sacrifice of their money over so much time. They worked long and hard to earn it. That money represents the contribution they've made to society by producing things people wanted, and we're creating an opportunity cost of what else they could have done with this money they earned oh wait this money was never earned the central bank just printed that money out of nothing and didn't do any work themselves even in the past to earn it nor are they taking on any personal risk by departing from their money!

And still! Still! Even while they're earning interest, if you miss your payment they get to take away your stuff as collateral! They can take your property away from right under your feet, at no personal risk for themselves. Not to mention that when the Federal Reserve loans it's money to the government, they have to tax you to pay for it! They have the all the money they could ever want, and can just sit back and get all your stuff too.

And the best part is, the nation never even sees it happening. You never face the taxation directly. All you know is that the price of everything seems to be going up, the economies in the tank, when you hear this great news from the central bank that they're going to get everything under control with nice sounding systems like "quantitative easing". You're not sure what that means, but it sounds soothing and really smart, so it must work, and you trust them to make things right.

I don't think I could come up with a more brilliant scam if I tried.

Male Privelege vs The Titanic

Modern feminism just comes off as really annoying to me. On most points I would agree with them on, they already have. It comes off as really preachy over issues that I normally consider to be of minor importance at best, while it ignores much more pressing issues for its own benefit. Congratulations, not only can you vote, but you have a lot of legal and social institutions in women's favor while still retaining all the social expectations of chivalry and not being drafted to go die in drafted wars, what more do you want?

Today, they do not try to fix discrimination by encouraging that the rights of all people be respected, but instead claim that a certain group is being discriminated against and that we need to be racist and prejudice towards a different group to "balance out" the discrimination the other group was receiving. They fixing discrimination by discriminating themselves, and will only stop discriminated once you learn discrimination is wrong.

Despite their so-called progressive ways, they still divide people up into groups. Attempts to celebrate diversity just continually push the mindset that we are different from those people. Are differences are great, so don't forget how different you are from people of other skin colors. We are all the same except that we are not.

You don't see that kind of bull when people talk about hair color. Why not? Don't they want to celebrate their diversity of hair colors? No, they don't, because no one cares. That's the beauty of it! To even accept the premise that this counts as "diversity" means you accept that these people are fundamentally and irrevocably different from one another.

For true harmony, individualism is not only the best way to counteract discrimination, but it is the only way. Only once we focus on and respect the rights of the individual, judging each person for their own merit, can we get past arbitrary distinctions like gender and race.

Now, I am mainly focusing on a specific strand of feminism known as Radical Feminism.

I am sure there are many of self-proclaimed feminists out there that are actually battling sexism and discrimination. It's no secret that women's rights in the Middle East is messed up. There are many, many entirely legitimate issues that feminists can complain about.

But tell me, honestly, when you think of feminists, do you think of someone fighting for the elimination of special privileges for men and women, or someone complaining about how men rule the world? That's what I thought. Today's feminists are not the feminists of the early 20th century. Radical feminism has taken it over by virtue of being more obnoxious.

I'll start off with the idea of patriarchy, the good and the bad. Patriarchy is essentially the idea of a male dominated society, that men are a privileged class, and that women are degraded. This has appropriate uses. For example, in a monarchy it is often tradition for the male heir to inherit the thrown, even if a female sibling is older or more capable. But as monarchies are a very common form of government anymore, this is not really what the modern feminist will be talking about.

Modern "patriarchy" looks nothing like this. Patriarchy isn't just a comment on a specific group, like the royal bloodline, that favor men over women. To feminists, patriarchy extends to all culture and they have learned to apply to every and any situation they disagree with it. It lurks behind every corner. Feminists don't talk about patriarchy as a comment on a specific situation, but as if it's some invisible force controlling society.

On a side note, where the hell is the joke?

In spite of this, women make up 57% of all bachelor's and 60% of all master degrees. Women vote more than men. Women can go into any field of study, any business, and it would be seen as normal. Women wearing pants instead of dresses and skirts no longer shocks the general public. But that's all part of the secret plan to keep the women down! After all, the best chains are the one's you can't see, right? Ha ha ha!

Patriarchy has turned into a conspiracy theory.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

But hold on there! What about the wage gap? Don't you know that for every dollar a man makes, a woman makes 75 cents? This appears to be true. If you add up the income of all women in the workforce and divide by the number of women, and then do the same process for men, you will find that women one average make 75% of what men make. But remember, there are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

But do you not see anything odd about this? Personally, if I thought I could hire women to do the same job as a man, but I could pay her only 75% of what I would for a man, I'd hire the woman. Think of the profits! Screw patriarchy, I want to get rich!

If this was true, why aren't businessmen taking advantage of these huge savings? Do feminists simply believe that "the patriarchy" just isn't greedy enough?

What this simple statistic doesn't show you is that men and women make very different choices in where they work. Men are more likely to go into engineering while women are more likely to go into social sciences. So while men are making more money in the business world, women are in lower paying careers. This is not a form of discrimination, but a personal choice to pursue a less lucrative job. This comes from their choice.

Men and women also make different choices in how they work. Most men expect to be working full time for the rest of their lives, while women are more likely to leave at some point in their career to raise children, or at least want to leave an option open for that. Employers also need to consider this when choosing who to promote, since they don't want to lose good employees.

That's not even getting into the issues of overtime and the workplace danger. Obviously, there are plenty of rational, non-discrimination reasons men get a higher pay on average.

Just look at these male chauvinistic bastards.

Now, you might want to say that women are only making these choices because of the patriarchy. Women go into nurturing roles because that's the role given to them by society. But I don't really care about whether that's true or not. If you don't think enough women are going into the jobs you want, that's not my problem. I want to fight discrimination, not impose my personal values on other people. If you feel so bad about it, make your own choice on your own life.

And never mind that men are pushed away from the more social jobs towards a higher paying yet soul-crushing jobs because society expects them to be the bread-winners of the family. No, clearly women are the only ones being oppressed by gender roles.

But what about male privilege? Men get everything handed to them, while women have to work for everything they get. On a date, women always have to pick up the tab. Men can flirt their way out of speeding tickets while women always have to pay.

When there's a divorce, men take half of their ex's property and the children. And let's not forget that the woman is always expected to pay child support, when the woman might not have wanted the kid in the first place and the man lied about using protection. Men just treat women as their own personal piggy bank.

During a war, who is called first for a draft? Women. Women are considered disposable, dying on the battlefield while men sit around in safety back in their homes.

When the Titanic was sinking, it was men and children first, while the women are left to drown. Men set themselves first. How can anyone see this and not think men are the privileged gender? Down with the patriarchy that has driven women to make up 75% of suicides and 92% of occupational fatalities!

Of course, it's the other way around. Now, women of course have difficulties of their own and different expectations, but that's the whole point. Feminists will complain about a gender role they perceive as being placed on women, blame men for it, and totally ignore any role placed on men.

Even worse, they'll try to twist it around to make it about them, as if their privileges are actually insults. The women and children first rule shows that men consider women equivalent to children! Men don't consider women as strong and as capable as them, devaluing them to the level of children! So it's still part of patriarchy. It was all part of their clever plan of oppressing women by letting them live as they die.

Let me tell you, there are no feminist women on a sinking ship.

That's, like, the exact definition of a secondary victim.

Also, men have fathers and sons too, ya know.

These people clearly can't even tell the difference between bring privileged and being discriminated against. Why in the world should I listen to them on anything?

Now this has been quite long, yet I have so much more to say. I'll leave it with this though. Voltaire once said "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Watch the above video, and tell me if you really think society is based around patriarchy. Ask yourselves what would happen if the situation was reversed.