Sep 10, 2023·edited Sep 10, 2023Liked by Good Citizen
Ummmm… didn’t we boycott moderna GC? I mean I have, and the that other p-word, boycotted them too…
The seals and sheep love their vaids, let them have a go at it, as many goes as they can boost up with. It’s for the good of all the people after all….
Am I missing something here? I don’t watch yellow ball anymore, the grunting she-men and the grunting he-women are too much for my brain to handle while watching yellow ball.
Apathy and indifference is understandable. I haven't yet hopped onto the 'let them all die if they can't see' train. Though if they pull that lockdown shit again with vax passes and the sheep line up I may very well be all aboard "Choo choo!". For now a war on humanity requires a defense of humanity. The preservation of our species will only succeed if more awaken. That's not my battle or m.o., since I don't have a reach but I'm still cheering for it.
GC, maybe I need to clarify. When I said “for the good of all people”, I meant specifically what you, we and I keep reading from these narcissists when they find out they have played roulette and lost… they all say “I did it for everyone in the world because I love them, and would do it again” etc…
I generally don’t wish harm on people, but having lived in a lock down state and witnessing first hand the horror my wife went through as a nurse, I have lost nearly all empathy and as you say I am apathetic towards evil people and stupidity in general.
Just wanted to clarify for you. If you needed I would give you the shirt off my back or the last bit of food I had, if I believed you were deserving, my bar is not too high for such a thing I should say, but their is a bar.
Completely understandable Devo. They've fucked around with a lot of people’s lives and deserve nothing but contempt. I felt the same way around Portlanders masked up in June lumbering around like clueless neurotic drones. Let em go.
I saw that too...except in the Portland suburbs. Have not set foot inside the city limits in years. If I must drive on through on the freeways to get somewhere else, the energy is so foul that I almost pass out.
Sep 11, 2023·edited Sep 11, 2023Liked by Good Citizen
Spot on article (link). Portland has never been a nice place. I remember as a child going into downtown with my parents, and feeling the horrible energy...like a curtain of gloom. Recently I did some research to try to answer my question: why is Portland so foul ? I learned that in the first half of the twentieth century, Portland was the abortion capital of the West Coast. Many of the tall buildings downtown hosted secret abortion clinics, and in one building, aborted babies were incinerated in the basement furnace. A murder also occurred in that basement. Where one finds dead babies, Molech is close behind.
I live in the west burbs. I fled to Mexico in Nov. 2020. I have driven all over that country alone, and I feel safe and comfortable there. I had to return here when my dad died from the Jonestown jab. His estate is large and complicated. My normie siblings have already done dirty by me. I will stay and fight for what's mine, but I hate it here. If it gets too unlivable, I'll let it all go, and flee again. Last time I went inside the city was 2011. I almost fainted when I got my water bill for June. I told folks it was social engineering by price gouging.
Elections are usually fairly close (before they started cheating). Imagine if all the Karens couldn’t vote. It would be a conservative land slide. Although I’m not sure I like the conservatives any better anymore.
I do see your point. Had an Afghan friend who worked as translator for US troops. He ended up in India then Krakow when the Tali went searching to cut his throat. Showed me photos of all his American troop buddies, then his family. ALL men. No women allowed out of the house. Men by the river eating. Men in a field smoking. A hundred photos, zero women. Ten years ago, I thought it was weird, and a little gay. That night we went to a club. Hundreds of Eurotrash tourist girls half naked and study abroad students twerking on strange men. I thought about their fathers, if they could see them...the drugs, the filth, the degeneracy and I started seeing the Afghan's point of view. There has to be some reasonable medium between the two. Lacking religious or moral grounding, strong men, and social cohesion, the pendulum will keep swinging toward degeneracy in the west. By design.
I'll bet there's no more "rainbow" or tranny flags flying in Afghanistan now. It's almost to the point that the Tali look pretty good compared to the absolute degeneracy and moral decay I see anymore. I'm just saying, I get why a population would rather choose religious tyranny over a bunch of arrogant fools coming to bring "democracy".
Well said! That place accepting democracy is like the west accepting sharia law. We’re just to ethnocentric and arrogant to realize it. Not everyone wants to bath in the moral cesspool the west has become.
Love it Bo, telling it straight up is always best!! As long as you don’t expose yourself as an asshat or downright tool, always keep it honest baby! My wife is a brilliant nurse and great woman, who self admittedly only voted down my line. No Karen there, imagine if all husbands of Karen’s would just stand the fuck up and threaten to leave?
Principal with three masters degrees. I love and respect her immensely. My original reply that sent that woman into a tiff stands. It’s a fact that if women didn’t vote we’d have conservative landslides.
Conservative landslides would have been better than what we have today, no doubt, but I am no conservative in today’s political theatre. The story to be written that I would read, would be what would have changed in our history if conservatives had always won??? Perhaps we would have two parties, one ultra religious, and one ultra nationalist? Maybe a third replacing libertarians, social conservatives? Probably my party, the latter…. Which would you be a part of? Would the “state” be worthy of its citizens????
Great comment and I agree. We’d be better off I suppose but lots of so called conservative ideas I don’t agree with. Wanna be gay and get married? Hell yes! But don’t demand equal treatment and then demand you get a parade for being gay. Just an example. I think if I could pick one word that would fix the current mess it would be consequence. Bring back a consequence for failure and success. Equal outcomes is complete beta bullshit.
that post on your site was good but when read between the lines you put everything on the man and I read it twice and you did not outline one thing a woman should do for the marriage. anything that would go wrong is totally the mans fault and not one word about anything a woman could be responsible for. the wrong woman makes a man want to give up in the pairing
Haha. I understand your point. Though his tact is often crude, sometimes insulting, this is still culturally practiced on a quarter of the planet. Even a man asking a woman's father for her hand is derived from this custom. I made a pledge from the start there would be no censorship here. There's far too much already in this world. Even those we may disagree or even find despicable on one cause are prone to make statements worthy of our consideration on others. When we deny ourselves the opportunity to listen on account of offense in one topic, we may be denying ourselves the truth in another.
I certainly don’t agree with censorship! And on my instagram page. (Same handle as this one) I also never censor the comments, unless I fear they will cause harm to the people I am painting. But I usually engage in good faith to see where the people are coming from. Just surprised at some of the low value comments with little substance in them and broad strokes of sexism.
It’s good to know you don’t agree with censorship. Free speech by definition covers all opinions, agreement or disagreement is a different matter. Just as a general observation, it’s always worth to have a closer look where we get “triggered” as it usually reveals where we are not “free” yet.
see how you lie. you dont believe in censorship then tell GC in a roundabout way to ban me. then you say you are an anti feminist but puke out the words sexism misogynistic and incels the code words of a radical feminist. to you a guy that does not bend to a man hating feminist is an incel but you are to dense to know that most women go for the strong bad boy. it is in their DNA from the cave man days where the strong guy can feed them and the kids.
I quit school at 15 started carrying lumber and I can make fools out of your kind in a debate even if they went to yale for 30 years being you have to lie and go against nature to justify your beliefs
Wow. The amount of anger and assumptions. Hope your wife if you have one is okay with the way you talk about women. My husband would never, and he is a conservative and traditionalist through and through. I did not ask TGC to ban you, I was just commenting on the vileness of your comment. Have a nice day.
FWIW the most fierce opposition to women getting the vote was made by women.
Their argument was that one vote per household made far more sense, and that a husband's self interests would naturally extend to those of his wife and children. The feminist notion of extreme individualism had not yet been invented. Men and women were still viewed as a unit (complimentary partners invested in each other's success and well being).
These women argued that being the primary earner, a husband should get to vote on matters of taxation and tax spending. If you don't pay taxes you should not get to vote on how they are spent. It's a sound argument.
This frames the 'women vote' issue not so much about gender per se, but rather about responsibility. If we gave children the vote they would tend to vote for infinite 'free stuff' and 'special treatment' from government because they are not the ones having to work for it all through taxation. Giving children the vote would bankrupt parents, which is pretty much what female voters have done to men over the last century.
Women are the primary beneficiaries of tax spending, yet women earn significantly less than men. This is because women can AFFORD to earn less, due to the contributions (both forced and voluntary) made by men to women. On balance women pay no taxes as a group, only men do, because women (as a group) receive more from the system than they pay into the system.
One can make the argument that women will always tend to vote for bigger and bigger government, more government intervention in our lives, more taxes, more social programs ... all of which represent the forced redistribution of wealth from men to women (with government keeping an increasingly larger share for themselves to pay for wars, surveillance agencies, more guns and stuff like that).
Thus women having the vote creates a kind of dual parasite system, with women parasitising off of men's labour, and government also parasitising off of men's labour by taking a huge cut of the money they redistribute from men to women.
And this is precisely what has happened over the last century. Women's vote has allowed women to enjoy the provision of men, but without having to actually marry a man and provide anything in return (such as a sandwich or a foot rub). Everyone is a loser except government who keep growing and increasing in power.
Voting for a welfare state (as women will always do), destroys marriage and family life, which in turn destroys the lives of children and creates more criminals, gang culture, promiscuity and more feminism and deadbeat dads (no male role models) ..... all of which causes the next generation of women to vote for even more welfare as society breaks down even further. It's a vicious cycle.
So yes, there is a sound argument against women having the vote. And it is not misogynistic. It is just practical and common sense. The problem is not so much women's naturally hypergamous nature and natural craving for resources, comfort, stability and protection (all of which are essential traits of a mother) .. the problem is combining these natural female traits with the guns of statism (the forced redistribution of wealth).
Women voting is effectively legalising women pointing guns at men and saying "give me resources or else!". Before the vote, women had to obtain resources from men through non coercive means (although manipulation and seduction was allowed!). This meant women had to provide something of value to men (a family, support, love, a sandwich etc) in order to gain access to the fruits of men's labour.
This non violent transaction was better for women, for children and for men. It forced women to be on their best behaviour (as it were), which is great because women are actually just as competitive as men. Men competed to be successful in their careers and women competed to be the perfect housewife, mother and member of the community.
Today women are arguably MORE competitive when it comes to securing resources, but under the paradigm of voting (statism) women today compete to be the biggest victims of increasingly tenuous forms of oppression (manspreading etc), in order to extract every last drop of resources and special treatment from men - via the state. But this way of taxing men is destroying men, destroying the economy, destroying society and just creating a huge government which is completely unsustainable.
Again, the problem is not so much women's thirst for resources, but the introduction of guns into the transaction. Most women cannot help but vote for the forced redistribution of resources to themselves. This means women + vote = ever expanding government ..... until social and economic collapse is inevitable which is where we are at today.
"a magnet for incels?"
Incels are themselves a product of women's hypergamous nature + the vote, which has driven millions of women to choose the state (men with guns) as their ideal husband (the state is the ultimate alpha male). The welfare state is essentially a harem system. And with so many women now in the harem, it leaves many men unable to find a partner.
As men's labour is taxed from them by force and given to random women the will never even meet, it causes these men to become demoralised and in the end they give up trying to be a success or attractive and just play computer games instead.
The equivalent would be homosexual men and single men who can't find a wife voting for women to be forced to hand over their babies. Obviously after a while most women would just give up with the whole motherhood thing and just play computer games instead. And who could blame them?
Of course the only morally defendable position is for nobody to have the right to vote for any kind of government coercion. Instead of giving women the vote we should have taken it away from men and dispensed with taxation altogether.
Look, I am anti-government and believe taxation is theft. I mostly follow anti-feminist women who are homemakers and amazing mothers. What bothered me in the original comment was not so much the voting matter, which I don’t believe in anyway, as an anarchist idealist following natural law, but OP saying women are too stupid. We have different kinds of intelligence, and there are plenty of women who outsmart men. His comment was shallow and felt full of hatred, not put into an actual argument like yours.
If I was a feminist liberal, I would not be subscribed to TGC’s blog. I am married to a very masculine man and I let him make all the “masculine” decisions for us, as I feel that is the proper order in the marital relationship for harmony and a strong family. I take care of the house, cook, clean, and am having his child. I was also in the workforce for a decade and bring my own money to the table, which I allow him to make the best decisions with.
OK cool. This being 'the internet' I automatically assumed you were of a feminist persuasion. It's usually a safe bet, but obviously I was wrong. The word 'misogyny' is what triggered me ;)
"What bothered me ....(was the) ... OP saying women are too stupid."
I would argue that women ARE stupid, but so are men. It's a joint effort. I think a genuine form of sexism/ oppression is men appeasing women and not holding women to the same moral or intellectual standards. If men appear more rational it's because women demand it of them. Men are less likely to demand the same of women, which is actually kind of insulting.
I agree the OP was not being helpful.
I'm sorry if I came across as biting your head off. I was literally waiting for a plumber to arrive and had nothing better to do that sit on the internet for a couple of hours. Ranting about gender was a welcome relief from ranting about 'covid'. I got a bit carried away...
Haha all good!! I used to live in California and was a sleepy sheep until 2015. Then I spiraled down many a rabbit hole, listened to every episode of Mark Passio, read all the books of Rene Guenon, had my fair share of Alan Watts and Manly P Hall, moved out of the USA and met my husband abroad. We have lived in Mexico and India, two very different cultures from the USA. He is Russian, and very traditionalist, which I love. We have had many a conversation about why the Indian system of marriage works better than the USA. But that being said, both of us waited until we had enough wisdom and had done enough work on ourselves to choose an adequate partner. I had always wanted 3 kids by 27, but that was not my path. Happy where it has led me though, with our first little one on the way and a man I can rely on in thick and thin who holds me accountable for my actions, words, and beliefs.
why apologize to her cause she is lying that she has a man make all the decisions. this is why militant women have gotten so far destroying the foundations of the country cause of men bending to them
I dont care what you think and I say you are lying about your lifestyle. there are women here that liked what I said and if you dont you are a radical man hating feminist
beautiful post. totally logical and fact based impossible to argue against but the victim painter being buried with facts as a radical feminist has to morph into a submissive girl to her hubby. haahah what a joke
remember the first woman on earth Eve doomed humanity forever lol
I really triggered a lot of people here who seem to think women are dumb and not deserving of their own choices. My pronouns are clearly she/ her, there are only two genders, everyone is making a ton of assumptions about me being some liberal feminazi. Yeesh!! I only corrected the spelling because of the irony of him saying too dumb and not even using correct English. Otherwise I would never bother with such a petty correction. Did you read the rest of the thread? I’m shocked at the level of anger here by people, although I shouldn’t be, the world gets darker and more polarized by the day.
I have read this stack for over a year now and have only seen incel posts, your word not mine, two or three times. I always ignore them as do 99%. You fell for it hook line and sinker btw.
You’re generalizing and exaggerating is very unbecoming and might tip you off as being one of several types of folks we usually bag on?
You have the right to say what you want, I am not offended… but man you’re full of shit on this one!
As for me, I'm just ignoring everything and found a job cleaning litter boxes for the furries in our public school system. Hell, if you can't beat them, might as well just help support the next generation of absolute psychopaths. Meanwhile, "experts" continue to be baffled.... 🙄😉
"Where are all those “brave conservatives” canceling Bud Light for the custom trannybrew backlash and Target for their tranny child tuck-wear line?"
I would not say it was "canceling" Bud Light or Target. Cancel culture is not the same as boycotting companies or products for their actual products or marketing efforts, or other things that are related to the business the company is doing.
Bud Light and Target made a point of showing their fealty to the trans cult as part of their official marketing effort. They each made the move to bow to the cult and to affirm "trans" ideology, so customers made the move away from them. That's never been what cancel culture meant.
Other targets of conservative boycotts have done things like "debanking" conservatives for their viewpoints. These are official acts by the bank, and it is fair game to boycott banks who attempt such things. It is the bank that is taking part in cancel culture when it opts to give the boot to its own customers in good standing because it does not like what those customers have said somewhere unrelated to their business dealings with that bank.
In cancel culture, there's always an element of bringing in someone's political views when they are not otherwise related to the matter at hand, like when Twitter gave the boot to many people espousing conservative viewpoints, including the President of the United States, not for violating their rules (although they always tried to claim that it was), but for saying things they didn't like. Twitter had a set of rules about what was acceptable and what was not, and as long as a given tweet was not in violation of those rules, the actual content of the message is not supposed to be their concern (by their own rules). When they brought in the element that was unrelated to their business, which in this case was people's political statements, and booted people for that, it was cancellation. Had they actually been in violation of the rules, that would have been a different story.
The most classic example of cancel culture I can think of was that of Brendan Eich, creator of the script programming language that powers the web (Javascript), who was for a short time the CEO of Mozilla. Soon after, someone found out that years before, he had donated a small bit of his own money to a Prop 8 campaign in California (opposing gay marriage).
Because of this, OKCupid, an online dating site, started yelling at people who visited with Firefox, Mozilla's main product. People within Mozilla were threatening to leave if Eich remained. It became this whole big brouhaha, and when the dust settled, Eich was out.
That's cancel culture. Eich was canceled for something that had nothing to do with his job or the role at the company. Mozilla was canceled by OKCupid not for doing something that would be harmful to the web, like so many things that Google does in the development of their own browser, but simply for having a CEO who, one time, years ago, spent his own money on a political campaign OKCupid didn't like. This was not part of Mozilla's marketing... it had nothing to do with that. Eich had demonstrated less than perfect fealty to the leftist narrative at some point in his life (though at the time that Eich made that donation, Barack Obama was also claiming to be against gay marriage), so he had to be destroyed... which meant that anything he was associated with had to be canceled until they gave in and got rid of him.
When Bed, Bath, and Beyond dropped My Pillow not because it was a bad product or because of some political statement My Pillow made, but because its founder and CEO Mike Lindell made statements as himself (not on behalf of My Pillow) that they did not like, that was cancel culture. When conservatives boycotted BB&B, that was not cancel culture... they were boycotting BB&B for an official act of the company, which has always been fair game.
Years ago, when Sara Lee awarded Sarah Brady their "humanitarian of the year" award for her efforts to infringe on people's Constitutional liberties, I put the company on my "do not buy" list, and they remain there to this day. That's not cancellation. The only reason a company like Sara Lee even has a "humanitarian of the year" award is for the purpose of marketing, and I am simply responding to that marketing as an official act of the company.
I have never boycotted a company because its CEO one time many years ago donated money to a political cause I do not like. I am aware that many of the companies that I buy from have CEOs that hold political views I find repugnant. So long as that company does not make that a part of their business dealings with the public, I consider the personal political views of each person within that company to be their own business.
Famed (late) political commentator Rush Limbaugh was a big fan of Apple products, even though Apple is run by people with leftist views, and they have not always kept those views out of the business. But on the whole, Apple is about selling iThings, so Rush spoke highly of them, and often bought them so that he could give them away on the show.
I do not agree with Rush's view about Apple. I do avoid Apple products, but it is not because Apple is a leftist company. It's because I don't like Apple policies, and the effect those policies have on their products. I do not like how iPads and iPhones are so locked down, and how hard Apple works to keep people locked out of their high-dollar products. I don't like how Apple has long engineered its products to not be easily repairable, or how they brush off engineering defects as "you're holding it wrong," or how they blame users for any other of their engineering failures.
King Billie Jean is a tranny, just like all of the "women" tennis stars. Let me elaborate on this, a continuation of yesterday's "Trant". (Tranny Rant). One of the many linchpin differences between a biological male and female is the way we walk. Real women, because of their hips, pelvis and Q angle (quadriceps) in their legs, put one foot behind and in front of the other. Men stroll with legs slightly apart moving straight forward. It's called the "Toy Soldier Walk". Some years ago, before I was really aware of the ubiquitous transgender phenomenon, I read a letter from a father who took his 12 year old daughter to see the tranny actor Johnny Depp in his pirate movie. He said during the show his daughter exclaimed, "Dad, Johnny Depp walks just like a girl walks!" Perspicacious kid. The oligarchic Founding Fathers were Freemasons and as I've touched on, those creeps are really into gender switching as well as regular transvestite, cross dressing drag. I recently saw a large picture of George Washington's, "First Lady" Martha Washington, and if "she" was not a guy, I'm a Tasmanian yak. Clearly, a man wearing a woman's dress and bonnet on very short hair. I imagine Georgie called "her", Big Marty, like Bwack Obongo calling his "wife" Michelle, Big Mike. I mentioned that to my knowledge there have been no defamation lawsuits against the transvestigators. I recall from my days as a pro se litigant in the trenches against the most evil entity in history, the American legal industry, 50 AmJur 2d 268 (American Jurisprudence: The Canon of American Law)- "Truth is an absolute, affirmative defense to slander and libel." Perhaps some of the luminaries on the world's stage have spoken to their respective shysters about suing and they gently pointed this out. In a knock down, drag out courtroom battle, the defendant could prove his or her assertions thus nullifying your lawsuit prompting dismissal and leaving you wide open for a counter suit. And uh, you do have a lot more assets than they have. Plus, think of the bad publicity! So the trannys reconsidered. This is pure conjecture on my part.
Haha. I enjoy the hell out of this topic. Even if we have no way of confirming what and what isn't accurate, it doesn't matter. It's still enjoyable. All Tasmanian Yaks agree.
Hahahaha!!!!! Likewise, GC. It is enjoyable to laugh at and mock this perverse, inverted, world of corrupt, criminal insanity. Fuck the trannys, fagots, bulldykes, and their Hebraic promulgators. I think it's long past time to heat up the furnaces for real.
If what you are inferring is what I think it is, that being the alleged Holocaust during the Aryan genocide known as World War Two, I can assure you it did not happen and among many other proofs, this was amply demonstrated in a court trial in Canada in the 1980s. (if you wish, I can elaborate on this). It was and is a monstrous propaganda lie used to justify the creation of Israel and its extermination of the indigenous Palestinians with concomitant seizure of their lands. It is no more true than the 9/11, and Covid-19 fairy tales along with everything else the Cryptocracy tries to shove down our collective throats.
There are things never worth touching online. The Holocaust is one of them. No matter how good one's intentions in questioning the official narrative, nothing is more devasting in terms of 'can and will be used against you.' So yeah, Tasmanian Yaks.
It shows more clearly than anything who and what is the real power behind the Iron Heel. In just about every nation in the West, "Holocaust Denial" is a capital felony crime and can, and has, landed people years in the Slam. The only reason it is not yet that way in Scumerica is that they are still paying lip service at times to the First Amendment. That will change. In the meantime, they have other ways of silencing you. Imagine that, a felony crime for questioning the veracity of an alleged historic event and insisting on proof for it. The outrage, the temerity.
Feminists are a sneaky bunch ...... the gender wage gap is actually proof of female privilege not male privilege. Here's why...
Men have to earn more because men are expected (and forced) to subsidise women (it is a natural hard wired tendency as well). Men subsidise women by paying more taxes, which are spent disproportionally on women's social programs and women's welfare. In fact if you do the math women (as a whole) don't actually pay any taxes, only men to.
Most women expect their men to earn more than they do, and men who earn less than their partners are generally frowned upon as slackers. Women are naturally hypergamous, which incentivises men to go for that big wage packet.
Men earn more than women by doing more dangerous and dirty jobs. Women earn less than men by choosing jobs which offer more benefits in terms of convenience, social opportunities, ease of commute etc at the expense of a lower salary. A man might choose to be a chef on an oil rig, whereas a woman is more likely to choose to be a chef in a school. Same job, vastly different pay.
Measuring privilege by how much people earn is silly. Privilege should be measured by how much money is being spent on you by other people. The flow of resources always goes from men to women. He for she.
For every dollar a woman spends she only has to earn 77 cents thanks to men subsidising her. For every dollar a man spends he must earn 1 dollar 23 cents, because his role is to subsidise women.
If we enforced strict gender equality in terms of pay, women's standard of living would actually go down, not up.
Novax Djocovid!! Love it. That has to be an instant classic in play on words. Good read as usual Linking today as usual @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
Novax Djocovid - that is funny. I would say the ball is green but a friend, an artist, always corrects me on colors. I see something like ugly pink-brown, she says mauve. What do I know?
Ummmm… didn’t we boycott moderna GC? I mean I have, and the that other p-word, boycotted them too…
The seals and sheep love their vaids, let them have a go at it, as many goes as they can boost up with. It’s for the good of all the people after all….
Am I missing something here? I don’t watch yellow ball anymore, the grunting she-men and the grunting he-women are too much for my brain to handle while watching yellow ball.
Apathy and indifference is understandable. I haven't yet hopped onto the 'let them all die if they can't see' train. Though if they pull that lockdown shit again with vax passes and the sheep line up I may very well be all aboard "Choo choo!". For now a war on humanity requires a defense of humanity. The preservation of our species will only succeed if more awaken. That's not my battle or m.o., since I don't have a reach but I'm still cheering for it.
GC, maybe I need to clarify. When I said “for the good of all people”, I meant specifically what you, we and I keep reading from these narcissists when they find out they have played roulette and lost… they all say “I did it for everyone in the world because I love them, and would do it again” etc…
I generally don’t wish harm on people, but having lived in a lock down state and witnessing first hand the horror my wife went through as a nurse, I have lost nearly all empathy and as you say I am apathetic towards evil people and stupidity in general.
Just wanted to clarify for you. If you needed I would give you the shirt off my back or the last bit of food I had, if I believed you were deserving, my bar is not too high for such a thing I should say, but their is a bar.
I am not a big fan of the New Testament GC.
Completely understandable Devo. They've fucked around with a lot of people’s lives and deserve nothing but contempt. I felt the same way around Portlanders masked up in June lumbering around like clueless neurotic drones. Let em go.
I saw that too...except in the Portland suburbs. Have not set foot inside the city limits in years. If I must drive on through on the freeways to get somewhere else, the energy is so foul that I almost pass out.
It was the west burbs. Have refused to set foot downtown myself since 2017. Will probably never return. I think I wrote about it here...
https://thegoodcitizen.live/p/natures-elixir-and-fooling-fish
Spot on article (link). Portland has never been a nice place. I remember as a child going into downtown with my parents, and feeling the horrible energy...like a curtain of gloom. Recently I did some research to try to answer my question: why is Portland so foul ? I learned that in the first half of the twentieth century, Portland was the abortion capital of the West Coast. Many of the tall buildings downtown hosted secret abortion clinics, and in one building, aborted babies were incinerated in the basement furnace. A murder also occurred in that basement. Where one finds dead babies, Molech is close behind.
I live in the west burbs. I fled to Mexico in Nov. 2020. I have driven all over that country alone, and I feel safe and comfortable there. I had to return here when my dad died from the Jonestown jab. His estate is large and complicated. My normie siblings have already done dirty by me. I will stay and fight for what's mine, but I hate it here. If it gets too unlivable, I'll let it all go, and flee again. Last time I went inside the city was 2011. I almost fainted when I got my water bill for June. I told folks it was social engineering by price gouging.
Yes. DEVO nailed it many years ago.
Agreed. Its getting time to pick sides. Stupid people need not apply.😏
You have more reach than you know.
Fact- America would be a better, stronger, more free country if women couldn’t vote and stayed home to raise children. Less talky more sandwich.
Oof. I said I'd like all comments as a thank you to the commenter for taking the time. What are you trying to do me Boflys?
It's okay GC. I'm a woman. I mostly agree.
I am ashamed of my half of the species most of the time.
Same here. I'm ashamed that it seems to me most woman fall for the psy-ops.
Elections are usually fairly close (before they started cheating). Imagine if all the Karens couldn’t vote. It would be a conservative land slide. Although I’m not sure I like the conservatives any better anymore.
I do see your point. Had an Afghan friend who worked as translator for US troops. He ended up in India then Krakow when the Tali went searching to cut his throat. Showed me photos of all his American troop buddies, then his family. ALL men. No women allowed out of the house. Men by the river eating. Men in a field smoking. A hundred photos, zero women. Ten years ago, I thought it was weird, and a little gay. That night we went to a club. Hundreds of Eurotrash tourist girls half naked and study abroad students twerking on strange men. I thought about their fathers, if they could see them...the drugs, the filth, the degeneracy and I started seeing the Afghan's point of view. There has to be some reasonable medium between the two. Lacking religious or moral grounding, strong men, and social cohesion, the pendulum will keep swinging toward degeneracy in the west. By design.
Big time! Spent 2 years in Afghan and another 2 in Iraq. I can very much understand the Muslim hatred to our shit modern culture.
I'll bet there's no more "rainbow" or tranny flags flying in Afghanistan now. It's almost to the point that the Tali look pretty good compared to the absolute degeneracy and moral decay I see anymore. I'm just saying, I get why a population would rather choose religious tyranny over a bunch of arrogant fools coming to bring "democracy".
Well said! That place accepting democracy is like the west accepting sharia law. We’re just to ethnocentric and arrogant to realize it. Not everyone wants to bath in the moral cesspool the west has become.
Love it Bo, telling it straight up is always best!! As long as you don’t expose yourself as an asshat or downright tool, always keep it honest baby! My wife is a brilliant nurse and great woman, who self admittedly only voted down my line. No Karen there, imagine if all husbands of Karen’s would just stand the fuck up and threaten to leave?
My wife is a school
Principal with three masters degrees. I love and respect her immensely. My original reply that sent that woman into a tiff stands. It’s a fact that if women didn’t vote we’d have conservative landslides.
Conservative landslides would have been better than what we have today, no doubt, but I am no conservative in today’s political theatre. The story to be written that I would read, would be what would have changed in our history if conservatives had always won??? Perhaps we would have two parties, one ultra religious, and one ultra nationalist? Maybe a third replacing libertarians, social conservatives? Probably my party, the latter…. Which would you be a part of? Would the “state” be worthy of its citizens????
Great comment and I agree. We’d be better off I suppose but lots of so called conservative ideas I don’t agree with. Wanna be gay and get married? Hell yes! But don’t demand equal treatment and then demand you get a parade for being gay. Just an example. I think if I could pick one word that would fix the current mess it would be consequence. Bring back a consequence for failure and success. Equal outcomes is complete beta bullshit.
Totally agree! Wrote all about it few weeks back: https://risingdawn360.substack.com/p/the-disintegration-of-the-family
that post on your site was good but when read between the lines you put everything on the man and I read it twice and you did not outline one thing a woman should do for the marriage. anything that would go wrong is totally the mans fault and not one word about anything a woman could be responsible for. the wrong woman makes a man want to give up in the pairing
Give me your real name and I’ll reply to your concerns about my post.
why do you need my real name? you do not list yours.
it is no wonder why they were not allowed to vote and being to dumb to make good decisions their fathers picked out a man for them to marry
Extremely misogynistic. You spelled too wrong. GC, what’s with these ignorant commenters making your page look like a magnet for incels?
Haha. I understand your point. Though his tact is often crude, sometimes insulting, this is still culturally practiced on a quarter of the planet. Even a man asking a woman's father for her hand is derived from this custom. I made a pledge from the start there would be no censorship here. There's far too much already in this world. Even those we may disagree or even find despicable on one cause are prone to make statements worthy of our consideration on others. When we deny ourselves the opportunity to listen on account of offense in one topic, we may be denying ourselves the truth in another.
I certainly don’t agree with censorship! And on my instagram page. (Same handle as this one) I also never censor the comments, unless I fear they will cause harm to the people I am painting. But I usually engage in good faith to see where the people are coming from. Just surprised at some of the low value comments with little substance in them and broad strokes of sexism.
It’s good to know you don’t agree with censorship. Free speech by definition covers all opinions, agreement or disagreement is a different matter. Just as a general observation, it’s always worth to have a closer look where we get “triggered” as it usually reveals where we are not “free” yet.
see how you lie. you dont believe in censorship then tell GC in a roundabout way to ban me. then you say you are an anti feminist but puke out the words sexism misogynistic and incels the code words of a radical feminist. to you a guy that does not bend to a man hating feminist is an incel but you are to dense to know that most women go for the strong bad boy. it is in their DNA from the cave man days where the strong guy can feed them and the kids.
I quit school at 15 started carrying lumber and I can make fools out of your kind in a debate even if they went to yale for 30 years being you have to lie and go against nature to justify your beliefs
Wow. The amount of anger and assumptions. Hope your wife if you have one is okay with the way you talk about women. My husband would never, and he is a conservative and traditionalist through and through. I did not ask TGC to ban you, I was just commenting on the vileness of your comment. Have a nice day.
thanks GC. those who call the truth hate....hate the truth
FWIW the most fierce opposition to women getting the vote was made by women.
Their argument was that one vote per household made far more sense, and that a husband's self interests would naturally extend to those of his wife and children. The feminist notion of extreme individualism had not yet been invented. Men and women were still viewed as a unit (complimentary partners invested in each other's success and well being).
These women argued that being the primary earner, a husband should get to vote on matters of taxation and tax spending. If you don't pay taxes you should not get to vote on how they are spent. It's a sound argument.
This frames the 'women vote' issue not so much about gender per se, but rather about responsibility. If we gave children the vote they would tend to vote for infinite 'free stuff' and 'special treatment' from government because they are not the ones having to work for it all through taxation. Giving children the vote would bankrupt parents, which is pretty much what female voters have done to men over the last century.
Women are the primary beneficiaries of tax spending, yet women earn significantly less than men. This is because women can AFFORD to earn less, due to the contributions (both forced and voluntary) made by men to women. On balance women pay no taxes as a group, only men do, because women (as a group) receive more from the system than they pay into the system.
One can make the argument that women will always tend to vote for bigger and bigger government, more government intervention in our lives, more taxes, more social programs ... all of which represent the forced redistribution of wealth from men to women (with government keeping an increasingly larger share for themselves to pay for wars, surveillance agencies, more guns and stuff like that).
Thus women having the vote creates a kind of dual parasite system, with women parasitising off of men's labour, and government also parasitising off of men's labour by taking a huge cut of the money they redistribute from men to women.
And this is precisely what has happened over the last century. Women's vote has allowed women to enjoy the provision of men, but without having to actually marry a man and provide anything in return (such as a sandwich or a foot rub). Everyone is a loser except government who keep growing and increasing in power.
Voting for a welfare state (as women will always do), destroys marriage and family life, which in turn destroys the lives of children and creates more criminals, gang culture, promiscuity and more feminism and deadbeat dads (no male role models) ..... all of which causes the next generation of women to vote for even more welfare as society breaks down even further. It's a vicious cycle.
So yes, there is a sound argument against women having the vote. And it is not misogynistic. It is just practical and common sense. The problem is not so much women's naturally hypergamous nature and natural craving for resources, comfort, stability and protection (all of which are essential traits of a mother) .. the problem is combining these natural female traits with the guns of statism (the forced redistribution of wealth).
Women voting is effectively legalising women pointing guns at men and saying "give me resources or else!". Before the vote, women had to obtain resources from men through non coercive means (although manipulation and seduction was allowed!). This meant women had to provide something of value to men (a family, support, love, a sandwich etc) in order to gain access to the fruits of men's labour.
This non violent transaction was better for women, for children and for men. It forced women to be on their best behaviour (as it were), which is great because women are actually just as competitive as men. Men competed to be successful in their careers and women competed to be the perfect housewife, mother and member of the community.
Today women are arguably MORE competitive when it comes to securing resources, but under the paradigm of voting (statism) women today compete to be the biggest victims of increasingly tenuous forms of oppression (manspreading etc), in order to extract every last drop of resources and special treatment from men - via the state. But this way of taxing men is destroying men, destroying the economy, destroying society and just creating a huge government which is completely unsustainable.
Again, the problem is not so much women's thirst for resources, but the introduction of guns into the transaction. Most women cannot help but vote for the forced redistribution of resources to themselves. This means women + vote = ever expanding government ..... until social and economic collapse is inevitable which is where we are at today.
"a magnet for incels?"
Incels are themselves a product of women's hypergamous nature + the vote, which has driven millions of women to choose the state (men with guns) as their ideal husband (the state is the ultimate alpha male). The welfare state is essentially a harem system. And with so many women now in the harem, it leaves many men unable to find a partner.
As men's labour is taxed from them by force and given to random women the will never even meet, it causes these men to become demoralised and in the end they give up trying to be a success or attractive and just play computer games instead.
The equivalent would be homosexual men and single men who can't find a wife voting for women to be forced to hand over their babies. Obviously after a while most women would just give up with the whole motherhood thing and just play computer games instead. And who could blame them?
Of course the only morally defendable position is for nobody to have the right to vote for any kind of government coercion. Instead of giving women the vote we should have taken it away from men and dispensed with taxation altogether.
Look, I am anti-government and believe taxation is theft. I mostly follow anti-feminist women who are homemakers and amazing mothers. What bothered me in the original comment was not so much the voting matter, which I don’t believe in anyway, as an anarchist idealist following natural law, but OP saying women are too stupid. We have different kinds of intelligence, and there are plenty of women who outsmart men. His comment was shallow and felt full of hatred, not put into an actual argument like yours.
If I was a feminist liberal, I would not be subscribed to TGC’s blog. I am married to a very masculine man and I let him make all the “masculine” decisions for us, as I feel that is the proper order in the marital relationship for harmony and a strong family. I take care of the house, cook, clean, and am having his child. I was also in the workforce for a decade and bring my own money to the table, which I allow him to make the best decisions with.
OK cool. This being 'the internet' I automatically assumed you were of a feminist persuasion. It's usually a safe bet, but obviously I was wrong. The word 'misogyny' is what triggered me ;)
"What bothered me ....(was the) ... OP saying women are too stupid."
I would argue that women ARE stupid, but so are men. It's a joint effort. I think a genuine form of sexism/ oppression is men appeasing women and not holding women to the same moral or intellectual standards. If men appear more rational it's because women demand it of them. Men are less likely to demand the same of women, which is actually kind of insulting.
I agree the OP was not being helpful.
I'm sorry if I came across as biting your head off. I was literally waiting for a plumber to arrive and had nothing better to do that sit on the internet for a couple of hours. Ranting about gender was a welcome relief from ranting about 'covid'. I got a bit carried away...
Haha all good!! I used to live in California and was a sleepy sheep until 2015. Then I spiraled down many a rabbit hole, listened to every episode of Mark Passio, read all the books of Rene Guenon, had my fair share of Alan Watts and Manly P Hall, moved out of the USA and met my husband abroad. We have lived in Mexico and India, two very different cultures from the USA. He is Russian, and very traditionalist, which I love. We have had many a conversation about why the Indian system of marriage works better than the USA. But that being said, both of us waited until we had enough wisdom and had done enough work on ourselves to choose an adequate partner. I had always wanted 3 kids by 27, but that was not my path. Happy where it has led me though, with our first little one on the way and a man I can rely on in thick and thin who holds me accountable for my actions, words, and beliefs.
why apologize to her cause she is lying that she has a man make all the decisions. this is why militant women have gotten so far destroying the foundations of the country cause of men bending to them
Bravo! Trying to get our message out there.
I dont care what you think and I say you are lying about your lifestyle. there are women here that liked what I said and if you dont you are a radical man hating feminist
beautiful post. totally logical and fact based impossible to argue against but the victim painter being buried with facts as a radical feminist has to morph into a submissive girl to her hubby. haahah what a joke
remember the first woman on earth Eve doomed humanity forever lol
What are you saying here? That SPQR70AD is not allowed to state his view? "ignorant commenters"? Oh dear, dear...
And you come from a good intentions worrying about GC reputation, and in your altruistic spirit correcting our spelling, how magnificent of you!
I really triggered a lot of people here who seem to think women are dumb and not deserving of their own choices. My pronouns are clearly she/ her, there are only two genders, everyone is making a ton of assumptions about me being some liberal feminazi. Yeesh!! I only corrected the spelling because of the irony of him saying too dumb and not even using correct English. Otherwise I would never bother with such a petty correction. Did you read the rest of the thread? I’m shocked at the level of anger here by people, although I shouldn’t be, the world gets darker and more polarized by the day.
no the world is starting to figure out the damage your movement has done
I have read this stack for over a year now and have only seen incel posts, your word not mine, two or three times. I always ignore them as do 99%. You fell for it hook line and sinker btw.
You’re generalizing and exaggerating is very unbecoming and might tip you off as being one of several types of folks we usually bag on?
You have the right to say what you want, I am not offended… but man you’re full of shit on this one!
who are you talking about?
I replied the misogynistic claim, why do you ask?
are you calling me a miss-soggy-nist? thank you for the compliment
Good work, love the hearse, mind if I nick that and use it for one of my future stories? Many thanks, Doc.
Sure thing. We should print up a hundred thousand stickers of Moderna and Pfizer logos and go put them on hearses. Project Mayhem.
Like your style, good thinking, if we can do for Pfizer what Ricky Gervais has done for Karl Pilkington we win.
Excellent idea
Love that idea.
Novak has advantage they won’t admit - love the post - the US open was a total disgrace this year in even more ways than you mentioned:(
As for me, I'm just ignoring everything and found a job cleaning litter boxes for the furries in our public school system. Hell, if you can't beat them, might as well just help support the next generation of absolute psychopaths. Meanwhile, "experts" continue to be baffled.... 🙄😉
Ha! Just exclaimed to my wife an hour ago: "Novax just won!"
Brilliant minds. Brilliant article!
An elite athlete being told how to manage his health by beauracrats was a huge red flag.
Haha. And the "health" of some of these bureaucrats...oof...triple red flag.
"Where are all those “brave conservatives” canceling Bud Light for the custom trannybrew backlash and Target for their tranny child tuck-wear line?"
I would not say it was "canceling" Bud Light or Target. Cancel culture is not the same as boycotting companies or products for their actual products or marketing efforts, or other things that are related to the business the company is doing.
Bud Light and Target made a point of showing their fealty to the trans cult as part of their official marketing effort. They each made the move to bow to the cult and to affirm "trans" ideology, so customers made the move away from them. That's never been what cancel culture meant.
Other targets of conservative boycotts have done things like "debanking" conservatives for their viewpoints. These are official acts by the bank, and it is fair game to boycott banks who attempt such things. It is the bank that is taking part in cancel culture when it opts to give the boot to its own customers in good standing because it does not like what those customers have said somewhere unrelated to their business dealings with that bank.
In cancel culture, there's always an element of bringing in someone's political views when they are not otherwise related to the matter at hand, like when Twitter gave the boot to many people espousing conservative viewpoints, including the President of the United States, not for violating their rules (although they always tried to claim that it was), but for saying things they didn't like. Twitter had a set of rules about what was acceptable and what was not, and as long as a given tweet was not in violation of those rules, the actual content of the message is not supposed to be their concern (by their own rules). When they brought in the element that was unrelated to their business, which in this case was people's political statements, and booted people for that, it was cancellation. Had they actually been in violation of the rules, that would have been a different story.
The most classic example of cancel culture I can think of was that of Brendan Eich, creator of the script programming language that powers the web (Javascript), who was for a short time the CEO of Mozilla. Soon after, someone found out that years before, he had donated a small bit of his own money to a Prop 8 campaign in California (opposing gay marriage).
Because of this, OKCupid, an online dating site, started yelling at people who visited with Firefox, Mozilla's main product. People within Mozilla were threatening to leave if Eich remained. It became this whole big brouhaha, and when the dust settled, Eich was out.
That's cancel culture. Eich was canceled for something that had nothing to do with his job or the role at the company. Mozilla was canceled by OKCupid not for doing something that would be harmful to the web, like so many things that Google does in the development of their own browser, but simply for having a CEO who, one time, years ago, spent his own money on a political campaign OKCupid didn't like. This was not part of Mozilla's marketing... it had nothing to do with that. Eich had demonstrated less than perfect fealty to the leftist narrative at some point in his life (though at the time that Eich made that donation, Barack Obama was also claiming to be against gay marriage), so he had to be destroyed... which meant that anything he was associated with had to be canceled until they gave in and got rid of him.
When Bed, Bath, and Beyond dropped My Pillow not because it was a bad product or because of some political statement My Pillow made, but because its founder and CEO Mike Lindell made statements as himself (not on behalf of My Pillow) that they did not like, that was cancel culture. When conservatives boycotted BB&B, that was not cancel culture... they were boycotting BB&B for an official act of the company, which has always been fair game.
Years ago, when Sara Lee awarded Sarah Brady their "humanitarian of the year" award for her efforts to infringe on people's Constitutional liberties, I put the company on my "do not buy" list, and they remain there to this day. That's not cancellation. The only reason a company like Sara Lee even has a "humanitarian of the year" award is for the purpose of marketing, and I am simply responding to that marketing as an official act of the company.
I have never boycotted a company because its CEO one time many years ago donated money to a political cause I do not like. I am aware that many of the companies that I buy from have CEOs that hold political views I find repugnant. So long as that company does not make that a part of their business dealings with the public, I consider the personal political views of each person within that company to be their own business.
Famed (late) political commentator Rush Limbaugh was a big fan of Apple products, even though Apple is run by people with leftist views, and they have not always kept those views out of the business. But on the whole, Apple is about selling iThings, so Rush spoke highly of them, and often bought them so that he could give them away on the show.
I do not agree with Rush's view about Apple. I do avoid Apple products, but it is not because Apple is a leftist company. It's because I don't like Apple policies, and the effect those policies have on their products. I do not like how iPads and iPhones are so locked down, and how hard Apple works to keep people locked out of their high-dollar products. I don't like how Apple has long engineered its products to not be easily repairable, or how they brush off engineering defects as "you're holding it wrong," or how they blame users for any other of their engineering failures.
King Billie Jean is a tranny, just like all of the "women" tennis stars. Let me elaborate on this, a continuation of yesterday's "Trant". (Tranny Rant). One of the many linchpin differences between a biological male and female is the way we walk. Real women, because of their hips, pelvis and Q angle (quadriceps) in their legs, put one foot behind and in front of the other. Men stroll with legs slightly apart moving straight forward. It's called the "Toy Soldier Walk". Some years ago, before I was really aware of the ubiquitous transgender phenomenon, I read a letter from a father who took his 12 year old daughter to see the tranny actor Johnny Depp in his pirate movie. He said during the show his daughter exclaimed, "Dad, Johnny Depp walks just like a girl walks!" Perspicacious kid. The oligarchic Founding Fathers were Freemasons and as I've touched on, those creeps are really into gender switching as well as regular transvestite, cross dressing drag. I recently saw a large picture of George Washington's, "First Lady" Martha Washington, and if "she" was not a guy, I'm a Tasmanian yak. Clearly, a man wearing a woman's dress and bonnet on very short hair. I imagine Georgie called "her", Big Marty, like Bwack Obongo calling his "wife" Michelle, Big Mike. I mentioned that to my knowledge there have been no defamation lawsuits against the transvestigators. I recall from my days as a pro se litigant in the trenches against the most evil entity in history, the American legal industry, 50 AmJur 2d 268 (American Jurisprudence: The Canon of American Law)- "Truth is an absolute, affirmative defense to slander and libel." Perhaps some of the luminaries on the world's stage have spoken to their respective shysters about suing and they gently pointed this out. In a knock down, drag out courtroom battle, the defendant could prove his or her assertions thus nullifying your lawsuit prompting dismissal and leaving you wide open for a counter suit. And uh, you do have a lot more assets than they have. Plus, think of the bad publicity! So the trannys reconsidered. This is pure conjecture on my part.
Haha. I enjoy the hell out of this topic. Even if we have no way of confirming what and what isn't accurate, it doesn't matter. It's still enjoyable. All Tasmanian Yaks agree.
Hahahaha!!!!! Likewise, GC. It is enjoyable to laugh at and mock this perverse, inverted, world of corrupt, criminal insanity. Fuck the trannys, fagots, bulldykes, and their Hebraic promulgators. I think it's long past time to heat up the furnaces for real.
Oof...you went there HD. Haaha. well, maybe the Tasmanian Yaks agree. I can't though.
If what you are inferring is what I think it is, that being the alleged Holocaust during the Aryan genocide known as World War Two, I can assure you it did not happen and among many other proofs, this was amply demonstrated in a court trial in Canada in the 1980s. (if you wish, I can elaborate on this). It was and is a monstrous propaganda lie used to justify the creation of Israel and its extermination of the indigenous Palestinians with concomitant seizure of their lands. It is no more true than the 9/11, and Covid-19 fairy tales along with everything else the Cryptocracy tries to shove down our collective throats.
There are things never worth touching online. The Holocaust is one of them. No matter how good one's intentions in questioning the official narrative, nothing is more devasting in terms of 'can and will be used against you.' So yeah, Tasmanian Yaks.
It shows more clearly than anything who and what is the real power behind the Iron Heel. In just about every nation in the West, "Holocaust Denial" is a capital felony crime and can, and has, landed people years in the Slam. The only reason it is not yet that way in Scumerica is that they are still paying lip service at times to the First Amendment. That will change. In the meantime, they have other ways of silencing you. Imagine that, a felony crime for questioning the veracity of an alleged historic event and insisting on proof for it. The outrage, the temerity.
Feminists are a sneaky bunch ...... the gender wage gap is actually proof of female privilege not male privilege. Here's why...
Men have to earn more because men are expected (and forced) to subsidise women (it is a natural hard wired tendency as well). Men subsidise women by paying more taxes, which are spent disproportionally on women's social programs and women's welfare. In fact if you do the math women (as a whole) don't actually pay any taxes, only men to.
Most women expect their men to earn more than they do, and men who earn less than their partners are generally frowned upon as slackers. Women are naturally hypergamous, which incentivises men to go for that big wage packet.
Men earn more than women by doing more dangerous and dirty jobs. Women earn less than men by choosing jobs which offer more benefits in terms of convenience, social opportunities, ease of commute etc at the expense of a lower salary. A man might choose to be a chef on an oil rig, whereas a woman is more likely to choose to be a chef in a school. Same job, vastly different pay.
Measuring privilege by how much people earn is silly. Privilege should be measured by how much money is being spent on you by other people. The flow of resources always goes from men to women. He for she.
For every dollar a woman spends she only has to earn 77 cents thanks to men subsidising her. For every dollar a man spends he must earn 1 dollar 23 cents, because his role is to subsidise women.
If we enforced strict gender equality in terms of pay, women's standard of living would actually go down, not up.
Great info! Too many truths. One of the biggest cons of the grand (civilizational destroying) con that has been feminism - the gender pay gap.
Novax Djocovid!! Love it. That has to be an instant classic in play on words. Good read as usual Linking today as usual @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
The good news is that Novak Djokovic won. That energetically says "beaucoup."
Dean
Which imaginary country does Novax Djocovid come from?
Basedistan
Is that nextdoor to remoteistan?
Since you brought Moderna up, here is a little ditty I made based off of Tom Jones' "Delilah". Enjoy:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/SfQMYWi3M4eb/
Nice one!
Novax Djocovid - that is funny. I would say the ball is green but a friend, an artist, always corrects me on colors. I see something like ugly pink-brown, she says mauve. What do I know?
The movies Idiocracy and Team America.
Oh so relevant today.