7
CensoredSpeech 7 points ago +8 / -1

Society pretends women are equal to men so let's give them equality. Equal rights and equal lefts. When society accepts men and women are different then I'll treat men and women differently.

3
CensoredSpeech 3 points ago +3 / -0

Prince Ernst August of Hanover is probably your best bet for the throne tbh but he's an investment banker who worked with Islamic banking and whose wikipedia profile has him with a Jewish man.

Your best bet is a military dictatorship where the dictator starts his own monarchy by right of divine providence or something made up like that to sound fancy.

1
CensoredSpeech 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sen. JD Vance has a history of making disparaging remarks toward people without children, a CNN KFile review of his comments shows, including fundraising off his now-infamous “childless cat lady” remarks in a series of emails that called Democratic leaders “childless sociopaths” who “don’t have a direct stake in this country.”

In November 2020, Vance said on a conservative podcast that childless Americans, especially those in the country’s “leadership class,” were “more sociopathic” than those with children and made the country “less mentally stable.” Vance added that the “most deranged” and “most psychotic” commentators on Twitter – now known as X - were typically childless.

Vance, adding that his remarks were not about criticizing people without children, but rather focused on policy and claimed the Democratic Party has become “anti-family” and “anti-child.”

“There are just these basic cadences of life that I think are really powerful and really valuable when you have kids in your life,” Vance said in November 2020 on a conservative podcast. “And the fact that so many people, especially in America’s leadership class, just don’t have that in their lives.”

“You know, I worry that it makes people more sociopathic and ultimately our whole country a little bit less, less mentally stable,” he said. “And of course, you talk about going on Twitter – final point I’ll make is you go on Twitter and almost always the people who are most deranged and most psychotic are people who don’t have kids at home.”

In another tweet a month later, Vance wrote, “Our country’s low birth rates have made many elites sociopaths.”

Vance spokesperson Taylor Van Kirk said, “As [Senator Vance] has clearly stated, he was talking about politicians on the left who support policies that are explicitly anti-child and anti-family. The media can obsess over it all they want, but he’s not going to back down when it comes to advocating for policies that protect parental rights and encourage people to have more kids.”

The writing is on the wall. Enjoy slaving away for women! There's no way in hell some dude who married an Indian woman is going to promote patriarchal values to help promote the family and kids. He's going to extract every last resource he can from men to give to his precious women. The fact some of you can't see that is ridiculous.

Men are going to get fucked over no matter who gets elected.

1
CensoredSpeech 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'd say you're using commodity incorrectly for the way most people use commodity. There is a definition of commodity that could perhaps fit your description but no one really uses that definition of commodity in normal usage for the most part because it makes the term mostly useless as a term.

A better way to say what you're trying to say is that housing represents one of the only investable assets that an average person can purchase with financial leverage. It isn't the only one though because you can get a 50% loan on a diversified equity portfolio easily enough but there's other issues with this avenue.

Keep in mind using leverage to make money carries more risk. Many people learned that lesson the hard way 15 years ago.

1
CensoredSpeech 1 point ago +2 / -1

I still think you're using commodity in the wrong context based on this post of yours.

People exchange currency for real estate and accumulate debt by putting their real estate up as collateral to a debtor. People exchange commodities for currency which they then exchange for real estate. No one ever exchanges a commodity directly for real estate these days, which would be more bartar style of a transaction.

4
CensoredSpeech 4 points ago +7 / -3

Depends on the your definition of commodity. Most economic definitions of commodity consider only things that are mostly the same no matter who produced them because there's limited variability in the product to be commodities. Grain, potatoes, oil and gold are examples of commodities because they are the same no matter who produced them (for the most part). Housing is not a commodity.

-1
CensoredSpeech -1 points ago +4 / -5

I've seen those videos and it doesn't look like much damage. When Israel bombs places you can immediately see the damage. We'll have to wait and see. Israel's response will indicate what the truth is.

-6
CensoredSpeech -6 points ago +2 / -8

This is how I see it. Israel has mostly decimated the Arabs. Guess years of US pouring weapons into Israel paid off. Iran's strikes were mostly worthless. IMO, if Iran continues to be this weak, Israel might be convinced to take this further.

16
CensoredSpeech 16 points ago +16 / -0

The executives of the companies still get paid millions of dollars no matter how much the company losses. The owners of most of these companies are your pension fund. The rich people don't give a fuck. They print money and then pay themselves for losing it. Diversity and inclusion and "woke" is about trying to force a culture on others no matter the cost. The people forcing this culture are being rewarded for it. The elite hate you and I.

5
CensoredSpeech 5 points ago +6 / -1

When all the men in Japan have shit jobs and the women won't fuck them, why would anyone care? They want their country destroyed as readily as we want ours to crash.

There's no way out now except total crash and burn.

1
CensoredSpeech 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't disagree a 10yo is easier than an 18yo but you seem to think it's a sure thing. It isn't. You still need to change the laws around to restrict women at a societal level or at least give men the authority to restrict their own women.

0
CensoredSpeech 0 points ago +1 / -1

Your whole view is contingent on the assumption that because you get access to her when she's 10yo, you will be able to train her to stay with you forever. I think this is a poor assumption. In past societies where when were allowed to marry women of any age, this didn't even happen. It wasn't "pair bonding" that kept women together with men, it was necessity. Financial leverage. That's why women were quick to change separation laws around to ensure men had no financial leverage (and even give women the financial leverage) so women could leave marriages they didn't want to be in. I don't think you're going far enough in regards to what would need to change. You even admitted it yourself, there's more to it than just marrying the girl off at 10. You've got to restrict her access to certain things and you've got to do a good job training her such that she doesn't believe she can leave you for anything better. That's a little more than just marry her off at 10, which begs the question then if we set restrictions on 18yo women could we not achieve a similar result?

0
CensoredSpeech 0 points ago +1 / -1

How can you prevent her from going to places? She can just call the police and accuse you of abusing her. You going to lock her in your home? What if your neighbors catch wind or she escapes through a window when you forgot to chain her up one day?

-1
CensoredSpeech -1 points ago +2 / -3

Leftists want to reduce the age of consent or even abolish it because it's discriminatory for their minor attracted people.

Simple reason. Girl is married off to older man. Older man fucks girls for a while. Girl grows up and becomes a woman. Woman learns she can leave the man whenever she wants and take half his stuff while getting paid child support from the man. Woman leaves the man, takes half his stuff and demands child support. Womp womp womp. And we're back to square 1. This idea you have where you think young girls will be pair bonded for life to the older man who married them is Incel fiction and laughable. She'd make an Instagram account and find some community of feminists who'd tell her how she was a victim of child abuse and she needs to divorce her pedo husband. And she'll listen because the lure of the resources in the divorce will give her plenty of incentive. Just leave him honey and you can be super rich then chase rich Chad's who will treat you better! Trust me girl! Empowerment!

0
CensoredSpeech 0 points ago +3 / -3

No, this wouldn't actually solve the issue. You know this too but you're just a leftist fed trying to bring the website down because you're mad people don't agree with your leftist views.

-3
CensoredSpeech -3 points ago +2 / -5

It's sad that the solution most tradcucks come up with is to beg women when the solution is actually the complete opposite. Stop giving away so many resources to women and stop giving women so much legal recourse in separations to not need men then watch all the women try to baby trap men to gain access to his resources. That's the whole purpose of babies from a woman's perspective is to gain access to the father's resources so stop redistributing resources from men to women through tax and spend policies so women are forced to baby trap men to gain access to their resources and you'll start seeing more children.

Cut taxes by 75%. Cut spending by 80% (most especially spending to education). Get rid of child support. Make division of assets equal to what you bring in, you get out. Get rid of alimony. Voila, now birth rates would go way up.

4
CensoredSpeech 4 points ago +4 / -0

It is the perfect weapon. They can't use it all the time, otherwise even the right-wingers would catch on.

What shocks me is how easily the public falls for it. I mean, there's conspiracy theories for everything and people who question the legitimacy of everything. Ukraine war is fake, sandy hook is fake, the moon is fake, nothing is real. As soon as someone has CP on their computer, it's never questioned. Remember when body cams were first added to police officers and we saw video evidence of police planting drugs on people they wanted to arrest? CP is one of the easiest things to plant on anyone.

4
CensoredSpeech 4 points ago +4 / -0

Even though he's fighting against Ukraine, many Russians are so radicalized against the West that he likely was not trusted or viewed in a good light. Some Russians probably just didn't like him and killed him.

5
CensoredSpeech 5 points ago +5 / -0

So, I don't know if it's comparable but I live a pretty hedonistic lifestyle so I'm gonna weigh in on this aspect.

Last week I had a 4some with 3 girls. I just had like 5 people over at my place doing coke last night. I ended up having a 3some with two girls (2 of the same girls from the 4some last week). I routinely fuck escorts, go to strip clubs, fuck strippers, buy sugar babies, go to parties and do drugs and have sex. I've been to swingers clubs and swinger parties. I'm friends with a porn producer. I party with pornstars.

And a large reason I'm able to do all this hedonistic stuff is because I make good money.

Some of my guy friends always joke with me that whenever they hang out with me I'm always texting some girl, cause I usually am.

Here's the thing though, I honestly wish I could just have 1 girl in a monogamous relationship and not do all the stuff I'm doing but I can't. There just isn't a woman out there for me. I've hunted for a woman for well over a decade and haven't found one. I'm always looking of course and still haven't found anything. I can hook up with women because of the hedonism I chase and that's nice, I guess but it can never turn into anything more than that.

I wonder how many rich people that seem to be doing the hedonism thing are the same way as me? People with money can throw it around to try to get what they want in life but it doesn't mean they're actually getting what they want. There really is no fundamental difference between me and some poor guy who spends all his time playing video games and hasn't had sex or a girlfriend for a decade. I have money so I chase hedonistic pursuits and end up having 4somes but I'm really just as lonely and unfulfilled as the guy playing video games all day but I can throw money around to try to find the sort of fulfilment I'm looking for which ends up manifesting as hedonistic pursuits. I could stop pursuing them and then play video games all day but that's also just as unfulfilling to me and I've got money to blow so I just keep doing more and more things with my money to try to find what I want but I never find it no matter what I do; however, completely stopping trying to find it seems like the wrong idea because I still have this entirely misguided hope that maybe I'll eventually find what I'm looking for.

view more: Next ›