Fashus Maximus

This is a follow up to the question of whether women are capable of agency. Based on the conversations so far, the opinions are mixed on the question of agency but I overwhelmingly see suggestions of helping women make better decisions. Have we considered that perhaps, women are simply better off being property? And why has this topic not been raised before? Think about it. A man will: - put barriers around his property - protect his property - invest in his property - use his property In other words, everything a woman instinctively & sexually wants from a man despite the outward shit tests. So why even bother helping them become better decision makers when they can simply benefit from a man's wisdom? And yes, I mean "use" as in use sexually; aside from consent, there is no such thing as equality in the bedroom. Here (scroll down to play) is an interesting interview with Emily Youcis, the babe who unironically promotes White Sharia.

This is about as logical as saying: If you enter in a boxing match, you can either fight your opponent, or your opponent can simply get out of your way and let you knock him out. Those who have co-opted the levers of government (a certain ethnic tribe that shall not be named), will not simply get out of the way. For them, this is a win-lose game. Closed borders for them, open borders for us. Identity for them, individualism for us. Masculinity for them, feminism for us. Anti-miscegenation for them, race-mixing for us. Ethics for them, liberty for us. You get the picture. This is an ethnic cold war, and they started it. It is not a contradiction to prefer less government where it doesn't result in our death (like private money), but to prefer more government in a race war. If we don't take control, our daughters will give births to abominations, but hey, at least we still have our liberty, tax cuts, and muh constitution, amma right? We can either take back control of the government and put the savages under our boots, or enjoy watching our own genocide. Don't confuse the NAP or Christianity for pacifism. We have reached the point of "whatever it takes", and the existence of my people is not negotiable.

The modern banking system is neither free, backed, nor reserved. Also, our central bank is a monopolist unlike what the quote describes, i.e. a central bank among many. So that's 4 major differences. Did you not notice these or are you implying they are irrelevant? Money has existed since 9000BC before there was government [src]. Same for rocket technology [src]. Bombs and physics existed prior to government involvement too. Most of the work was already done by the time the government got around to it. Low hanging fruit, tbh. Doesn't really say much in terms of the necessity of government.

- This private currency article is literally first on Google. - We've had a world economy way before 1914, ffs. I don't understand how anyone still follows the idea that "if muh-guvment don't do it then who will". We've had literally everything the government now "provides", before it started providing it. What the government is needed for right now is to physically remove the violent savages we've imported, and to protect us from the happy merchants who've engaged in the white genocide Kalergi plan. Those are the sort of things that we can't do ourselves.

The central argument of the article is that posting about reading Culture of Critique makes you as immature as a teenage boy. That is exactly the kind of Jewish reasoning that Culture of Critique references. Highly recommend the read. Glad we have ((( Cernovich ))) to serve as a glaring example of why the evolutionary group survival strategy known as anti-semitism exists (more on that in the Culture of Critique).

Your 99% figure implies that responsibility avoidance is also a feature of male behavior; however, with responsibility comes control / power and - for men - more power is a higher smv. So how can men be responsibility avoidant - as a core feature - when it is so sexually beneficial to them? Agency is the capacity to act in a given environment, according to Wikipedia; feel free to disagree with this definition but that is what I'm referring to (whatever you want to call it). The whole point of death threats is to remove your capacity to act independently. That's why morality cannot apply when being coerced; you cannot own your actions in this situation.

Exactly my point, women respond to responsibility and death threats in the exact same way. Option 3: Tell her what she wants to eat, when and where. Most of the time, the response for me is "oh? ok then, see you!"

My argument is: In other words, they look after the farm as they perceive a threat in not doing so. Do you see how doing things under coercion is the opposite of agency?

Women in environments where spanking children are the social norm, either participate in spanking their own children or support their husband in doing so; unless they are exposed to a strong man who does not support the behavior. So no, even when it comes to protecting their own children, they will only do so if that is what they feel threatened to do.

@Jsbrads, @Siegfried von Walheim, you both are making the argument that if they can choose, they have agency. I'm saying they can't, because: Actions performed under (perceived) coercion are not choices. No choice, thus no agency. Do you see how this explains so much of female behavior? Irresponsible behavior, total conformity, deferring to non-white males (since media portrays us as dumb cucks), etc. Where am I wrong in this theory?

@neeeel Choice: "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities." & Decision: "a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration" Regardless of the word you want to choose, they can't be choosing or deciding if they believe to be coerced / threatened. EDIT: You're right in pointing out the definitions. I initially said decision is making a choice, whereas it is the opposite. Hope that clears it up.

I defined it as such: They eat, wear, go, talk to, and say, whatever women perceive is not a threat to them, due to their conflict avoidant nature (agreeableness). As per Jsbrad's whore example, women in whore environments eat whore food, wear whore clothing, go to whore clubs, talk to their fellow whores, and say whore things. Whores perceive it a threat to them should they choose to do otherwise. To contrast, men do not perceive it as a threat to go against the tide. It's just choices, risks, and consequences for us, nothing life and death. So no, I'm not saying that they are programmable robots. I'm saying that they are unable to act as though they are not being coerced into doing things.

@Jsbrads agreeableness is a nice way of saying conflict avoidance. A decision is making a choice. Women feel threatened to do anything other than go wherever the wind blows. That's not choosing, and therefore not a decision. In your example, women who are in circles where whore-ism is the norm, are also whores. Women born in traditional circles are normal. When did these women decide anything? such as?

What are the negative consequences of deferring to a man? I only see happy women in that picture. Which begs the question, can women really make choices? I see no evidence to support that claim. Can you point to an instance where a woman made an independent decision of her own volition? What you're describing was the norm in all K-selected history until a foreign ethnic group released its communist intellectuals upon us. Until that point, the lack of agency in women was assumed. So, would you say that the historical evidence supports my thesis? Women's agreeableness is the personality trait that my thesis is founded on. The behavioral pattern I see in history is that women - without exception - defer to whoever they perceive to be the stronger men. This explains why until 2 years ago, women deferred to black and Muslim men and why we are regaining our status now that Trump - an unapologetic alpha - is in office. It also explains why there are now more Alt Right women than ever since Charlottesville.

Baiting a debate in a philosophy forum is as logical as hoarding sand in the desert. Do you have any useful contribution to make in reaching the truth on the Woman Question?

Stefan has previously said that the best thing you can do for a women is to hold them responsible for their actions. He usually uses this argument for when a woman does something wrong then blames it on everyone but herself. Have any of you considered that maybe women are actually right? Perhaps women blame everyone but themselves because - they know but will never admit that - they are indecisive, low agency, cannot own their actions or their results, and therefore, require the approval and wisdom of a man for all things? EDIT: My central argument is that "They eat, wear, go, talk to, and say, whatever women perceive is not a threat to them, due to their conflict avoidant nature (agreeableness). [snip] they are unable to act as though they are not being coerced into doing things."

The invasion of Poland cannot be the start of WWII if it was retaliation against the Jewish massacre of Germans on Polish territory.

You labeled him a snowflake for simply stating an opinion, and assumed he was blaming his situation on the state of the economy when all he did was cite some stats and an article for context. Yes, that's condescending. No one forced you to take time out of your day. And no one cares, snowflake. Talk about projection, sheesh. You get an imaginary medal for your internet bravery. Because you were condescending, see cause and effect. Gotta say, you're having a rough time on this thread.

His personal anecdote provides context. He wasn't asking for advice. You quoted him providing context to the central question of the OP: "My question to Libertarians is that if you guys actually believe unemployed people who are actually diligently searching for jobs and who are not in a good position because of circumstances that happened by birth should be left to starve?" This has nothing to do with proving how helpless he is, a claim he never made. My take from the conversation is you feel insulted that he didn't just sit there and take condescension from you; the audacity!

You claimed that "all these phrases show" a lack of taking responsibility, when the topic of the OP is problems created by the government. Your replies to him have nothing to do with the topic. I'm not saying that he's without fault, I'm saying we don't know that. He may very well post about it in the future, if that's what your interested in talking about.

@Revolutionary Thinking So do you agree with my argument that the problems you describe are a result of government coercion? If you accept this, then it is not a violation of the NAP to resort to the use of welfare, since you did not initiate the aggression. Also, you can use it as an opportunity to work your way back into a free market through entrepreneurial means. @Wuzzums Why did you assume he was just failing to take responsibility for his actions? What actions or inaction are you referring to? The OP doesn't address what he has or hasn't done with respect to unemployment... How is it SJW-ism for a genuine victim to claim victimhood?

What free market? Where? When have libertarians advocated starvation? You're claiming that this is the "biggest problem with this this free market concept", when you just said that "our education system" disgusts you. Well, which is it? You take issue with our non-existent free market or our education system?

There is absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing on Roy Moore's part. Innocent until proven guilty. So you think that dumb and immoral people accept UPB, ok. I'll just point out what an insult this is to most users on this forum. You haven't provided any argument to disprove UPB. Matter of fact, why aren't you on Stefan's show disproving him? It's called a rhetorical question. Welcome to the English language. Loyalty to a foreign tribe, is the opposite of tribalism by definition. This invalidates your claim of tribalism. Do you have a counter-argument to make? My argument was that we Japhethites have repeatedly acted counter to our tribal interests, which again invalidates your claim that the problem is tribalism. Your quote above does not provide a counter-argument. Again, you're just repeating your claim, as though I did not make any counter-arguments or state historical evidence. This is a philosophy forum. The aim is to reach the truth. I have entered into this conversation with the willingness to be proven wrong. If you're not willing to engage me with evidence and arguments, how can you expect this conversation to be fruitful towards the goal of truth?

What conflict are you referring to? Are you referring to the conflict of chosenness whilst being displaced? I see. These attacks are present in every white western country, though. How can Brits be behind this attack if they are not the ethnic group common to all the countries this attack is occurring in? In which timeline? Are you asking about the Jewish Britain of today? Or British Britain of old? Truly British aristocrats do care. Case in point, a leading member of the Alt Right is of the Spencer family. He could have had a luxurious life, gotten a good career, and only cared of himself and his own offspring. Instead, he took on a tremendous burden to which the Alt Right owes its high rate of growth to. Even here, the article you provide proves my point. Its chief example of "american" funding is Jew Jacob Schiff (and I was literally going to use him as evidence for my case). Here is a quote from Schiff himself: "Six or eight weeks ago, the Jews [of the United States] would have heeded the call to arms as a duty but with heavy hearts, as they would have known they would be fighting to perpetuate Russian autocracy. But now all that has been changed. Russian democracy has become victorious, and thanks are due to the Jew that the Russian Revolution succeeded." Based on the articles you've provided I see you're taking the claims of the articles, claiming white involvement, when in fact it is Jewish involvement. Have you considered that perhaps you've been duped by the old Jewish tactic of using whiteness as a sword while using Jewishness as a shield? Or perhaps, a Polish proverb to illustrate: "The Jew screams out in pain as he strikes you". A more recent example: A man was recorded last year in Times Square holding a sign saying "Our fellow white people must take responsibility". The man recording was Eli Mosley who became CEO of Identity Evropa. In the video, he asks the man, "Are you sure you're white?". The man smiled and gave no answer, because it was blatantly obvious by his phenotypes and demeanor that he was Jewish. He was caught red-handed. Ever since, "our fellow white people" became a popular internet meme. May I recommend you get the coincidence detector? That was the ultimate red-pill for me on this topic.

I don't believe in chosenness, nor does it sound that you believe that either. Whatever rights and duties our chosenness grants us is irrelevant. You said you were curious as to my thoughts on God's will with regards to the white race. I'm curious to know what is your argument in this line of questioning? That's actually why I'm entertaining answers to these questions you asked; what are you getting at exactly? I understand these claims, and I'm willing to accept them too. Just not seeing any evidence to support them. For instance: - What British war on civilization? - If the Brits wanted to stop unification of Europe, why is there an economic bloc known as the EU? Why is it set to become a sovereign militarized government by 2025 (according to Jewish EU politicians Shultz and Juncker)? - Why is the use of Smith to promote globalism a British project, when Jews are the ones who benefit from a displaced white minority? - Why is the use of Marx to promote communism a British project, when the Bolsheviks - until after WWII - were 85% Jewish? EDIT: Also note, the founding of Israel was planned way ahead by Theodore Hertzel, and supported by Winston Churchill, both of them Jews. The Jewish Aristocracy absolutely see themselves as Jews. In an interview, when Lord Rothschild considers himself a British aristocrat, he said he considers himself Jewish. Also, now that there is Jewish admixture in the royal family, surprise surprise they are now accepting Meghan Markle - a Jew - as a suitable marriage partner. They exhibit the exact same ethnocentrism as would a commoner Jew.