I doubt that will take off, esp. in competitive capitalist economy; then neither will men work so hard, nor women, and margins will barely cut it.
Unless this person isn't disclosing some other incentive or exemptions men will be receiving indirectly.
The implementation of the proposed tax is not even the important thing to me. The fact that blatant irrationality is given a platform, unchallenged, on the BBC, by some measures the largest broadcasting network in the world, is what makes these things worthy of noticing. The fact that it is supposed to be entertained by a population as anything other than ridiculous and hypocritical highlights the dumbed-down emotionalised state of most people, who accept this type of broadcasting with no sign of outrage.
And anyway it may not be so far fetched. They already re-orchestrated the entire educational system tailor-making it to the more obedient personalities, changing testing in ways suited to female learning patterns, then using quotas and legislation to contrive unjustifiable numbers of women at the elite academic institutions. They are already using massive amounts of public money to reposition females within the constructs of the paternalistic system. These are effectively taxes on males. Add in the very well funded agendas to increase diversity and tolerance and it seems almost inevitable that rewards, in large sections of the economy, will be determined by increasingly social rather than economically productive behaviours. In a crooked fiat-currency system where most 'work' is superfluous or indicative of decay anyway, work and school are already primarily about shaping behaviours and channelling energies into assimilation aren't they?
Maybe crying at work is just another type of productivity, you know, a more subtle one that we need to be taxed and taught to properly comprehend and appreciate.
"The takeaway from this article is that men, upon entering marriage, should be fully ready for the chance that if they fail to satisfy their wives, she will cheat, and there’s nothing wrong with that."
Bull shit people smell out of their mouths. The manner poems in the West during the middle-ages discuss this for both men and women, to not fart out loud in public but if it harms your health by holding them up too long, just do it anyway otherwise you sin to your body.
"Safe spaces". Code for an environment within an already sheltering environment, where individuals are protected from their fellow humans. The institution protect humans form nature/past, but this is no longer enough, after decades of pampering. Feminization insists that each and every sub-group within this protective human world must be protected from other sub-groups.
I said this before...as uniformity is promoted the opposite reaction begins to take effect. Institutionalized levelling, genetic uniforming, leads to memetic fragmentation.
As an example proving the point, ILP is such a "safe space" where 'triggering" is supervised by moderators... well mostly the moron only-humean who uses it to protect himself form undesirable ideas. His method is about sheltering his own nihilism from critique, and he sues others as proxies. Here a "safe space" maintains an environment where stupidity does not have to deal with itself. The participants can say any absurdity that makes them feel good and nobody is permitted to call them on it, above a certain level of permissible "verbal violence". "Bullies" are those that re-call the innate, inherited stupidity, weakness in the other - instead of protecting it, they expose it, exploit it.
This is how weakness, stupidity is protected from itself. The consequence is an overall dumbing-down.
When the idea(l) is popularity, quantities, all-inclusion is an indication of value. All have value, if they exist, and have the ability to communicate an opinion. Their "value" is innate, god-given, a right. Immediately the process of reduction to the lowest-common-denominator begins. The weakest, most retarded, pull down the group to their needs. All have to be included respected - with no absolute, no certainty, all might be "correct". There is no standard to evaluate higher from lower probability - everything is perspective, subjective. Everything spoken, written, has some form of merit, some degree of value. The onus is placed on the group to discover it, rather than the speaker to prove it.
At 55:00... onward he gets into some of the things we've discussed here concerning morons and their reactions to our positions. At 1:00:00 he connects culinary practices with environment. At 101:00:00 he destroys cultural relativism, and even gets into moral relativism - we know of at least one example form ILP where this stupidity is expressed openly.
Dreams, nightmares, idiotic and misguided revenge fantasies... what's the difference?
I use these comparisons myself, when I say "well, if you truly want equality for women then it would also imply some undesirable consequence X", but I use it to point out how equality is bad, not because I actually want to implement it.
See how supposedly honest discourse is appropriated by the preferred institutions. The American Enterprise Institute is the same body that birthed the Project for the New American Century. All rational dissent is funnelled neatly into the rabidly pro-Zionist Neo-Conservatives or the anarchic autism of the alt-Right.
Finally, with the declining birth rate among whites in the late 1800s, the U.S. government and the eugenics movement warned against the danger of ``race suicide'' and urged white, native-born women to reproduce. Budding industrial capitalism relied on women to be unpaid household workers, low-paid menial workers, reproducers, and socializers of the next generation of workers. Without legal abortion, women found it more difficult to resist the limitations of these roles.
Feminism is the attempted commoditization of sentimentality, love and human identification. The commoditizing of family, further bringing all the energies expended by human beings under the benevolent control and manipulation by usurers.
Owning one's body becomes defined by being able to make money with it. Ownership becomes not an overt declaration of defense and protection by force/violence, but by "free trade". By the only approved representation of force, through the institution. Money, which every person is forced to accept under governance. The state becomes the middle-man of your ownership... and of everything involved in your life if cultural, thymotic and erotic values are sufficiently commoditized.
Truth no longer being paid for by intelligence, sweat and blood.. only money.
This neuroticism comes from insecurity by participating within the American culture, which teaches rugged individualism - and women are nurturers, so they turn that instinct onto themselves because they have nothing else to nurture. They become moral busy-bodies over their own feelings. What energy would have gone into protecting something/someone else (which demands sacrifice and compromise) has gone into protecting themselves exclusively.
"You just abused a woman!" ... as she hurls daggers of negative energy at him...Following him, getting up close, screaming at him, super-aggressive tone, all the while claiming the victim even though she's on the offensive... and if he DARED escalate with her (to bring her down)... he would be swarmed by males who only now would feel the need to escalate... because when a woman flies off the handle it's just something you have to bear, as if a woman going from 0-100 is still within the permitted bounds of normal behavior...as if when a woman loses her cool, you have to tenderly talk her down, empathize with her every step of the way... when a man loses his cool, he's met with a swift, violent surgical response.
Dealing with insanity within sheltered, controlled, highly regulated environments is a no-win situation. The only ration,a way to react is punishable by law.
The only alternative is to pretend, never exposing your opinions to such sub-par manimals - humouring hem, exploiting them if you dare take the risk, manipulate them if they have any use for you, tell the narcissistic he is wonderful, pretend to agree with his self-aggrandizing declarations, feeding into the psychosis (disease), feed the need, if you can swallow your pride, or to keep way from them and their bovine psychosis, stay away from chimpanzees and their volatile primate nature, when forced to be in their presence give them a wide breadth, seek only human companionship.
From my experience some minds are not recyclable, cannot be salvaged. Depending on the constitutions of the diseased one, the power of the viral infection, and the time period the infected one has been ill, will determine if there is any worth in trying to offer a cure.
In my time on the forums, I used the severely ill, as a method of reaching the casual reader, the silent noes, the younger ones, still not too far gone. I used the sick to direct my arguments to a broader audience, hoping some out there would see, would understand Wasn't actually interested in changing the moron's mind. Then I liked then exactly as they are. they, of course, confused my passion for effect, and my attentions for my interest in them, specifically...when they were only a means to an end.
Never wasted my time on imbeciles. The signs become clear, early on. Once crazy appears, change your strategy. There's no way to reason with crazy. There's no way to heal a zombie, and if there was...why would you want to, when zombies are so predictable, and only dangerous in groups.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
The only acceptable fulfillment for a woman is one able to be commoditized, in the service (non-productive) industry of America. A woman only needs sexual power for money, no other purpose. All this talk about hatred, woman hatred, I wonder why there's no exploration of what defines philogyny - or love of the feminine. What a heretical question that would be to a feminist, to be forced to define femininity outside of a concept of "equality" - though they'd surely try to say "equality" is the equivalent to philogyny.
White pride = Black pride Man hatred = Woman hatred Man love = Woman love
Because what is apparent must be meaningless, to give the indistinct "underlying" meaning. The Christian soul.
I never wasted time trying to convince the religious a God doesn't exist. I already adapted to the society and can cope with lying or bullshiting a little on faith.
My issue with feminism and other egalitarianism is their infection of scientific inquiry.
In the recent breakdown of social communication heavily increased due to feminism, the male attempts to re-establish a communicative means as a compensation, usually in the form of a study, as in continuous research of this very breakdown in order to extract meaning to draw strength from which is a result of comprehension, which brings a freedom through protection, which is necessary due to their connection of existence, otherwise they enter into destruction.
This is to deal the with natural occurring reality, to bring forward an acceptance of the external in order to preserve the internal, where the angel in man retains its glory by introducing an understanding to self, in a similar manner to how a vaccine is introduced into the body, bit by bit, in order to prepare the immune system for a greater outbreak.
The angel wishes to share the glory with all, opening the body and mind up to conflict, the conquering and the destruction is based upon the nature of this sharing, if the sharing is conscious then the glory as the potential to conquer, if the sharing is naive then the angel starts to die upon contact with reality.
The sharing is the need to reestablish communication, the glory is the preferred outcome by which the transaction takes place where there lies a transcendence of meaning, the transcendence gives the self back to the self, and gives the mind and body back to the angel.
When women try to impose power and influence through sexual offers.
Try? Looks like she succeeded, LOL. I wonder how she would deal with external affairs. If a foreign army attacked, would she offer to suck all of them off under the condition they leave?
It's another example of how females are permitted to use their advantages while males aren't permitted to use theirs... imagine if a man threatened to beat up or kill her and anybody else who votes in a way he doesn't want. There would be immediate state intervention.
Political decisions must be made based on a lucid awareness of reality and with the goal of securing the survival of a society's people and their culture, not based on appeasing the whims of the woman and with the goal being to receive a blowjob.
This is why I'm not against honor killings. I would decapitate her myself and wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
Yes, indeed. The males are arguably even more guilty since they enabled the actress whore to do what she did. Allowing a blowjob to determine the future of a country... sums up the politics of the modern West.