«

»

Jan
12

Ovaria Now

Host: Well, I’m joined today by Les McPherson of Ovaria Now, an institution which describes itself as second generation feminism for a globalist future. She’ll be telling us a little bit about what her institution does and how their place adjacent to the academic-industrial complex helps shape the minds of malleable females and the population at large. Les, how about some background for our listeners?

Les: Thanks, it’s great to be on the show. Well, first I’d like to start by explaining how we are different from traditional feminist organizations. I know a lot of people hear “feminism” and they think of angry and irrational liberal women. And they are right to do so, as people like the feminazi’s are something that was historically intentionally fomented by our earlier works to help foster the decline of conservative values – for example the traditional nuclear family, which is obviously the most efficient form of domestic organization to date. So, why did we want to undermine tried and true values that have been integral to human civilization since the dawn of recorded history? Well, to impoverish the people, keep them stupid, have them raised poorly, and all-in-all put them in a position where they can be easily controlled. The ultimate goal is to have one small strata of the human population rule over the rest until the larger part is liquidated and or the species bifurcates. Ovaria Now is different in that we will now be playing the next tune in the song of feminism – as opposed to the previous – what today is archaic tune, and this new tune will be geared to encourage new actions on the part of people inscribed or affected by our doctrine.

Host: Well, let’s not get to ahead of ourselves. Can you tell us more about the evolution of feminism as a means for controlling the population?

Les: Historically, we have tried to convince women that some broad abstract international male conspiracy was working to keep them enslaved as mothers and hausfraus. Obviously, that was ridiculous, but it was needed as a base lie that could be force fed to a generation of women attending college. Upon graduating and entering the workforce or family life, we could always rely on these women having a chipped shoulder so to speak – as their entire psyche, much like many American blacks, revolved around victimhood and a persecution complex. These women would be more likely to vote for activist government promising to rectify perceived injustices and more likely to resent and ultimately abandon their family commitments, thereby ensuring economically and emotionally weaker males as well as poorly raised children, who in turn, could also be better manipulated.

Host: In reading some of Ovaria Now’s white papers, I’ve also seen references to the collectivization of women. Could you tell us a bit about that?

Les: Absolutely. Conservatives view the collectivization of women as literally the sharing of spouses, maybe some sort prima nocta by a TSA agent or if your neighbor wanted to come over and have a go at your daughter he would have the right to do so. That would be pretty tough to create because a lot of women would be really PO’d by ‘free access at any time’ and some men, too. What we are really trying to do with the collectivization of women is make to make them working (read taxpaying) sluts. We want them to view sex as conquest and have them waste their time trying to one-up their friends both in terms of relationships and in terms of their professional careers. We want them to have sex with worthless douche-bags or the men who do our bidding instead of committing to one guy and building a family. Pathetic hopes and dreams related to career and “financial independence” [laughs] generally do the rest of the job to make sure they don’t build a bountiful household. [laughs] We’ve done a great job with this too. I mean think of how used up most women are by the time they are 25 these days? And they gave it away for free! [laughs] They weren’t even getting paid! They are taking one of their most valuable assets and literally letting people use it up because the guy has a nice car, a backwards hat, lives in a cool fraternity or whatever. These used up skanks will only end up in relationships if they aren’t successful professionally, because they will want some guy to take care of them – this is of course the vast majority of them. And when they do end up in a relationship, we can count on their hedonistic past, domestic incompetence, and general shallowness and shortsightedness to do the rest of the work. So, these girls fuck around in their youth, and then they latch on to some poor sap and don’t even do the things sexually for him, that they use to do for the guys in the past ,who cheated on them etc.

Host: Sorry to interrupt, but if I understand correctly, what we have here is essentially something similar to the Federal Reserve with regards to interest rates. The market is completely flooded with pussy, but if you want to get it as a male you have to commit whole heartedly to some physically or economically self-destructive lifestyle or “conform” and do the bidding of the powers that be. So, please, why do you want women to reward douche-bags and men that do your bidding and not, say, men who are more level-headed, resistant to serfdom, and intellectually independent?

Les: Quite simply, it is to shape male behavior. We exercise ideological control over women, which in turn affects their actions, which indirectly control male actions and viewpoints. Everything that men do is one way or another related to pussy – except for gay men, which is another project of ours. So, basically, to get pussy, men either have to succeed immensely, which they can only do by serving our globalist leaders, or they have to be king of their small social world – a narrow, difficult and wasteful task. The former serves us in obvious ways, but the latter ensures an ever expanding universe of useful idiots who waste their time trying to perfect their social competitiveness in worthless or even detrimental environments. This is related to the fact that we haven’t legalized prostitution yet on a national level. Obviously, if that was legalized millions of women could be made financially better off and far more men would have natural releases that would decrease rape and other crimes, making people less afraid. But we need these men wasting their energies to satisfy their natural handicap. We want to make these guys to work for it! Either by buying stupid shit and ascribing to a sub-culture or wasting their life in a mildly lucrative career. The point is that we end up with men who directly serve us, or are at least easily manipulated plebs. So, yes, the ideologies we spread in a sense help control the pussy supply in a way that is similar to the Federal Reserve and various government agencies manipulating the credit supply. If you want the newly printed money, you have to serve us. If you want pussy you are either serving us directly or indirectly. There are still exceptions of course.

Host: What is the ideal woman then?

Les: The ideal woman is one who spent a lot of time in school getting indoctrinated with our global vision and worldview. She would have fucked around and gotten used up – the purpose of that to be to divert the energies of male peers from anything constructive and also to affect her own sense of self worth. Ideally she perseveres and gets a solid career off the ground. She then earns money and thinks she is too good for men who would commit to her. She thus spends her life fucking around with random males who have dedicated much otherwise self-defeating energy to capture her on a few fleeting nights. More importantly to us, she is effectively a taxpaying stooge who has taken a job that a well-earning father or provider might have achieved. Bottom line is that she is a taxpayer who consumes and doesn’t reproduce biologically. Then by having one of the few good earning jobs, she prevents a man from earning well and providing for a family. Her entire life is a vain escapade that has no purpose and causes untold destruction. But we like that destruction, and the state effectively gets 40% of her income through various taxation. This income is re-invested in more efficient means of subjugation.

Host: Why don’t you want women to have families?

Les: One, we want to decrease the size of the human population to a more manageable size. Two, we want to make sure that values beneficial to the family, and by extension, the offspring, are eliminated. These values foster independence. Independent, let alone armed, people are difficult to control. Obviously, the global elite need an easily controlled population and that will come by force if it is not first achieved by ideological manipulation.

Host: So, what new ideologies can we expect see from Ovaria Now? What exactly are the next tunes to be sung from the flute of mental servitude?

Les: Well, as you know one of the big things talked about today is perceived differences in pay for men and women for the same or similar work. Historically, we used to say this was because all men were evil and it was old white guys high up in businesses who were being mean and intentionally under-paying women because of their own biases etc. Alleged mean white males are the cause of every problem in 20th century ‘liberalism.’ Obviously, that was 100% bullshit and childish, but again, it was a necessary lie to get people looking for answers and demanding something to be done. The real reason, of course, that there is a difference in pay, when it does actually exist, has to do with the marginal productivity of the worker. The female in all probability will temporarily or perhaps permanently leave the job in order to have kids. This uncertainty for the employer is made even worse by being forced to pay some amount of maternity leave. This pain and uncertainty is passed back to the employee in the form of reduced wage. So, what we propose now, is to accept this difference in pay as an economically rational outcome [laughs] we don’t want to hurt big businesses you see! As you recall we have been encouraging women to engage in sexual conquest – this often comes in the form of affairs with co-workers. What we will do politically now is try to encourage the passing of legislation that will allow women to prostitute themselves in their places of work and only in those places. Our research shows that women who have been sexually active enough in their earlier years, as we’ve encouraged, view sex as “a handshake” and are less likely to be averse to the idea of getting paid for what they generally have done more than less for free. This ties in with our collectivization of women, and has already been instilled with the “fuck buddy” mentality. By prostituting themselves sexually at work, women can make extra money that will actually make their wages surpass those of males. They will be prostituting themselves in safe environments with men and women they know – and of course it is very easy to tack in a romp at the end of the work day. This will give all working women their own sexual fiefdom where their only competition is other female co-workers, as opposed to professional prostitutes and young college girls etc. Male workers will become more docile with sexual gratification. Of course, we can’t call this prostitution, instead we will stylize it as mental health, supporting the workplace community, sexual empowerment or something to that effect. In the UK, for example, we’ve already been supporting propaganda research that shows that an affair-filled relationship is actually healthier than a monogamous one. Another plan to raise female wages is to award fixed percentage salary increases to women who agree to be sterilized. The company will make it up in a tax credit. The woman of course would still free to engage in workplace prostitution.

Host: Well, I for one certainly look forward to that! You saw our admin when you walked in, eh? But what else is on the radar?

Les: We plan to continue the war against motherhood, especially as that waned a bit in the 90′s with the glorification of the pregnoid form and the soccer mom. We want to show that women who have the ability to be stay-at-home mothers and exercise that ability are detrimental to society. We want women to think that being a homemaker and a mother is a bad thing. We want them working and paying taxes not passing values, culture and independent thought to the next generation. Some women will still want to breed, so we are looking at ways to create public nurseries. When a woman does get pregnant we want her to pop out the kid and then go right back to the assembly line and pay taxes. The baby will be in a nursery where it is raised by alleged “professionals,” inoculated as we see fit, nourished as we see fit etc. It will then go to public schools where we can shape its mental development and worldview. With further testing we can determine where it is most useful to us and then teach it that trade. The real key is to get children away from their parents. We can’t have people identifying with family or putting family ahead of the collective cause célèbre, and with this, control cultural and racial homogony can be better achieved. We like symmetry.

Host: Probably the biggest irony in all of this, is that you can see how important virtuous women really are in society. Their decisions really are the invisible hand that shapes communities and cultures, and most obviously, the actions of males, who lets just say, are sometimes a little more extreme and noticeable in their actions. By shaping the worldview of women, dictating to them what they want and perceive as good, you indirectly are able to control the actions of males, and you’re in an even better position to shape and control the next generation.

Les: That’s right and what has really been amazing to those of us who were involved in traditional feminism and the second generation of feminism in Ovaria Now, is just how quickly women were willing to give up family prospects because of the promises of sexual conquest, career, or just believing that homemakers are bad or somehow failed to self-actualize. It’s like they don’t understand how important mothers and family are. But I guess that’s why these people are pawns on our chessboard. If they had any brains they’d be the manipulators not the manipulated.

Host: Indeed. Well, all the best in the long inter-generational process to establish a global plutocracy etc. We were glad to have you on the show.

Les: Thanks.