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