houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

And even worse, we are exporting some of the worst politics on the world and making the many countries genuinely hate us. Why should we care if some Middle East or African countries say no to feminism and homosexuality? They are not our countries, so we should not be telling them what to do.

I also doubt that countries like Japan and Taiwan geniunely embrace homosexual politics, but thanks to the US influence, they are allowing that shit to take place.

The most important aspect of policies are those that affect you directly and the evaluation of how much it costs to enact those policies. When it comes to a strong military intervention, can we really make a right wing case for them benefitting us when we are using it to fight people who are not really much of a threat to us? Because all we have to show for most interventionist policies are a huge bill to pay.

Though we still have supposed "conservatives" such as Bill Kristol who have exposed themselves as only being "conservative" in having a huge military that intervenes in other countries. In a way, Donald Trump exposed the farce of the neocons ever being conservative or right wing. Not because Trump was a great example of conservatism, but the fact that when he disrupted the status quo, the neocons exposed themselves as having no geniune right wing values.

But as our military has been overtaken by progressive politics and is enforcing policies worldwide that are the antithesis of American rightwing politics (e.g. homosexuality being legalized and feminist policies), it should be a far easier case for the American right to unpair themselves from supporting an interventionist doctrine.

For many on the right, this has become the case.

The way I see it, the War on Terror and other operations were just another justification to keep the money flowing. After all, you cannot justify keeping much of the military around without any wars to fight.

Thus, we had the premise that we needed to preemptively put down any threats from around the world before they came to our doorstep. And any opposition to this premise was considered unpatriotic. And as we know, the American right prided themselves as patriotic.

I have a theory that much of the intervention taking place during the W. Bush years and beyond were just a carryover for our military policy from the Cold War years. With the Cold War being over by the 90s, we still had quite a hefty military and less apparent justification for the spending and size of military.

So, given what we know about institutions, would we expect those working in the military and those who profit from having a large military to just allow the military to shrink?

While I was too young to vote during the W. Bush presidency, I still was far too blind to the fact that having a America as the world police has very little to do with most other right wing politics. The biggest part of the deception was the premise that "we have to get them there before they attack us here!"

Given all the warranted doubt that comes with the whole 9/11 narrative, we should be more prepared to question why we ever have had military intervention in so many countries.

Good rule of thumb: if they are talking about it on TV, it is a bad idea to invest in it.

Case and point AI. The financial news channel on display at my gym is constantly talking about how much the AI market has grown. I am sure there is no motive from anyone to do a rug pull when more normies throw their money at the next hyped up thing.

I would not be surprised if the clot shots are not a helpful factor either, but this issue has been a problem before that was a factor. So we cannot blame that this sort of thing.

An overall smaller population would not be a problem if it was only temporarily retracting. Populations were lower overall. But there has not been a case where a feminist induced trend of low birth rates has been reversed. The only chance is if our faggot US government fucks off from controlling their vassal states.

Maybe throwing more money at the problem is not the solution. If women really, really wanted to have babies, they would do so without futile attempts to bribe them.

And I include becoming a wife-material woman as an aspect of the "want to have babies."

I thought the South Korean President who got elected promised to roll back feminist laws. How about you do that?

Therefore, a woman who simply makes more money does not prove herself a good woman if that money is spent too quickly. Rather, a woman shows she is a better quality woman for long term relationships if she is capable to being able to stretch out the money she has available to her as much as possible (whether it be her as a single woman or a married woman with a single/joint income).

Income alone means very little if it is frittered away for all the wrong reasons.

The overemphasis on income becomes apparent with women like the first women "you need to make more money" if the woman likes spending lots of it. Would it ever occur to her that women could simply learn to spend less of it?

Income is only part of the equation. Spending is another major part, where women are able to increase their value by demonstrating that they can find ways to spend less and save rather than just demand the man make more money.

And income requirements become far more of issue with women setting their bar based on how much they earn. Few women will want to marry a man who earns less than them. So they price themselves out of the market.

And often, a woman who is making a higher amount of money than average is not using those extra earnings to save as a nest egg to start a family, but rather to support her expensive lifestyle. A lifestyle she wants continued with a future.husband, thus increasing the "requirements."

For a family, you need a place to live, transportation of some sort, food, clothing, and many other expenses.

For women who demand far more than what is needed, it becomes clear that their "requirements" become a point of vanity. When you want more money for a bigger house, a more expensive car, going out to eat all the time, and yearly lavish vacations, the "I need a man who makes X amount of dollars to raise a family" is clearly not true.

Women often are too fixated on income when it comes to relationships. This applies to both the income of a prospective man and their own. It makes sense that they want a man who makes a decent amount of money if they want a family (no burger flipper is going to be able to support a wife and children).

But beyond a certain point, it becomes less of a genuine need and more of a point of avarice on the women's parts when they want even more income for a certain "lifestyle."