@Aurini Are you going to have children? If so make sure your partner is under 35, the chances of your offspring developing a wide variety of genetic diseases, such as down syndrome, heart disorders, and babies born sterile. The risk of babies developing downs syndrome in the womb genetically . increases from 1 in 1000 babies, before 35, to 1 in 400 babies, after 35. Not to mention women tend to lose fertility around 45 to 55, during menopause.
5. Working is not fun? It never was meant to be, we compete to work, this process is part of our biological competition to perpetuate our race against others,we compete to survive, this is the survival of the fittest by means of natural selection. To be a winner in the game, is to have 2 to 3 children, marry, cheat on your wife, occasionally, and test your abilities, physical, and cognitive, before your brain deteriorates when you turn 65 and your short term memory fails you then long term at 85
Where the hell do you figure out this stuff? I can't get enough of your videos. 3 down in one night and I'm reluctant to fall asleep because they're so damn good.
@wallowinmaya Hmm... a blogger by the name of Capt Capitalism has one (mostly about University), and Frost @ Freedom Twenty-Five might be worth your while.
This stuff is still a bit too fringe to have proper books; just a bunch of us lunatics flailingg in the dark.
@Aurini We need more women to become housewives, the facts are obvious. 1. The white race is dying out, 2. Marxists destroy the institution of marriage, an example of is that the 50% of marriages in western countries last on average only 3 to 4 years! 3, Men cannot reproduce, we are more analytical, more promiscuous, and on average more intelligent than women this is why more women need to become housewives. 4. Women are more inconsistent workers, they get pregnant their emotions override logic.
I was thinking about the part where you said how women generally don't (or can't) use their higher educations to the fullest extent because they need to quit their jobs to have kids.
There is another scenario that's a lot worse than the wasted time & resources: it's that large numbers of women decide to abandon the option of ever having families.
AMERICAN WOMEN TURN AMERICAN MEN GAY. CONGRESS MUST PASS "EMERY" BILL WHERE IT PROHIBITS WOMEN TO WORK UNLESS THEY HAD 3 KIDS. WOMEN MUST STAY HOME RAISE KIDS, BAKE COOKIES , KEEP MOUTH SHUT AND SUCK COCKS! IF USA WILL LET WOMEN WORK THEN US POPULATION WILL DECLINE WHICH WILL RESULT IN OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE CHINA, PAKISTAN, INDIA ETC DOMINATE THE WORLD ! KIDS MUST BE RAISED BY MOTHERS NOT BABYSITTERS. IT COST TOO MUCH MONEY IN THERAPY FOR CHILDHOOD ABUSE FOR EXAMPLE CBP EMERY DETROIT TUNNEL !
Wow. I watched until 6:12, and I have to say, it's extremely simple minded. He's talking about money, but completely forgetting what money is, and he's completely forgetting about production and the *purchasing power* of money. Saying "women enter the workforce, double the labour supply and cut wages in half, so nothing changes" is as reasonable as claiming:
@TheDestroyerCrom I'm not forgetting about production - money is a mere representative of production. I think you're under the assumption that feminism doubled the size of the productive workforce; this is not the case. Women had been engaged in productive activity before (though not measured economically). The jobs they got afterwards were primarily in food-service, child-rearing, and gov't social work. The same shit - no new production - but now it's taxed.
@BloodBoner I've been planning to write something about that for a while; but there's no sense in me retreading FringeElement's talking points. Only going to write something at least somewhat unique. For a preview - I don't think women's current level of bitchiness is purely innate; it's a product of nature and environment. Similarly, you don't see the epic levels of black disfunction fifty years ago. HBD, yes, obviously, but let's consider environment, too.
First of all, does status always equal money? I think there's a lot more to status and power than raw buying power. Also, I get what you're saying about education/training being a problem, but do you have a solution to this other than taking women out of the workforce entirely and reverting to the "property" model? By taking women out of the work force, you give them no choice but to be a housewife and raise kids, and open them up to domestic abuse because you take away control.
@IArynI Status is how you do it, not what you do - however, all things being equal, money is an important status marker. Rarely will a woman respect a man who earns less than her - the exceptions being starving artists, or criminal bad boys. You won't see a high-paid female lawyer dating a middel-paid blue-collar worker.
@IArynI The domestic abuse is a bit of a canard; for one thing, it's women who commit 70% of it nowadays (though they're seldom arrested), and for another, women were more secure fifty years ago than they are today. Fathers, brothers, and husbands were all focussed on protecting the married woman (from dangers within and without the family unit) - now absentee cops 'protect' the single mother, while the gov't rewards her financially for being more broken than need be.
@IArynI angryharry com esWouldYouSignThisContract htm ? main
Hopefully you can figure that out (bloody spam filter). There's a reason lesbian relationships are so much more violent than mens. Basically, men learn growing up that if they mouth off they'll get a fist in the face; women are never taught that, TV shows them that female-on-male violence is funny (commercials are beginning to change, but a lot are still like that). Nobody takes it seriously, and most women feel entitled.
@Aurini I call bullshit on your claim that lesbian relationships are more violent than homosexual or male/female relationships, testosterone, increases the aggression levels of the male in particular after sexual maturation. If combined with anabolic steroids, men are likely to aggressively kill themselves, rape a male friend or female partner, and kill their partner. How many fuckwits die every year from boosting their steroid levels, causing their hormones to go ape-shit, and act impulsively,
@TehAlexJonesChannel Men are more likely to commit extreme acts of violence towards outsiders, but within relationships men are more peaceful.
How many times have you seen a woman hit a man? How many times have you seen a man hit a woman?
The emotional dynamics of women tend towards more jealousy and violence within romantic relationships - gay men go their separate ways, rather than stay together in anger.
The aggression you speak of is generally only observed if there is a large spike in testosterone as well a abnormally low serotonin level (one could maybe make an argument for low intelligence too). Some of the most testosterone laden people I know are the most easy going and gentle people I've met. Aurini's response also sheds good light on the dynamics of relationships too.
@IArynI Re education, I think the solution is to stop A) telling girls that careers are fulfilling (most would be happier as a wife), B) stop lying to them about 'having it all' (you can't be a full time mom and a full time lawyer - life involves sacrifice), C) stop disproportionately funding female privilege (Title IX funding for sports that girls don't play) and D) stop bashing boys as unruly, dangerous rapists, and filling them full of ritalin for not acting like girls.
@Aurini I'll agree that it's incredibly difficult to balance being a mother and a worker, and I agree with you on not considering every guy a rapist and an abuser. I'm having trouble believing that most women would be happy in the kind of culture you suggest returning to. No, fifty years ago, women did not have this fantastic 50/50 choice of careerdom or motherhood, they had the option to either become a wife, or be laughed at and pushed out of any job or education they applied for.
@IArynI First, remember that women have far higher testosterone levels nowadays (variety of possible explanations) causing them to act more manly. Women - naturally - were more feminine than nowadays, fifty years ago. I think if given the choice, most would choose loyal husband over career - right now they can choose both, because daddy gov't subsidizes their lifestyle, with the taxes of married and single guys.
@IArynI " No.. they had the option t either become a wife, or be laughed and pushed out of any job or education they applied for"
that is very not true Women worked in large sectors of the economy for as long as time. There were certain restrictions on working in mining and other hard or dangerous work however women were active in the economy for most of the past 100 years. On my block alone we have 3 women 80+ who never married and had careers working in a factory, at a store, & accountant .
@IArynI I am not against women who achieve greatness; however, few people achieve greatness. Most men are successful because it gets us laid. Women get no such advantage from their job, it does not increase male attraction. The social engineers who want women working have no regard for our happiness; they're either moochers, who want tax $ and jobs as therapists (because people are miserable), or feminists who have deep-seated anger with their fathers, and want to destroy the family.
@Aurini So, if I understand you right, you're a strong proponent of capitalism, of the productive holding the power, and yet here you're claiming that the only reason anyone does an honest day's work is to get laid, and that this is why women don't need any careers. Surely there's more benefit to work than just sex, if you support it so much when done by men.
@IArynI Men are driven to get laid - it's our #1 priority in life. Women are driven to achieve security for their offspring - this can be via husband or daddy gov't (this is why women disproportionately vote liberal). The fringe benefit of working - feeling of a job well done, etc - is triggered because the genes know "I just became sexier to women". Intellectual 'good for society' reasons aren't sufficient to motivate us monkeys.
@IArynI The 60's women's movement likes to take credit for a lot of thing that was done in the 10's, 20's, and 30's women movements. In fact the 60's based movement really gave women more goodies from the government as women already had equality.
@Tsicar You are absolutely correct, Tsicar, but it's hard to make more than one argument at a time. I was using the rhetorical tactic of simplification - even if A) men and women are identical (aside from sexual expression) and B) women arrived at their present workforce position entirely through merit, my argument still stands that C) it's a bad idea.
The fact that A) and B) are overly optimistic is just gravy.
@Aurini Are you going to have children? If so make sure your partner is under 35, the chances of your offspring developing a wide variety of genetic diseases, such as down syndrome, heart disorders, and babies born sterile. The risk of babies developing downs syndrome in the womb genetically . increases from 1 in 1000 babies, before 35, to 1 in 400 babies, after 35. Not to mention women tend to lose fertility around 45 to 55, during menopause.
TehAlexJonesChannel 1 week ago
5. Working is not fun? It never was meant to be, we compete to work, this process is part of our biological competition to perpetuate our race against others,we compete to survive, this is the survival of the fittest by means of natural selection. To be a winner in the game, is to have 2 to 3 children, marry, cheat on your wife, occasionally, and test your abilities, physical, and cognitive, before your brain deteriorates when you turn 65 and your short term memory fails you then long term at 85
TehAlexJonesChannel 1 week ago
Where the hell do you figure out this stuff? I can't get enough of your videos. 3 down in one night and I'm reluctant to fall asleep because they're so damn good.
tossThislnTrash 2 weeks ago
brilliant! a genuine viewshake for me; on a par with some of the best ideas by hanson and yudkowsky.
are there some on-topic books you can recommend?
wallowinmaya 3 weeks ago
@wallowinmaya Hmm... a blogger by the name of Capt Capitalism has one (mostly about University), and Frost @ Freedom Twenty-Five might be worth your while.
This stuff is still a bit too fringe to have proper books; just a bunch of us lunatics flailingg in the dark.
Aurini 2 weeks ago
@Aurini We need more women to become housewives, the facts are obvious. 1. The white race is dying out, 2. Marxists destroy the institution of marriage, an example of is that the 50% of marriages in western countries last on average only 3 to 4 years! 3, Men cannot reproduce, we are more analytical, more promiscuous, and on average more intelligent than women this is why more women need to become housewives. 4. Women are more inconsistent workers, they get pregnant their emotions override logic.
TehAlexJonesChannel 1 week ago
@wallowinmaya PS You compliment me by the comparison, but I don't deserve it; I really, really admire those guys.
Aurini 2 weeks ago
I was thinking about the part where you said how women generally don't (or can't) use their higher educations to the fullest extent because they need to quit their jobs to have kids.
There is another scenario that's a lot worse than the wasted time & resources: it's that large numbers of women decide to abandon the option of ever having families.
This gives us a terrifying future of a baby-bust.
TheMchap123 1 month ago
@TheMchap123 Did I not mention that? You're right, that is the worst part. Demographics are destiny, and the future belongs to those who show up.
I may have been trying to appeal to the female audience; treating them like brood mares might shut their ears to the argument as a whole.
Aurini 1 month ago 2
AMERICAN WOMEN TURN AMERICAN MEN GAY. CONGRESS MUST PASS "EMERY" BILL WHERE IT PROHIBITS WOMEN TO WORK UNLESS THEY HAD 3 KIDS. WOMEN MUST STAY HOME RAISE KIDS, BAKE COOKIES , KEEP MOUTH SHUT AND SUCK COCKS! IF USA WILL LET WOMEN WORK THEN US POPULATION WILL DECLINE WHICH WILL RESULT IN OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE CHINA, PAKISTAN, INDIA ETC DOMINATE THE WORLD ! KIDS MUST BE RAISED BY MOTHERS NOT BABYSITTERS. IT COST TOO MUCH MONEY IN THERAPY FOR CHILDHOOD ABUSE FOR EXAMPLE CBP EMERY DETROIT TUNNEL !
detroitcarshow 1 month ago
Wow. I watched until 6:12, and I have to say, it's extremely simple minded. He's talking about money, but completely forgetting what money is, and he's completely forgetting about production and the *purchasing power* of money. Saying "women enter the workforce, double the labour supply and cut wages in half, so nothing changes" is as reasonable as claiming:
TheDestroyerCrom 1 month ago
@TheDestroyerCrom I'm not forgetting about production - money is a mere representative of production. I think you're under the assumption that feminism doubled the size of the productive workforce; this is not the case. Women had been engaged in productive activity before (though not measured economically). The jobs they got afterwards were primarily in food-service, child-rearing, and gov't social work. The same shit - no new production - but now it's taxed.
Aurini 1 month ago
I don't believe pointing out sex differences is that socially unacceptable. In fact I know many left-leaning folks who can't stand feminism.
Now if you want controversy, and perhaps excommunication, talk about racial differences.
BloodBoner 1 month ago
@BloodBoner I've been planning to write something about that for a while; but there's no sense in me retreading FringeElement's talking points. Only going to write something at least somewhat unique. For a preview - I don't think women's current level of bitchiness is purely innate; it's a product of nature and environment. Similarly, you don't see the epic levels of black disfunction fifty years ago. HBD, yes, obviously, but let's consider environment, too.
Aurini 1 month ago
First of all, does status always equal money? I think there's a lot more to status and power than raw buying power. Also, I get what you're saying about education/training being a problem, but do you have a solution to this other than taking women out of the workforce entirely and reverting to the "property" model? By taking women out of the work force, you give them no choice but to be a housewife and raise kids, and open them up to domestic abuse because you take away control.
IArynI 1 month ago
@IArynI Status is how you do it, not what you do - however, all things being equal, money is an important status marker. Rarely will a woman respect a man who earns less than her - the exceptions being starving artists, or criminal bad boys. You won't see a high-paid female lawyer dating a middel-paid blue-collar worker.
Aurini 1 month ago
@IArynI The domestic abuse is a bit of a canard; for one thing, it's women who commit 70% of it nowadays (though they're seldom arrested), and for another, women were more secure fifty years ago than they are today. Fathers, brothers, and husbands were all focussed on protecting the married woman (from dangers within and without the family unit) - now absentee cops 'protect' the single mother, while the gov't rewards her financially for being more broken than need be.
Aurini 1 month ago
@Aurini I'd like to see the statistics on that 70%.
IArynI 1 month ago
@IArynI angryharry com esWouldYouSignThisContract htm ? main
Hopefully you can figure that out (bloody spam filter). There's a reason lesbian relationships are so much more violent than mens. Basically, men learn growing up that if they mouth off they'll get a fist in the face; women are never taught that, TV shows them that female-on-male violence is funny (commercials are beginning to change, but a lot are still like that). Nobody takes it seriously, and most women feel entitled.
Aurini 1 month ago
@Aurini I call bullshit on your claim that lesbian relationships are more violent than homosexual or male/female relationships, testosterone, increases the aggression levels of the male in particular after sexual maturation. If combined with anabolic steroids, men are likely to aggressively kill themselves, rape a male friend or female partner, and kill their partner. How many fuckwits die every year from boosting their steroid levels, causing their hormones to go ape-shit, and act impulsively,
TehAlexJonesChannel 1 week ago
@TehAlexJonesChannel Men are more likely to commit extreme acts of violence towards outsiders, but within relationships men are more peaceful.
How many times have you seen a woman hit a man? How many times have you seen a man hit a woman?
The emotional dynamics of women tend towards more jealousy and violence within romantic relationships - gay men go their separate ways, rather than stay together in anger.
Aurini 1 week ago
@TehAlexJonesChannel
The aggression you speak of is generally only observed if there is a large spike in testosterone as well a abnormally low serotonin level (one could maybe make an argument for low intelligence too). Some of the most testosterone laden people I know are the most easy going and gentle people I've met. Aurini's response also sheds good light on the dynamics of relationships too.
Nikilwig 1 day ago
@IArynI Re education, I think the solution is to stop A) telling girls that careers are fulfilling (most would be happier as a wife), B) stop lying to them about 'having it all' (you can't be a full time mom and a full time lawyer - life involves sacrifice), C) stop disproportionately funding female privilege (Title IX funding for sports that girls don't play) and D) stop bashing boys as unruly, dangerous rapists, and filling them full of ritalin for not acting like girls.
Aurini 1 month ago
@Aurini I'll agree that it's incredibly difficult to balance being a mother and a worker, and I agree with you on not considering every guy a rapist and an abuser. I'm having trouble believing that most women would be happy in the kind of culture you suggest returning to. No, fifty years ago, women did not have this fantastic 50/50 choice of careerdom or motherhood, they had the option to either become a wife, or be laughed at and pushed out of any job or education they applied for.
IArynI 1 month ago
@IArynI First, remember that women have far higher testosterone levels nowadays (variety of possible explanations) causing them to act more manly. Women - naturally - were more feminine than nowadays, fifty years ago. I think if given the choice, most would choose loyal husband over career - right now they can choose both, because daddy gov't subsidizes their lifestyle, with the taxes of married and single guys.
Aurini 1 month ago
@IArynI " No.. they had the option t either become a wife, or be laughed and pushed out of any job or education they applied for"
that is very not true Women worked in large sectors of the economy for as long as time. There were certain restrictions on working in mining and other hard or dangerous work however women were active in the economy for most of the past 100 years. On my block alone we have 3 women 80+ who never married and had careers working in a factory, at a store, & accountant .
kubaniski 1 month ago
@IArynI I am not against women who achieve greatness; however, few people achieve greatness. Most men are successful because it gets us laid. Women get no such advantage from their job, it does not increase male attraction. The social engineers who want women working have no regard for our happiness; they're either moochers, who want tax $ and jobs as therapists (because people are miserable), or feminists who have deep-seated anger with their fathers, and want to destroy the family.
Aurini 1 month ago
@Aurini So, if I understand you right, you're a strong proponent of capitalism, of the productive holding the power, and yet here you're claiming that the only reason anyone does an honest day's work is to get laid, and that this is why women don't need any careers. Surely there's more benefit to work than just sex, if you support it so much when done by men.
IArynI 1 month ago
@IArynI Men are driven to get laid - it's our #1 priority in life. Women are driven to achieve security for their offspring - this can be via husband or daddy gov't (this is why women disproportionately vote liberal). The fringe benefit of working - feeling of a job well done, etc - is triggered because the genes know "I just became sexier to women". Intellectual 'good for society' reasons aren't sufficient to motivate us monkeys.
Aurini 1 month ago
@IArynI The 60's women's movement likes to take credit for a lot of thing that was done in the 10's, 20's, and 30's women movements. In fact the 60's based movement really gave women more goodies from the government as women already had equality.
kubaniski 1 month ago
But what you should realise is that some people are MORE 'equal' than others!
Tsicar 1 month ago
@Tsicar You are absolutely correct, Tsicar, but it's hard to make more than one argument at a time. I was using the rhetorical tactic of simplification - even if A) men and women are identical (aside from sexual expression) and B) women arrived at their present workforce position entirely through merit, my argument still stands that C) it's a bad idea.
The fact that A) and B) are overly optimistic is just gravy.
Aurini 1 month ago