You are such a retarded cunt.
That’s not why.
It’s because as the early years of industrial production moved people from agrarian living on family farms & the feudal mode of production became obsolete, the baseline social/political unit transitioned from the PATRIARCHAL FAMILY UNIT to the ATOMISED INDIVIDUAL INDUSTRIAL LABOURER. Accordingly, the PATRIARCH of the FAMILY UNIT was no longer able to speak on behalf of & vote on behalf of the entire families political interests as a single unitary entity, because when each of his children, he & his wife all migrate from the country to the city & work in different factories, they suddenly have separate and distinct political identities and needs, and so his voting on behalf of a singular political unit , the family, was no longer feasible and didn’t allow their interests to be represented with the requisite specificity, because they were now all politically active subjects, each individually contracting their labor to different commercial entities, each family member was now likely to live in different homes/at different addresses, work different jobs in different industries & accordingly, they now often had either complementary or contradictory political objectives, demands & interests, but they no longer had the SAME SINGULAR POLITICAL INTERESTS AS A FAMILY UNIT so THE MALE PATRIARCHAL privilege of voting on the entire families behalf was effectively liquidated & redistributed to each 18+ individual within the family, as a separate and unique political subject, and a separate and unique voter to whom politicians & CORPORATIONS could peddle their wares.
If women were sentient they'd realize being thin and seeming bubbly and pleasant is so rare that it can literally make you a global sex icon even if you're a 6/10 facially
When you do view the world as undifferentiated shapes, most of your views will come off as extremely self centered. There’s no helping it. Their inability to properly map the complexity of the society they live in restricts them to more or less their immediate needs and wants. Their minds eye is like a flash light cast on a field during a cloudy night. Illuminating the few steps ahead, everything once illuminated returns to darkness as light turns moves on.
This is entirely wrong
Every "dating norm" in the modern world is purely shaped by what women want - women simply don't like *some* of the consequences because they are incapable of seeing how the incentives that exist result in the behavior that they see
They "rage" at "PUA" / "redpill" material when all that really is is an attempt to figure out what women want to hear so that they'll fuck
In a free for all, men simply do what women reward and there's no changing what women will reward and there's no changing that men want sex so here we are unless we do things that women explicitly do not want
Australia was not established as a nation-building project.
It was established as an extraction platform.
The British did not colonize Australia to build a civilization.
They colonized it to extract l; first convict labor, then wool, then gold, then minerals, then gas.
The political architecture was built around that extraction logic from day one, and it has never been restructured away from it.
You assume the state exists to serve the population, and therefore bad outcomes must mean the state is being run poorly.
Australia is not a sovereign state that happens to have a mining sector.
It is a private sector extraction platform that happens to have citizens.
Every Australian who “owns” a home is servicing a debt instrument that enriches the FIC.
The minerals get dug up by foreign-owned multinationals.
The profits get distributed to global shareholders.
The taxation office is structured; by design, through decades of lobbying, to ensure the extraction proceeds leave the country with minimal sovereign capture.
The politicians are doing exactly what the structure requires of them: absorbing public anger, rotating every few years to reset the pressure valve.
Australia is not mismanaged. Australia is managed perfectly,
just not for Australians.
Because women are evil. Women are channels for nature. Nature just wants to survive. Nature has no honor. Nature is a spider that looks like a flower so that bees think they're getting food but then they die.
Women will just do absolutely whatever it is that gets them what they want
When one of the steppe warriors who just sacked your city takes a shine to you, you either pivot quickly to the new alpha or you end up in the burning pile with your dead husband. Loyalty has been an evolutionary necessity for men, but a liability for women.
Men aren’t intimidated by your success.
Success does not repel men. Contempt does. Chronic criticism does. Unresolved resentment does. Turning intimacy into a performance review does.
When men choose a partner, they are not screening résumés or competing with titles. They are paying attention to what everyday life feels like.
Do I feel respected?
Do I feel trusted?
Is there peace here, or constant friction?
Do I feel like a partner or a project to be managed, corrected, or reshaped?
Am I appreciated for who I am, or constantly evaluated against shifting standards?
These questions determine whether a man stays or leaves.
None of this has anything to do with a woman’s education, income, or professional success.
But when dating doesn’t work, the explanation is often simplified into a comforting myth:
“You’re not the problem.
Men are just intimidated by strong women.”
That narrative avoids self-reflection. It reframes incompatibility or relational dysfunction as male insecurity. It protects the ego, but it prevents growth.