Comments by "Michael Houdecki" (@michaelhoudecki3657) on "Based Camp with Simone & Malcolm Collins"
channel.
-
28
-
25
-
17
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
@skylinefever That's only if the economy was real... With all the technology (a tractor doing the work of 1000 men) it doesn't take much labour to feed the population. Industrial scale food production for the processed junk has a similar multiplier. Most people with "jobs" don't actually do anything all day but pass paper back and forth. Most people with "jobs" get paid money which they buy food and lodging with. It takes maybe 500 man hours to build a modern home, 500 to procure the materials to make it. A person should only have to work a year to pay for their home, and food is basically free with all the automation (of course it takes some labour, but honestly 30 full time staff probably feed 10,000 people). So most people do nothing at work, put most of the money they "make" (get for doing nothing) into the bank where it does nothing... People are made to work full time to keep them distracted because if they weren't constantly worried and busy, they'd have time to think about who's running the show and plot an overthrow.l
Thrift ain't bad, it's necessary. Nobody makes anything and nobody buys anything. Honestly, look around your home and add all the hours it took someone to make and ship the items. Don't slack off, this is important- you NEED to know how BAD you're getting ripped off! Really PUT YOUR MIND TO IT - if you have to guess, do research and return to the problem. Here's the answer: when it's all said and done, you work 50-100 times longer than it took anyone to make anything you have. By this definition, EVERYONE is thrifty.
Here's an example: your $2,500 Couch + Sofa - it's a few pieces of wood, some foam, and some material, stapled, nailed, and sewn together. At $25 per hour, that's a HUNDRED hours! Think of how long human hands held each part during production... NOT LONG. Now think of the materials that make the couch... actually DON'T! Think about how much those materials cost... That's right, $300. Now consider this - if the $2,500 couch took 4 hours of labour to assemble, and the materials cost them $300, how many man hours did those materials require? Let's be real generous and say 4 as well. That's 8 hours! A hundred of YOUR hours vs a very lenient 8 "them" hours. Where did your other 92 go?! Well, if you do something that's actually productive, you gave it to 11.5 other people getting paid $25 an hour to do nothing. If you pass papers back and forth (you know who you are, and you are PLENTY), then it is YOU being subsidized by the guy actually doing something! And EVERYTHING IS LIKE THAT.
Think about the bad cough season - they had "essential workers". Those were the people actually needed by society. Everybody else is mostly passing papers back and forth, stealing their labour. In canaha they gave 2k a month to all the paper shufflers, and everything happened just like they were shuffling papers for 8 hours a day, BUT THEY WEREN'T!
lol this world is a joke, a horrible, horrible joke
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
Like any industry, the people running it know a lot about how what they do affects people. With that knowledge is power, and others in power work with them - kind of like TV... TV is very formulaic in its approach to everything - people have been studies, many focus groups have been had, and TV is now a tool. Prawn is just like TV shows - they have social programming in them to stifle society and make you think a certain way. They design things very sneakily, use algorithms to judge where you are and how quick you can be influenced in what directions. They have categories of stuff that in time you'll be steered into liking, even though you think it's nasty now. It's their goal: to make you sick and ineffective in the real world, both in business and personal relationships, because they need people broken enough to not stand up to them, but functional enough to support them. As time goes on, with animation of different industries, they need people less and less. It's a machine pointed at you, and they're getting you. Don't let them get you! You have strength, you need to exercise it. If you end up not being able to beat them, there is religion (I hate that word). You don't have to look too hard for the right one, it's Jesus. (well you might have to do a bit of research, but the truth is pretty obvious once you start)
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Malcolm/Simone, I know you guys never really reply to comments, but can you please consider the following and reply to it (it's not a question per se): (the tl;dr is last sentence, but please read this too). You say that 70% of the time when a man tries to get custody, he wins. While I'm sure this is a statistic somehow, from what I've observed in the world, I don't think it's broadly applicable. Since women end up with primary or sole custody so often, and the primary/sole guardian of the kids (especially when female) usually ends up with the previously shared house (for her and the kids to live in), definitely gets child support, and [often also gets] alimony to maintain her past "lifestyle" (lifestyle meaning the standard of living exactly as it was before divorce), it seems almost unthinkable that even men who aren't particularly fond of their children wouldn't try for 50/50 custody * at least * most of the time to * at least * not have to pay out of pocket so much for others' living expenses. Why? Because these are often so excessive and egregious that even with a decent job, all that's left after paying for the woman who hates him (who's trying to get his kids to hate him too), is enough to rent a room in a house, and eat Raman 7 days a week. That's * at least *, though. Since the overwhelming majority of men love their children, the prospect of living out of a single room and eating trash isn't the only motivator...
"70% of the time when a man tries for custody he gets it" / "the majority of the time women end up with primary custody". These can't both be true if the court system was fair to men. I think we're all assuming that if a man wants custody, he will try to get it. Your quoted statistic could be 100% factual and broadly applicable if this is not the case... After a bit of time digging into the far reaches of my brain, so many men are actively discouraged from even pursuing custody because the wife makes it clear (under advisement by her lawyer) that if he does, she will allege *fillintheblank*. And if that's not enough to put him off, she'll take it further. THAT's what I've heard is happening in the wild. If the man is lucky enough for his adversary to have a substance problem so severe that even the liberals of today can't deny a home lead by her wouldn't be extremely detrimental to the childrens' outcomes, then he is lucky. But maybe not - maybe the court will send the kids to go with the sister of the woman who can't even pull herself together for the sake of her children because he was "adusive" and she'll "get better in time". If he doesn't back down from pursuing custody, she'll allege he was always rapping (you get my drift...) Lyes, brown mail, sub version... Wimmenz are motional creatures, 'specially when they feel they've been wronged (even when they haven't been). They're also more manipulable than men in this 'vulnerable' state. Morality goes wayside easier for them than men of character. I know you're not this simple, but for other readers - just because you can't envision yourself doing something, doesn't mean others won't stoop so low... Y'all aren't blind to the degeneration of the degenerates these days... Degenerating literally has to be their pass-time of choice. These people, and the things they (will or won't) do...
Malcolm/Simone, if it's generally true that 70% of the time when a man tries to get custody of his children in divorce, he succeeds, do you think that men are manipulated into not pursuing custody with threats and intimidation of various types ("If you keep trying I'll make it so you're never able to see the kids at all and I'll tell them you left because you don't love them." OR "If you don't stop trying to get custody I'll tell everyone you _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ me." OR "If you don't fall in line and give me what I want, I'll tell the court you _ _ _ _ _ _ the kids" OR anything else in that realm of horrendousness? If not, what do you think the reason is for men not pursuing custody when it costs them so much not to?
Love your guys' stuff!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@LucasFernandez-fk8se Not leaving any safety net for women isn't going to get them eager to sign up either...It's not fair for men right now, but flipping it around (although not quite as bad for them as it is for us right now) isn't the way to move forward...
A man at 40 is different than a woman at 40, and the way things go after divorce do still need to reflect that... A man at 40 will find another woman if he wants. A woman at 40 is much less likely to...
Biggest thing: No fault divorce should definitely be removed!!!! If there's no fault, there's no problem! At least nothing that can't be worked through. Marriage isn't supposed to be easy all the time. Once you have kids, you MAKE it work for them, not half-az make it work while damaging your kids - you MAKE it work. The woman committed to making it work with her spouse when she married him, and her feelings one day in the future, are a REALLY weak reason to break that oath. And while she never formally promised the same thing to her kids, the kids are her own blood! How bad can someone she decided to have kids with and lived with and raise kids with for so long BE if they HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG????!? If she's not emotionally mature enough to follow through on her commitment to her spouse, marriage and a family is not for her! "No fault" means "no problem" and "no problem" is NOT a reason for a child to not have his or her parents... The "feelings" of a couple of adults (usually a woman) are NOT the reason her children need to suffer and be confused, often for LIFE as it pertains to relationships
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SimoneandMalcolm There was more to the comment of the birthday thing, but I removed it to try to keep things relevant - I left that one sentence as an interesting tidbit of information, but in hindsight I should have removed the whole thing.
Basically, Christians don't give gifts on birthdays or make wishes to strange spirits, or perform rituals with fire celebrating the self. Christian behaviours and beliefs are outlined in the Bible, and when some newspaper contradicts it, the newspaper can be disregarded. History is written by the victors, and the occult (for lack of an easier descriptor) have been influential throughout history, and have had access to the press. A lot of occult practices and beliefs have crept into the church over the years, so much so, actually, that do as thou wilt has basically become the essence of the teachings of the Catholic church today. It's obvious what's happened...
Decorating a tree and celebrating around it is a pagan behaviour. The fact that it was added to Christmas some time in the past just shows pagan beliefs influenced Christmas celebrations somehow. If I had to bet, I'd probably say through surreptitious means, slow and steady infiltration by pagans. Why? Because it's a well established pattern.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm pretty sure you didn't experience the two sides... You were 11? You could probably write everything you remember before 11 down in a 40 page notebook. I'm a decade or so older than you, and just barely experienced both sides... What needs to happen is all this predatory brainwashing tech (social media, this platform, others like it) need to be open sourced so everyone can see how things work and have been designed to harm us, and then it all needs to be changed to help us, -everyone needs to be able to write everything they want everywhere, and nothing can get deleted unless by the poster. THEN... only then, as species, can move forward, knowing how we've all been harmed and manipulated, and design things in the future to prevent a similar tragedy from ever happening again. Part of the problem is evil intentions of those at the top. Even if they weren't evil though, the way these companies are monetized is a problem too. These sites don't cost much to run - a couple bucks of tax per citizen in a country per year would be enough to maintain open versions of all the anti-socil media sites that are around now. Oh, specifically tick tock (lol), is a chai-knees weapon (admitted) which pushes moral degeneracy and the concentration ability of young people down to a few seconds at a time, so that gets shut down immediately and permanently, and nothing similar is ever allowed to launch because it's so harmful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The sun has cycles, the earth has cycles. Just like there are ice ages, there are less severe temperature cycles that happen in shorter amounts of time. As these cycles cycle, there are periods where the weather is, on average, more severe, and there are periods where it is, on average, less severe. Those in the know, know about this, and just like the priests used to scare the commoners with their foreknowledge of eclipses, our current priest class are using their knowledge to "scare us". Scare us into what? Being happy to own nothing and eat bad food sweat in the summer and freeze in the winter because if we don't the world is gonna end. Even though the world is not going to end, not even close...
1
-
1
-
"obviously society isn't working right now" isn't justification to do just anything else...
BTW, that "risk score" you talk about, needs fully human DNA to analyze.
I truly wonder how you can love some of your kids, while, simultaneously, throwing others away... You could claim it's not purely arbitrarily, but the grounds on which you decide are entirely speculative at this point, and even when they possibly aren't in the future, is "elevated risk of breast cancer" (or even, gasp, autism) a proper justification to not only disregard your children, but prevent them from growing into adults?
Hint: the answer is "no"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1