So if that's how women talk about men, do you think being nice to women is going to earn you any browny points with women? It won't. Better imo to take away any rights they have and make them as weak and impossible to resist an entirely male dominated society. Make them work and sex slaves. Because appeasement doesn't work. That only got us here and the more we appease women the more they take from us.
How would any of your changes help improve society? Family law is worthless if you aren't going to engage in having a family with a woman. ESG laws are helping to encourage more women to work. Men are still finding jobs, what's the problem? Sure, maybe men would get a little better paying jobs but then women wouldn't be working as much or they'd move onto more sex related simp work like onlyfans so all you're doing is getting men to work more then give the money to women because women have a monopoly on vaginas which you think is fine because you think breaking down this monopoly and turning women into sex slaves is immoral and I thought you wanted women working as much as possible?
If anything, we should make the workforce 75% women and 25% men then implement a universal basic income so that men who can't find work are provided enough money for porn, video games, housing, internet, cell phone and an uber eats subscription. Just let women work to support men, isn't that your ideal?
If you're wealthy anywhere in the world you can bypass all the shitty laws you want, more-or-less. Sure you've got Bezos and Gates that had wives who divorced them but these men are still fucking 12yo girls in international waters so they don't care.
I'm looking for more like where "average men" can still excel.
So if a woman can divorce you for any reason at any time and get your kids, why would any man want to have kids with a woman? Seems straightforward.
Is it evil to turn women, who by your own admission are net liabilities for men, into net assets for men? That sounds like something a good person would do. Why let net liabilities continue to exist as net liabilities? Turn them into assets so all the existing assets benefit from these liabilities. That's a net gain for your society as a whole.
What exactly are the feminist laws you don't agree with you think need to be repealed?
The price of hookers in Nevada is too high. Reasonable prices would be something like $60/h not $400. However, any country with reasonably priced prostitutes only works if you have a mobile job and are paid in USD. If you're paid in the going currency there at an average job, they're more expensive than Nevada.
I guess your idea of male friendly is probably whichever country makes women work the most, taxes them the most and then gives all the benefit to men. So you think western society is close to the ideal? That's pretty laughable imo.
Take the Taliban for example that are allowed to take on sex slaves from their enemies. You don't think women in this case are beneficial? That's free prostitutes. The second they become a liability you can kill them. How isn't that beneficial?
For men looking to fuck attractive women as cheaply and low risk as possible. Including the possibility of marrying one and keeping her around.
Dude, we all know you're Jewish. You can stop the charade.
I guess I don't know the full details on the history there. I just know the current situation.
The issue over there seems to be the existence of the expats. Domestic Thai men literally cannot compete for women with all the white men. The women in Thailand see white men as superior to domestic Thai guys. The Thai guys therefore find becoming a woman increases their value more than staying a man. I do believe this changes if you're a white man though and being a white man in Thailand affords you extra privilege you don't get as a white man in most other countries.
Doubtful. Ukraine has two options now.
-
West wins. If the west wins, then the jews turn it into a multicultural feminist hellhole. It'll be worse than other countries too because it'll be war-torn and there will be no decent men left. It'll be like Germany after WWII but worse.
-
Russia wins. If Russia wins then Ukraine becomes a part of Russia with Russians able to move to Ukraine. Russia has already suggested reinvesting tons of money into Ukraine to rebuild and bolster their economy. Who is going to be working these jobs? The poorest Russians will flock there for work and the poorest Russians are the Muslim Mongrels that Russia loves so much. Putin is a multicultural loving Eurasian promoting race-traitor. Ukraine will be destroyed as it was once was. Russia itself is also becoming increasingly tradcuck. Just go to Moscow to see how bad it is. The women there are as entitled and materialistic as western women if not worse and the government enables this.
The only men benefiting from the Ukraine war are the jews that are snapping up the young white Ukrainian girls to push in the sex trade at Davos.
Women have always been an important part of war.
Women are one of the reasons men fight wars. The idea being that women back home will provide rewards for their service. Also, the idea being that men can benefit from the women in conquered areas. Men have an innate biological desire to protect women in order to gain pleasures from women as repayment. This is why you see hot women dressed up as soldiers to entice young men to fight in the wars.
Women are used as psychological warfare more or less. This is just Russian tuning into that aspect of women to get a desired result and it will work. Most Russian men are tradcucked losers begging on a leash to please their female masters (without even realizing that is what they are).
Imagine buying the men and women have no time for babies bullshit, yet then believing the solution is to tax men and give more money to women as if that's going to significantly increase anyone's time.
The problem over in Japan is the exact same as in western countries. Women want too high of a standard of living. Since women can now work, women would rather work to increase their standard of living instead of having children.
Countries like India and in Africa have families of 8+ children living in broken down shanties, shitting in the streets. Yet you think "lack of money" is the reason women in first world countries aren't having babies? BTW this is a problem in all first world countries with high rates of feminism. The only reason you don't hear it talked about as much in countries like the USA is that immigrants mask the problem.
If you want to improve the birth rate, the only proper way to do that is to ban women from working altogether, change child support laws so that men are default 100% custody and women only get custody if the man gives it to them and women only get child support payments based on the percentage of custody the man gives her. Defund public education entirely and encourage home-schooling. Change the marriage contract so there is no-at-fault divorced allowed and require each party to have a duty toward the other in a marriage which includes having sex for the woman and working to provide for wife and kids for the man. If a person isn't living up to their end of the marriage contract, they can be punished. If you made these changes you would see a sharp increase in the birth rate.
As it stands right now what's going on is that women have made themselves entirely unattractive. Men don't want to have kids with women because the entire system favors women and men get screwed over. Men get absolutely nothing of value from children and women have all the power. Men would like to have children but women make it not worthwhile.
The whole thing is sickening and I can't believe anyone defends this shit. You're literally a slave to your leaders. Tax you more to give money to money to breed more useful idiot slaves to prop up the clearly unsustainable system of growth. If you don't think you have enough resources why don't we take some resources from the people that have plenty like the rich capitalists instead of taking from men that are already disgruntled and unhappy because women treat them like shit in society. Men might be inclined to have kids if women weren't man hating feminist whores and actually stayed home to support their husbands and look after the kids. It's surprising how little resources you actually need when women stay home to support their husbands instead of spends thousands of dollars trying to get fucked by Chad.
This might come as a surprise to some people but most whores actually hate men. The girls that like men are the nymphomaniacs aka sluts. They tend to be terrible whores because they'll fuck for free because they love getting fucked by men so much. They sometimes exist in the sex industry but it's more a lifestyle than a money maker for them. Most whores though, actually hate men and the more prude the whore (the more she charges for services not related to vaginal intercourse, think femdom, slave training, or cosplay asmr like this chick in the OP) the more of a man-hater she tends to be.
Exactly. Hit the gym, eat healthy, read a book and wait until you die. The end.
Trump had 4 years and accomplished... nothing. Nearly everything he did, which was minor, was undone almost immediately by Biden. Trump is a failure by all accounts. He was great for marketing and getting people invested into politics, which has always been what he's good at, but actually running shit? He was an abysmal failure.
Truthfully, no President can fix things because the disease is too entrenched in the whole system. There's thousands upon thousands of enemies in the CIA, FBI, Academic systems, state governments, all federal agencies, etc... The president simply does not have enough power to fix society. You can keep paying attention to politics all you want... but if you want a solution it will not come from an election.
At this point in time, only a man with an army who is willing to kill all his enemies can fix things. Essentially, we need a Julius Caesar. The Republic has failed. No solution now can come within the rules of the republic.
Yup and he's probably doubling down now blaming right-wingers for not implementing more socialist policies so that the government would cover his electricity bill.
Yeah, I meant the above point if there exists competition. If there's high barriers of entry because of red-rape then higher prices don't change supply, obviously. Though, I would argue it probably still does to a degree, albeit not very much. The solution though isn't price controls, but removing the red tape.
Yes. Also, companies profiting isn't a problem when the market is highly competitive. The problem of profit arises when there is limited competition and that almost is always caused by government involvement, due to corruption or incompetence. The leftists solution to corporate greed tends to be more government involvement which then just hinders the market and exasperates the same problem they are trying to fix. Furthermore, high prices in themselves aren't necessarily a bad things, it's just a reflection of higher demand give a supply. This is good because the higher prices lead to higher profits which then leads to higher supply as more people try to produce the product in order to benefit from the higher profits. Trying to set prices tends to just lead to supply shortages which just again, exasperates the problem.
In almost all circumstances, leftists just make the problems worse and don't ever understand the underlying problems that need fixing.
Why is the supply of eggs low given the demand such that prices can be increased? I suspect some sort of government blunder. That's what needs to be fixed. Leftists instead will try to limit prices which then doesn't tackle the supply problem and in fact by limiting prices, so you get shortages. Hardly a fix.
By the way, this is 100% accurate. I have leftist family members that accused inflation and gas prices on "corporate greed".
I sent this meme to one of my leftist family members and he responded by saying it's true that corporate greed is the reason for egg price increases.
Remove women's ability to collect any monetary compensation from the government or the man who knocked her up; unless she was married when she became pregnant. Then remove no at fault divorces and implement marriage contracts with actual enforceable contractual obligations. If a woman violates her contractual obligation, she can be punished or the man can leave her without owing her any money and she may owe him money for damages in breaking her contract. Also, all child custody defaults 100% of custody to the man. The woman only gets custody if the man wants to give it to her.
Change the rules to that and watch the social structure change immensely.
No, this is also false. If you spend enough time watching women's actions and even talking to women, you'll understand that women's materialism and desire for "more" is just too high. I'd say the average woman believes her husband needs to be earning about $300k/yr for her to have her optimal 2.7 children.
Pretty much all women can afford to have 2.7 kids now. Indians in India shitting in the streets, living in shanties still manage to survive with 10 kids. Yet Western Women, the richest and most privileged women in the world, can't afford kids? LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO.
The problem is that the women want too much. Their expectations are way out of this world. Trying to tax people and redistribute it to mothers still won't satiate women's desire for more. Your average woman thinks she deserves a multi-millionaire husband.
No average nice guy with a good paying job can ever meet a woman's demand for what she wants in life.
The problem is women's materialism. Women need to stop consuming so much. We need to take money away from women not give them more money. When we banned women from working and made them 100% reliant on men for survival, that was the right idea. Doing this would probably increase child births because men would want to have kids just to give their wife something to do to keep her from being too bored. It's easy to afford kids right now. The problem just comes down to most people wanting too much.
Not sure if I should reply there or here. Maybe here so other KA2 people see because I imagine I already know how ConPro will reply to this...
The problem with defending "western civilization" rather than defending "white people" is that your idea of western civilization and my idea of western civilization are going to differ; however, both of us can agree on whether either of us are white. In this way, it's easier to rally people behind race than it is to rally them behind "western civilization".
I know exactly what you mean though. My best friend is central american. He technically isn't white but he gets lumped into white for everything and would be a staunch defender of this "western civilization" you speak of. He sometimes jokes how he agrees with White Nationalist groups when it comes to values/beliefs but if those groups ever got their way, they'd kick him out which sucks. It also sucks for me because he's my best friend and I think the exact same thing. I'd want him to be a part of "Western Civilization" but I too support the White Nationalists and know if they got their way, they'd want to deport him out of the country.
However, I do believe that even in White Nationalist ideals, you can have some non-whites in the country. 1-2% of the total pop not being white isn't going to fuckup any dynamics. If we went to war with China for example, I'd fully expect some of our warriors to take back some hot Chinese women as sex slaves. It's what Aryans have always done. Pretty sure some of the oldest Greek works is about taking war brides. I do think people who are overly race focused sometimes get too extreme. Is a person who is 3/4 white and 1/4 Chinese a white person or not? The Slavs are often mixed significantly with the Mongolians. The Spanish today have a significant amount of blood from darker Muslims in them. The Greek/Romans today are also mixed with darker Muslim blood compared to Ancient Greek/Romans. So being a little too focused on race can be a problem also.
Even Hitler had Jewish friends. Here's an example of one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Bloch
Anyway, the point I'm making though is that it's much easier to rally people behind race than it is ideology. Even if race is subjective, there's far less controversy on whether you are x race or not than on what "Western Civilization" means. And race actually matters. Race is a representation of genetics and genetics influence one's behavior and it's that behavior which matters for building a culture and a "Western Civilization" so race is a major factor in how you want to build your society.
How do you know if a black person who says he supports "Western Civilization" actually does or not? You don't. However, you likely would find White People, of all the races have the highest correlative factor to believing in Western Civilization values (however you define them) than any other race, so you don't need to believe what a person is telling you, you can just see from their race whether they likely would align with western values or not.
The biggest problem in western society has been coming from jews who tell white people that they believe in western values while the jews undermine western values by subverting the society toward values not inline with western values. If you made society 100% White People only it would immediately solve one of the biggest problems and it would be much harder to subvert through deception. You can't really deceive people about your race, very easily, though the jews even attempt to do that by convincing people they are white when they aren't.
I think once we've established a racially unified society, then discussions on the controversial things such as what is "Western Civilization" can begin.
I'd immediately get on a plane to Prague and also begin the process to rent/charter a yacht that can carry ~20 people + crew for 2 weeks. (That in itself would cost $4m). As soon as I get to Prague, I would head to the strip club and start throwing thousands of dollars at the girls for dances. I would start talking to the girls and tell them I am renting a yacht for 2 weeks from X location and I want to fill the yacht with girls like her. Would she be able to find another 19 good looking women to come for 2 weeks? I would pay each girl $1,000,000 for the 2 weeks but all of them would have to be down to fuck me whenever I wanted. To show her how serious I was, I'd pay her something ridiculous like $10,000 to fuck right now then remind her there's another $1,000,000 waiting.
It wouldn't take me long to find a girl in the stripper scene who would find me 19 other whores. By this time, my yacht charter would be prepped. Then I'd meet with the girls, workout the travel details, and get them all on my yacht. I'd also get a bunch of them to find some cocaine, viagra/cialis, mdma, and some other drugs to bring on the yacht.
For 2 weeks I'd just be enjoying great food, alcohol and having a giant orgy with 20 women. At the end of the 2 weeks, I'd pay the women whatever money was remaining over and above the original agreement as a tip so I completely ran out of the $30m. Done.
Russia also locks up young women that have been too indoctrianted by western values.
I dunno why so many people here cling onto worthless ideals like "freedom of speech" or whatever. Lock your enemies up. Better yet, kill all your enemies. Your difference of opinion that you use to undermine my authority is worthless. Liberal values like freedom of speech are worthless and need to go. The left won't care about your values when they gain enough power to lock you up so no point protecting your enemies. January 6th should be a prime example. These values are worthless. We should we locking up our enemies.