The femmos next target is school hours.
Many will agree that schools, or somebody, should raise the children while the parents go to work. After all, everyone needs to work harder to buy the dog box unit or 200m² block that earlier generations would have labelled third world. But the underlying assumption is never addressed: that the most important thing you can do is to achieve financial goals. Raising children of your own is secondary. It’s a seductive assumption. After all who would raise children without having enough money to do so? When you delay having children into your 30s and further, children increasingly become an impossibility unless you are earning like superstar.
It’s so utterly communist, so utterly dystopian, it’s hard to believe that people are being herded into to this, including the author of that piece, Kate Emery. The state will take over even more of childrens’ minds and families will be so small that few ever feel the strength that comes as being part of a big, cohesive, team. Make no mistake. Big, well run, families can be as powerful or more powerful than large companies, even governments. Just look at European aristocrats, old money USA, the mafia.
What’s really going on is that people’s ambitions are being channelled into serving existing elites and their families, future generations are being prevented from thinking any differently, and they have set things up so that it can appear to be the logical choice. It is Huxley and Orwell all at once.
This whole ‘family’ thing is pathetic. The state controls everything. Military, cops, tv, antibiotics distribution, bras and knickers, tampons, 9 volt batteries. Yeah if everyone just got laid and had a family that’d solve everything. Fuck off.
Niggers.
Having more children and raising them yourself rather than letting the state raise and indoctrinate them is pathetic? Is that what you’re saying?
Being ungovernable is the only solution to a tyrannical government and the only way to be ungovernable is to build strong communities. The building blocks of strong communities are family and children.
The choice is simple. Accept the increasingly dystopian tyranny or rebuild society from the ground up by raising new generations with as little state interference as possible. Demographics is destiny.
If you have a better idea, tell us about it.
Exactly – elites hate us. There is no greater act of defiance to their plans than having a family and perpetuating your values and society forward into the future in competition with their own progeny and goals. They wish to inherit the earth and they can’t very well do that if your descendants are still around.
Big or small the state is always gonna be there. So better to make a big deal of it rather than focus on family and religion. A bit like old school Oz and WAP.
Notice how most female lefties are ug? Forcing them to breed with some oaf is gonna be a big turn off. Same with the lefty males.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘make a big deal of it’, but I generally agree with the rest of your post. Lefties are definitely ugly, often deliberately so. Because they’ve been brainwashed by the state to hate themselves and their kind and to not reproduce – either by being ugly, mutilating their genitals, being faggots, abortion, etc.
I’ll say it again. Having more children and raising them yourself is the only way to fight back. The main way lefties reproduce is by indoctrination. We have to breed faster than they can indoctrinate. There is no other way.
most of the hottest celebs are lefties
id assume physical attractievness is less common amongst rightoids just bc most rightoids are oldcels
That’s probably mostly a larp.
so called right wing women posing with guns and taking photos of themselves in sun dresses talking about how trad they are is too
all politics is an identitarian larp
Yeah, I don’t put much stock in right wing women celebrities, but they are infinitely more preferable to their left wing counterparts.
like margot robbie?
Like I said, nearly all celebrities are attractive by definition and being loudly left is the only to move up the ladder.
Nearly all celebrities are lefties because only lefties are promoted into these roles while righties are cancelled for the crime of not being lefties.
I disagree about the attractiveness of left vs right. Look at Megyn Kelly vs Rachel Maddow. Hannah Gadsby vs pretty much anyone.
physical attractiveness is correlated with IQ, and lefties (at least whites) have slightly higher IQ than righties, so no its pretty plausible
higher social class = better looking
and higher social class almost always correlates with somewhat more left wing political opinions
theres an ironclad correlation here tbh
Source re: lefties having higher IQ?
On the issue of lefties having higher IQ… now I think about it, I read something similar a few years ago. I believed it at the time, but now I think it stinks of left wing propaganda published in order to keep lefties in in the cult and to reinforce in them that their belief system is superior.
Who would have a higher IQ out of these two groups?
1) Q&A audiences who applaud all the left wing talking points and download all their opinions from the show?
2) People who see Q&A for what it is and avoid it?
Young women seem to be nearly all lefties. Are they smarter than the far right conspiracy theorist patriarchy on EZFKA.com?
Maybe it’s agreeableness rather than IQ that’s in play here, but nevertheless, I very much doubt that lefties are smarter. The evidence I see suggests otherwise.
I have heard criticism that the original study was fairly limited and had a disproportionately large representation of young people, and as the saying goes – ‘any young person who isn’t a socialist has no heart, but if the remain a socialist then they have no brain’.
I wouldn’t put any stock in a ‘study’ without knowing its origins. Was it conducted by inexperienced uni students steeped in leftie ideology? Was it funded by someone with vested interests?
Studies are as corrupt as anything else these days and shouldn’t be taken at face value. They’re generally about as reliable as a building certification or a degree in HR / marketing.
Yeah most lefty chicks are chunky and dumpy. I’d feel sorry for them if they hadn’t caused me so much grief.
To add to this… nearly all celebrities are attractive because it’s in the job specifications. Also women are mostly lefties.
Also… Sam Smith. Fat. Ugly. Faggot. Radical left.
In case anyone doesn’t know what a Hannah Gadsby is…
HANNAH GADSBY is BACK with “Gender Agenda” | Woke GenderQueer Cringe
https://youtu.be/RTPv7Jelg0w?si=HP15QFWPGTX_D4XM
That ugly thing is the least funny comedian in the universe. Just deadeningly unfunny.
I’m don’t even see how it can be classified as a comedian. There are no jokes. Just incessant whining. I suppose anything can be true in Leftieland.
>‘make a big deal of it’
Well I guess have an unbreakable constitution with rules. Oz must be majority white, house prices can’t be more than x household income…stuff like that.
Don’t worry everybody MB predicting rates will be going to Zero.
That should put the kiss of death on it ever happening.
i think studies have shown most students learn absolutely nothing in school past eighth grade
forcing kids to spend so much time in school (and even more egregiously, to ‘study’ outside of it by doing homework) imo is a crime and outright child abuse
its an egregious example of what happens when you live in a society that refuses to acknowledge genetic differences in personality and intelligence between individuals; if everything is just a product of environmental influences then stuff like forcing schooling down kids throats becomes the ultimate priority because otherwise everybody would be incredibly stupid
also it plugs heavily into our age segregated mindset, the idea that kids cant or shouldnt be allowed work at least in some jobs (but for some reason forcing them to do home work and get bullied in the playground is less cruel than stocking supermarket shelves or working at mcdonalds) doesnt reflect historical reality and also severely understimates what kids are capable of doing
beyond writing, literacy and arithmetic smart and intellectually curious kids figure shit out for themselves, dumb and normie kids learn absolutely nothing and you just waste their time forcing them
kids should be able to have fun and work if they want to bc you only get to be a kid once. they shouldnt be forced to spend their hours ‘learning’ bullshit theyll just forget in 5 seconds anyway or doing home work which is outright child abuse
I do see where you are coming from but I’m not sure I agree.
If I let my imagination loose, then the future is very bleak for underskilled Aussies. Technology will invade their “protected” job spaces, whether they like it or not, there’s no if’s ands or buts it’s simply a matter of when. So wrt to secondary / tertiary education we (as a society) are trying to create a knowledge/skills/ability/connection platform that will enable the individual to find employment for the 40 years after they graduate. That’s the challenge.
If we create a world where only a select few Aussies ever learns Calculus (or even just Algebra) then it will be very hard for our “uneducated” masses to contribute meaningfully in tomorow’s challenging employment environment. Sure we’ll all have some sort of NDIS(like) carer jobs available but ffs who really want’s to do that job for 40 or 50 years. How many manky butts will you have to wipe, in your life, if carer is everyone’s chosen career.
well you’re wrong on the underskilled part because it looks like if AI is going to take jobs, its the high skilled and creative jobs that are going to go first
if anything the shit jobs at maccas and gas stations are the jobs that are HARDER to automate bc robotics turns out is a lot more complex than pure information manipulation
LLMs are showing us its probably legit easier to automate a graphic designer than a laborer
but even if this wasnt true, school doesnt teach most people how to be good at ‘high skilled’ shit anyway bc theyre too dumb to learn that regardless
If your time horizon is the next 5 years then you’re probably right, if it is the next 15 years then you’re probably wrong. Out beyond 15 years it’s anyone’s guess what technology will be capable of.
That said, one thing is certain: if the task employees enough people then someone will be looking to automate it. It doesn’t matter if the task is flipping buggers, cleaning floors or hanging drywall, specialized robots will be developed for each of these tasks and a bunch more. On that matter I’m certain.
it’s the sheer number of jobs that can be eliminated (and the resulting profits) that will focus attention on exactly these sorts of unskilled occupations.
if what i wrote was right then on a long enough time frame all jobs will be automated
but in the short term the jobs that will be automated first are information manipulation jobs usually you ‘require’ a degree for
jobs that will be automated last, if at all, is low skilled b.s bc 1) robotics is harder than AI info manipulation 2) they pay lower, so you could cost effectively keep people in them longer than high skilled stuff
a lot of high paying jobs assuming this stuff comes to pass will only be around due to lobbying and special pleading (ie medicos)
The only reason the low skill stuff will be automated slower is because it is mostly already automated. Virtually all labourers jobs were automated a century ago with the invention of machinery. In the 17 and 18th century if you wanted a hole dug you got a shitload of labourers with shovels and picks. Today you get some machinery and a few guys.
You don’t need to be taught any of the school things in school. Plenty of quality, free, content online. Or in textbooks.
True. I pretty much educated myself after learning the basics in primary school. With parental support of course – for providing books etc. For me, school was more important for socialisation rather than education.
I looked at this from many angles and the conclusion is always the same: must’ve been written whilst sniffing glue.
education us just. it makes those who learn quickly have more spare time and those whom are slower to trade some play time for knowledge that will still enter their head and serve them later by not leaving them to remain a Dubbo/Druitt types.
to erode already insufficient schooling is to make everyone have lesser broad knowledge and deny critical thinking. It’s the very way the society is pushed now: stupor with iPhones in every hand.
why educate when Siri can give you all the answers
education is shite, overrated b.s that teaches most kids fuck all
the dumb ones learn basically nothing beyond a certain point (literacy/basic math if even that), its not an equaliser whatsoever
u havent spent any time around dumb dumbs (besides yourself) thats the obvious problem
they cant even tell you what they had for breakfast yesterday let alone remember what they learned in mr smiths high school history class 25 years ago
I agree education should be more pragmatic. If you want to be an engineer start in year 11. The English component should be about grammar, not reading some whiny lefty shit like Catcher in the Rye or whatever.
If you wanted to ensure complete disengagement from all boys aged over 12 then grammer lessons is one sure and certain pathway. They’ll be so uninvolved we’ll need to invent new words to describe this level of detachment.
As for math starting in year11 (but only if you want to be a engineer) well lets just say the sort of math any prospective engineer needs will be developed from at least year8 onwards.
There are very few students (probably none) who could even attempt Extension2 (old 4 unit math) without having studied pretty rigorously from at least year9 onwards.
I am basing it on the assumption the student has sufficiently good maths and english from years 7-10.
It’s spelled ‘grammar’. And it’s important. Precise communication is a vital ingredient in a high-functioning society. If you want us to devolve to simian ebonics as used in the US urban youth environment, then you’re on the right path.
whateva digga!
What about Dostoyevski, Kafka…?
Whilst not sufficient in isolation from other factors, literature is paramount for developing critical thinking.
Maybe critical thinking is something you either have or you don’t. All this education and most people are NPCs.
Critical thinking is a skill.
Thinking is also a skill.
Both come from education. Hence the Dubbo/Mt.Druitt/”youse” types
Strawmanning again?
I already agreed education is shyte and added that further eroding little what’s left of it is terrible proposition, a step closer towards Idiocracy types.
That’s my point, hence what you should have attacked.
Teach dumbs less and they will not even reach the point you say they get to now. Dubbo types everywhere.
One thing you’re accurate.
Looking at the vast amount of knowledge I will not have time nor space to accumulate, I do see myself dumb. Being incognitive of vastness of knowledge outside my own – is a bliss.
i never said NO ONE should have education but it seems like theres practically no benefit to schooling for most people after about 8th grade or so
much of it is a waste of time that practically no one remembers, i remember all the shitty art classes and music classes i had to do. didnt learn a thing, was super hard and prob super expensive for the schools, didnt give a shit about any of it and nor did anyone else in my classes
we had to learn recorders (some dumb flute instrument) in 4th grade was a fucking waste of time. why werent we just spending time hanging out w our friends and playing video games etc instead? no functional difference to the end point of our education except at least we would have been having fun
the only thing i will say is the life education van was fucking mad that shit ruled
Granted not every kid is going to enjoy every subject they are exposed to.
But isn’t the issue that if kids are not exposed to a whole variety of things preferably early in life, how will they understand where their interests and talents are?
Not all kids have parents who expose their kids to such a variety of topics/interests, and there are many kids who probably at first ‘hate’ (or at least think they would ‘hate’) certain subjects, but then later on come to appreciate them.
I don’t believe you can leave everything to the roulette wheel of whoever your parents happen to be.
I’m not arguing that school (esp. state schooling) is ideal, and there needs to be a variety of learning options. Paradoxically dumbing down the curriculum and the amount of social engineering in schools these days underestimates what kids are capable of and adds years of compulsory schooling that could be removed if that nonsense wasn’t required.
Dumbing down education serves a purpose to create generation of people who will have the mind of a goldfish and be stunned by the knowledge Siri can provide, wondering how come she knows it all.
Stupor prohibits rebeling.
education has to be dumbed down bc its the only way to graduate more people from school and then university
if the standards were higher, the lower iq people would have to drop out sooner
True, you did not explicitly say it, except you just said education for most is a waste of time past X years of age. It heavily applies education should be abolished (for most).
I will somewhat agree, Dubbo/Druitt types is pointless to educate. For the rest, broad education opens up mind for the world which exists past glue sniffing wonderland.
well, well,
I wondered whadafaq is this , a new and unregurgitated topic and it’s simple, it’s not written by Dimbo
tnx Robert for pulling this place out from the EmBee trap
I would hate to be a teacher.
Treated a burnt-out history teacher some years back – they would get emails and complaints from parents all the time. Then it clicked – the school they were in was in a high migrant area, so parents were wanting specific moments in Chinese or Indian history subjects covered. Apparently it’s mandatory to cover Australian history in the curriculum which was the default response, but it must have got tiring dealing with the same issues year after year and having to remain politically correct it’s not like they could tell them of it’s that important teach it to your kids yourself.
So-called multiculturalism makes pretty much everything worse. People suffer because of it.
Most teachers are lefties. They brought it on themselves.
https://x.com/KimDotcom/status/1763655512800051677?s=20
Sky News shows who they really are.
Rishi just called this guy “far right”. Tried to vilify him to hell.
https://x.com/NickBuckleyMBE/status/1763649714522591653?s=20
Dude with some sort of Asian wife.
https://workerspartybritain.org/manifesto-britain-deserves-better/
Galloway is a corrupt, grifting chancer. He’s been elected in 4 different electorates in complete different parts of England, largely by appealing to the Muslims. He also ran a charity that gathered over a million pounds in donations, where the money disappeared.
If ever there was a venal, corrupt self-serving piece of shit in the UK parliament, it’s him.
Ok, I had no idea. Never heard of him or the party.
Totally disagree.
Galloway is one of the few who will speak raw truths to power.
Perhaps why so many slurs are made against him?
That line about the charity is nonsense, and you can see his vigorous defence of his own character versus the US Senate here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dD48d-yjxc
Do I agree with everything he has ever said? No.
But who is in total agreement with someone else except raging sycophants.
the fact that sunak came out and gave a surprise ‘denouncement’ of no one in particular right after galloway won the byelection was so obvious, he couldnt have made it more clear his speech was a knee bending gesture to his masters
Forced myself to watch that grindingly trite address.
Is it possible to get more of a script-reading puppet?
Unbelievable.
Galloway v Sunak in the commons will be mandatory viewing.
Sunak comes across as having less personality than a piece of cardboard, can’t relate to people who aren’t millionaires and can’t think on his feet.
Versus Galloway who is an old school debater with a withering tongue, Rishi will be tongue-lashed back to India.
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/no-evidence-of-charitable-activity-at-aid-convoy-charity-set-up-by-george-galloway.html
Tl;DR
“Our investigation into Viva Palestina found that it was a wholly inadequately managed charity. A trustee is by its name a trusted position, acting for the public benefit to help others.
“The public has a right to expect that those who serve as charity trustees take their responsibilities seriously, properly accounting for the charity’s income, assets, activities and its expenditure. This didn’t happen in the case of Viva Palestina.
“Our inquiry shows that the former trustees did not pay proper attention to the legal responsibilities involved in running a charity and handling funds donated by the public.
“We found little evidence that the intended beneficiaries received the support intended, despite the extensive fundraising by Viva Palestina. The former trustees thus badly let down the public to whom the charity is accountable.”
There’s a problem with that line though, he was never a trustee. Indeed its not clear why something that was effectively a political campaign needs to be registered as a charity at all.
It was loaded with the politics of the time, they never wanted the convoy to reach the Rafah crossing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnyfL453sOU
he still beats rishi sunak
Good article, Robert. Nice change of pace.
Agreed. Thanks Rob.