Fiat money is government produced money that is not backed by a gold standard. It derives its value from state dominance. Since the 1979 Nixon Shock, the US dollar has lost direct backing by gold bullion. Instead, fiat money relies on the promise of the state to remain a competitive source of exchange. The government says “we are dominant, and therefore you must respect our currency;” this is the mentality that keeps all fiat money afloat.
Fiat has given us a bubble of consumption that has the potential to bust at any moment. We went out on a limb to buy everyone a suburban lifestyle, healthcare, and to buy politically correct beliefs: feminism, homosexuality, etc. The question I want to ask is: if we had not switched to fiat money, what would consumption look like? If we were fiscally conservative since the Depression (the invention of dominant wellfare programs), what would society look like?
I want to take the same bubble concept and apply it to feminism. The order and power of every known civilization has come from a patriarchy of agreeable men. Today, the political agenda pushes an international society that rides in a matriarchal feminist bubble. Is it coincidental that the rise of feminism directly correlates with the rise of fiat money?
My father chose a career path outside of typical career paths. He was determined to be valuable by practicing a skilled talent. He married my mother and lived on her salary until he established a reputation and a market for his product. It went fast: by age 25, people were already coming to him for his product and he had growing connections. Today he is extremely successful. He had the confidence and the drive to put in the work to become skilled. His product was in high demand for twenty five years.
Yet I want to point out that his entire career was made possible by my mother’s ability to enter the workforce. They both lived on her salary and his minor contributions for at least ten years while he improved his skill. Had he not married and been required to work to support himself, I doubt he would have risen above a 9-5 grind.
This is a conundrum. Not only were the founding steps of his career made possible by women, but his market was a majority suburban housewives. Feminism paid for my father’s career. He simply would never let his ego comprehend this.
I offer this story as a sign of feminist fiat. How many male careers are out there and dependent on direct or indirect support from feminism? I wouldn’t hesitate to say 80% of all male jobs today. Just imagine the list:
-all men involved in retail sales to women, wholesale market of female-centric products, design and production of female-centric products
-all men oriented with Hollywood production, marketing, and sale of female celebrities
-all men who commercialize male submission and female empowerment
-all men who use female connections to get into a job
-all men who work to stave off divorce and all men who wage slave for a frigid and frumpy wife
-all men who fuck around, depending on women to financially support themselves.
The list is so encompassing and ubiquitous that men can barely recognize a male career without involving the liberated empowered feminist woman.
Prediction: The fiat currency bubble will burst eventually, along with the feminist bubble at the same time. Fiat wealth and feminism go hand in hand. And the level of male value creation is inversely related to both. The bubbles bursting might even be triggered when men create a new paradigm that restores male value creation as the dominant market operation.