Liquidation of Men via Government Currency

A woman interested in a man only for money is like a man(Liquidation) being interested in a woman only for sex, right? Well sort of, but not exactly. At least sex is attached directly to the person (shared), money is not. (Yet the consequences for him not providing it is imposed on him personally–slavery.) Otherwise, what is a part of men could not be so easily divided with women. Only if it’s seen as a value exclusive to the man who has it (as a woman’s sexuality is attached to her) would it be closer to the equivalent. In other words, money provides a ‘non-personal excuse for something ‘detached from men’ to enslave them. The fact men have less value compared to women, to begin with, also contributes to the effect.

Also Read: Why most men are Lucky?

[There originated certain capabilities, personal assets, and attributes held by men in comparison to those held by women. And prior to money (government currency) a trade exchange occurred between men and women regarding these personal assets in a complementary co-dependent existence.]

For example, prostitution attests to the male/female trade-off (sustenance for sex) value attached to the sexes as does the slave trade in which case women were valued primarily for their sexual attributes, men for their ability to perform hard work (labour). The female’s domestic skills and labour were valued to a lesser extent.

However, an attractive young woman as a slave would bring a premium price, with her sexual assets well revealed at the slave auction. A well-built young buck would also bring a premium price for the potential labour he could provide, with his physic often also exposed in marketing for such an intended purpose. (Possibly his sexual attributes too were revealed as to represent good potential breeding stock.)

High and mighty white women would often allow their husbands to have attractive black women to fulfil their sexual needs rather than be bothered for that purpose. (Some white women would also have sex with black slaves which, if discovered, would lead to lynching the black man.)

The diminished male value effect can also be applied in what we could call a progressive reversal taken out of the context of its origination. The basic personal attachment of male assets evolved and mutated from the past out of its original context to the present. In understanding this concept, continue to keep in mind the basic raw values attributed to either sex as that evident in the slave market explained above and in prostitution.

Ironically, men often refer in slang terms to having sex with a woman as getting a piece of ass. But in actuality, it’s women who continually get a piece of men per law–a form of male rape (alimony, child support, etc.). In contrast, the sex for financial resource trade-off only works one way (for women) in which case a part of a woman is merely shared (temporarily loaned) for a price in male resource equivalency–something he has to earn and acquire for the exchange. But there is often a contingency applied at her discretion in which case she is granted per law more of his resources and for a much longer period of time.

Here is an example of the effect in application to offspring: The female provides sustenance to an embryo (held in an egg) for nine months before it is born–expelled from the body. The male, by use of his body, provides the same for the child for almost two decades after this point. Yet he is physically detached from the child in this process. (Given the sustenance timeline, who should have more say as to whether a child is born or aborted?)

All men are basically still slaves. The value assessment applied to men continues, but now with half of that value taken from them by women via government coerced Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO). Males have been, and continue to be, well-conditioned by society, much as are slaves. It would be the same if women were not only used for sex as a matter of expectation and obligation but if half of that value were taken from them–e.g. if they were beaten and abused which would diminish their sexual value too! Men are, by expectation and practice, still slaves whereas women are not. [For a moment consider how the system regards men, without any personal attachment, pertaining to alimony, child custody, and state-defined child support. They are mere pawns to be used by women and the government.]

As conditions evolve some take vital components out of historical context and arbitrarily use them to say they represent a certain segment of the population being cheated or exempt from equal treatment. Besides the ignorance regarding an attached value to men applied to sustenance (money/finances), another example of this inaccuracy is when women claim to be cheated by not having the vote until 1920. The part exempt from our perception is that they never needed the vote because the vote was a decision, and men were held to making decisions as well as accountable for everything and everybody by women who placed all the pressures and responsibilities on men. In addition, many men did not have the vote either. Only property owners and heads of the family household had the vote.

However, with the advent of government currency, men’s value (personal assets) became liquidated–basically, a detachment of the person from one’s body occurred (obligations without rights). Thus, a piece of men became ownable by women per laws designed to serve women just as slaves, and the laws applying to them, are designed to serve their masters. This status/arrangement is still expressed in the mating/dating process in which case, ironically, it still takes his original assets taken from him by women to perform his part.

[If these male biologically-based assets were still directly attached to men, they would come directly from men as fathers to their children shared in their contact rather than extracted from men and provided in their absence to women who would get the blood money and decide how to spend it. A part of men is owned by women, yet no part of women is to be owned by men.]

Is it best that men don’t think for themselves and continue, like some loyal beast of burden to perform as a pawn, with no personal rights and individual freedoms attached to their existence? Is ignorance bliss? To be a ‘proud’ pawn for women, a man must remain ignorant–a white knight/simp, with an assessment, applied on a collective basis lesser now to serve in performing his duties.