Do you ever Use the Heckler’s Veto?

The term heckler’s veto was coined by University of Chicago professor Harry Kalven to denote the suppression of speech by government to prevent the heckler’s behavior from becoming violent. In today’s parlance one would be forgiven if they were to call this the snowflake’s veto. Additionally, as apparent in many situations today such as universities or recent talk’s scheduled by Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern, speakers are silenced without the intervention of the law. Basically, the speakers’ messages are silenced because of threats of violence and the promoters or owners of the venues voluntarily cancel the venues.

One of the more egregious tendencies lately has been the burdening of huge fees levied against the event promoters, participants or both of fees for security because of the potential illegal actions of protesters. Again, this several speakers have had this tactic imposed upon them such as Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos and almost any conservative speaker since 2014.

Again, this type of lazy tactic is for the intellectually lazy or inept as they usually cannot debate the issues by providing claims and premises to refute another’s position or stance.  It should be noted that this tactic is predominantly, if not entirely used by the left to shut down centrist or right leaning ideas. When analyzing this phenomenon, one cannot help but arrive at the conclusion that there is something wrong with the position taken by the individuals that utilize this tactic.

My question to you, do you think the snowflakes’ veto should be vehemently opposed at all costs?

Is Corporate PC a Waste of your Time?

Is Corporate PC a Waste of your Time?

Yes. In a bid to be ‘PC’ corporations waste not only their money and resources but also your money and resources. Firstly, corporations pay for nothing, their profits do which means consumers pay for any programs they might initiate. Recently, I had the misfortune to inquire about bereavement fares at a national airline for Canada.

The Bereavement Fares program on Air Canada’s website looks like they spent a lot of time and resources developing the policy and website. It is full of qualifying edicts and restrictions. Air Canada states that the program is to remove restrictions that a flyer encounters during traveling home during a difficult time. Unfortunately, they offer no discount. With all due respect they do state that you can probably find a cheaper rate on any website.

If fact, using their program will cost you more than just looking for a good fare. Next, they add substantial restrictions and do’s and don’ts. Not using their programs are much less restrictive than using their program. For instance, you need to provide several documents above normal requirements and meet qualifying parameters. You need to book travel within 10 days of traveling and can only stay 60 days.

To be honest, I do not understand why someone would use this program. Even if one was ridden with sorrow, it would be easier to just book a flight online. It would be cheaper to just book a flight online. It would be less restrictive to just book a flight online.

After finding out how the program operates, I was left trying to figure out why this program exists and why Air Canada spends any time, money and resources on this program when it has absolutely nothing to offer the bereaved. It is apparent that the program exists for people that do not use the program as an indicator that Air Canada cares and at some points treat their customers like human beings. I do not think they do as they charge the bereaved more than normal customers. This program is useless, offensive and is only used cosmetically for people to think well of the company who do not use this program. Ultimately, Air Canada offers sugar-coated hope to people in a hopeless, depressed state, then created more hopelessness and despair to individuals that need to obtain some indication of the good will of mankind.

Air Canada should remove this sham of a program from their website. For any person that inquires about this program they are left with a very bad impression of Air Canada.

Is Justice Kind?

Is Justice Kind?

No, Justice is not kind. Justice is not supposed to be kind. Justice is not supposed to be nice. Justice is supposed to be fair. Justice is supposed to be right and just. Should everybody have enough food to eat? Yes, they should. Would it be just to give people food for free? No, it would not.


The fact that the question states ‘for free’ implies that food has a cost. If food has a cost, then who pays for it? If food is given away for free to some people or everybody then what is going to be paid to the people that food has a cost? What is that cost? Land prices? Labor to plow, sew, water and harvest produce?


If someone owns a farm and some people are hungry should the farmer be compelled to give food or land to people that are hungry? How did the farmer get the land? Did they buy it with hard-earned cash? What are the people hungry? Are they lazy or just going through a difficult time? Are they unintelligent or discriminated against or handicapped?


Is it the governments job to be kind to citizens? If you think it is the government’s job to be kind to citizens, then who is going to pay the government, so it can be kind?

Apples are oranges

Are taxes just? If two people, the same height, strength age and gender, similar in every aspect other than the fact that they are two people. If they were to pick apples for money and accordingly if apples were picked for an 8-hour day and one, lazy, preferred to refer to his phone constantly and as a result only picked 10 bushels of apples whilst the other picked 50 bushels, should they both be paid the same amount? What if one picked 35 bushels and one pick 25 bushels, should they be paid the same?


If a person earns more than someone else, should they pay more tax? Why? Should we reward the lazy or the dumb by charging them less tax? Should we penalize the smart and eager and charge them more?

Should everyone pay the same taxes, say $5,000 per year? If everyone was to have to pay $5,000 each year as a tax would that be just? Would that be kind? Is it just to charge one person more tax than another person? Why?

Currently, governments collect tax from citizens. Some citizens pay millions of dollars a year in tax whereas other not only do not pay but are paid that tax. Is this Just? Is that kind?


Should governments be allowed to implement programs that only are available for a small sector of the population and should they be able to exclude people that pay taxes. Is this not a conflict of interest? Is this just? Is this kind?

Kind or Just

Should we be heading towards a society and culture that is kind or is just? It is my belief that we are moving from a just society to a kind society. Additionally, as so many are excluded from so much that has been implemented, I also feel that this ‘kind’ society is not even kind.

Justice is Justice

Justice stands on its own, alone and solid as a stone. When one adds an adjective to it, it becomes all but justice; mob justice, social justice.

Is leftism Dangerous?

Is leftism Dangerous?

The most dangerous ideologies today are ideologies that are centered or underpinned by leftist ideas. Genetics for some reason seems to drive them bonkers. If there is a god or a great architect of the universe, then these brilliant leftists in all their wisdom and might think they are smarter and mightier than it. They see the error in its ways and they do not see the error of their ways.

Biology and Genetics

Biological genetics dictates physical limitations and general individual characteristics whether they are the degree of which you can think deeply about concepts, the degree of which you can lift great deals weight or qualify to run in Olympic competitions or the level of which you can earn income because you have a beautiful voice that others wish to spend their time and money producing or spend their hard earned income so they can listen  to said voice.

These biological differences could dictate in most instances what you should or should not do as well. You might sing well but you can’t run fast or long, therefore you might not try to become a long-distance runner or a sprinter. You might have a beautiful voice, but you are ugly and fat, therefore you might not consider pursuing becoming a fashion model in the vain, insane fashion industry.

Common Sense, Money and Power

A common thread to this line of thinking relies upon some modicum of common sense and this common sense answers the question ‘why’ which is answered based on money, power and degree of common sense. When a situation, belief, concept, decision or idea is questioned and the mere act of questioning this belief, concept, decision or idea induces anger from many people and further when facts or theories are used to support this act of questioning and these facts or theories threatens peoples’ income, or power or degree of common sense they abstract, then people tend to get very angry.

Leftist tend to dress up and complement this feigned anger with moral outrage by indicting or provoking charges of sexism or racism or by eliciting non-factual feel-good, look-stupid ad hominem attacks of Nazism or white supremacy. Do not be fooled or distracted. This is about power and control, money and common sense or any combination thereof.


If this is about money and power, then genetics or the study of genetics is the enemy of every leftist’s reality. In society today, people have on offer goods and services or some form of a delusion. Learned MGTOW understand delusion all too well, the delusion women offer, the subjugated mind of the delusional female or the concept of marriage. However, the general population is constantly bombarded by delusion. Marketing for the most part sells the sizzle and not the steak. How often do people buy the latest and greatest exercising devices which are going to fix all their weight problems or buy into secret ideas or concepts such as the more you give, the more you receive?

Modeling agencies provide beautiful people for enterprises that need the images of beautiful people to prop them up or to prop their products up. These same agencies will accept money from people who are not the most beautiful people or even downright ugly people. They take their money, pretend to train them and then refer them. The goal is not to make money from providing these people as models but to make money from these people wanting to be models. There are so many levels of honesty and dishonesty going on here it is frightening.

The Many levels of Delusion

On one hand, the agency meets its own goals, providing goods and services to customers by providing models to needy customers, providing jobs and contracts to models and earning commissions. The agency provides something to people who want something they cannot achieve on their own, namely models for companies, jobs for models and commissions for stock holders of the agency.

On the other hand, the agency provides goods and services in the form of delusion. Again, on many levels. The agency allows the ugly, fat or ordinary models to be delusional, the agency accepts money from them for selling them delusion which is delusional in and of itself and the agency convinces itself that some customers might want this ordinary, ugly or fat models which again is delusional. If a customer hires a fat, ugly or ordinary model as the ordinary person then they buy in to this delusion and when the public accepts the fat, ugly or ordinary model in the finalized marketing, the delusion is complete.

There are many industries that cater to delusion. As mentioned the modeling industry, but also the acting industry, the self-help industry, all religions in general and the ‘get-rich-quick’ industry. The adage if it sounds too good to be true, then it is probably not true, is the most ignored adage of the delusion industry closely followed by if it looks like a duck, walks like and duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Snake oil hucksters prey upon delusion and delusion is ubiquitous in today’s societies as well as societies gone by. Selling people hope where there is a shortage of hope or ability is lucrative.


Parents are supposed to be encouraging towards their children and indeed that is a primary function of being a parent, to draw out abilities and desires from young adults who have not yet discovered their individual abilities and talents. You expose children to as much as possible hoping to draw out where the perfect balance of desire and ability lies in the hopes of focusing your child’s energies towards those directions, thus ensuring your children’s success in life. This is natural and traditionally women bore the brunt of this enthusiasm, being the cheerleaders of our children’s motivations. The father’s role was to whittle down these sometimes-unrealistic aspirations and enthusiasms to a more reasonable and rational direction which were more in line with reality.

A parent who encourages a child in a direction towards something he is not good at, is not doing their child any favors. They are opening the child to bullying and embarrassment. Pretending your child is good at something they are not good at only encourages him to waste his time, energies and resources and puts him in situations where he is going to be humiliated and laughed at, where he is going to do a bad job.  This is cruel to encourage people far beyond their abilities, and if you encourage people into the wrong direction regarding their abilities, you prevent them from continuing to expose themselves and explore and find things they love and are good at and people are willing to pay for them. Blanket enthusiasm and exposure to a wide variety of things is great when children are young, to continue that beyond rational limits is horrible. We need a balance of being critical and being realistic. When get older and begin to go to university, the first year we study many things and as our academic careers progress we narrow our focus until we become experts in a narrow field of study.

In the relatively recent past and for centuries prior, it was the father who was awarded children upon the collapse of the nuclear family. This fact tends to offend the sensibilities of many feminist and women today, but facts do not really care about your feelings. In recent decades, due to feminism, the role of mothers has gone from co-parenting to omniscient and the encouragement and inclusiveness of everyone for everything all the time and everywhere has become ubiquitous. Everyone gets a trophy, competition has been eliminated, meritocracy is a nasty, bad and excluding concept and masculinity is absent in the single-mother household and has become evil. Being kind, fair and nice has overtaken being smart, efficient and truthful. Being kind, fair and nice has overtaken making the correct decisions. Indeed, being kind, fair and nice has overtaken common sense.

Yes, it is humiliating, demotivating and wrong to belittle a child who is just starting out. It is not only unfair and wrong, but it stifles the natural innate enthusiasm of most children and thus avoiding the disgrace inflicted by unjust criticism of a child is noble. However, this humiliation is a two-edged sword, as encouraging a child to continue at something they are not good at beyond all evidence and reason exposes them to societal humiliation, too. There needs to be a rational, realistic reasoned balance accurately placed into the child’s developmental timeline.

100% Environmental

With that said, leftists are totally and genuinely radically obsessed on environmental explanations regarding where each of us end up in our lot in life. Women gravitate towards people-centric occupations whilst men gravitate towards working with things and ideas. The reasons why are neither 100% environmental nor are they 100% to do with genetics. There are things that are more genetics-based such as intelligence, eye color and height. Indeed, there is probably nothing in your personality that has nothing at all to do with genetics. Genetics has a lot to do with who and what we are and to throw away genetics as a basis of this is, and to say that everything is 100% environmental is not only dumb but it is dangerous and intellectually dishonest.

Why leftist do this is because by making everything 100% environmental, they have something to offer the world which is equality of outcome. Now they have a product to sell, namely egalitarianism of outcome. If our intelligence, our predilections, our preferences, our talents, our gender, if everything is 100% environmental, then the social environment can be tweaked and re-tweaked until equality of outcome is achieved. All inequalities and disparity between and among groups can be classified as racism, sexism, nationalism, all the ismistics (words ending with ism, ist, or ic) and can be rooted out of society if only they, the dear well-meaning-but-utterly-dumb-leftists who are nothing but power hungry, are given the power to do so. The power they need, the power they thrive upon, the power they dream about having is the might of the state with their guns and their bombs and their jails and their weapons to enforce their dogma and ideology upon the masses, you and me.

0% Genetics

For leftism to work, genetics cannot be a factor, everything needs to be environmental. It is impossible, difficult or unethical to change genetics or genes to a degree, but anything environmental can be changed. Laws cannot be passed to dictate anything genetic. We cannot pass laws to make women smarter, men dumber, women stronger or men to be more woman-like genetically. Laws cannot be passed to make white people black or hairy people bald genetically. Laws cannot be passed to genetically change hair or eye color.

Over time government policy can influence genetics. A welfare state can change the demographic landscape of a country, immigration policy can affect the demographic landscape of a country. In time these shifts in the demographic landscape of the country will affect the genetic landscape of a country. However, modification of the genetic landscape of a nation in the here-and-now cannot be legislated. By accepting the innate and significant overwhelming role genetics plays in who and what we are, we explore the various disparities from a causative perspective, apart from that of a bigoted injustice perpetrated by environmental factors and all the ismistics, but from an indication of genetic diversity, namely sexually oriented diversity, gender diversity and ethnic diversity to name just a few elements of genetic diversity predicted via evolution.

The fact that men were hunting, fighting, protecting gathering and building and women were raising and baring children, cooking, cleaning and nesting and that these differences produced changes and differences in the body but not the brain is insipid and undeniable. To think our brains as tiny as they are, which use up to 33% or our energy and are pampered and nurtured more than any other organ we own, are not the most subjected to the forces of evolution not only between the genders but ethnicities is illogical. Oddly, the left which admonishes religions for rejecting aspects of evolution, rejects evolution completely.

Some state that men have exploited women over history, but it is the person that hires another to do his bidding who does not participate in physical fitness, the person that exploits another that does not do the heavy lifting, the person that is exploited is the person that develops the muscle and strength. Men have ended up with 40% more upper body strength and muscle than women because it was required of a man to expend greater strength and resources than woman.

Mothers encourage children to be good at something children are not good at, and justifiably so. Then, fathers tell it straight to the children in due time if they are not cutting it at something not because fathers are pricks, but because fathers want their children to succeed, they want to protect their children from humiliation and failure. There are always those half-truths, my mother thinks I am a good poet. However, as fathers not only disappear from the nuclear family, children’s lives and become absent from society, the delusion of equality of outcome has firmly taken hold as mothers cultivate the potential of children and fathers no longer focus children away from what they are not good at and keep them on track towards what the child is best at.

By accepting the significance of genetics, that genetics are responsible and the cause of differences and disparities in outcomes among and between groups, then these causes and differences in outcomes can be explored. We can operationalize or normalize by a variety of factors or variations. For instance, when we look at the wage gap that portrays women as earning substantially less than men, the factors or number of factors you use to obtain averages have been bi-variate, that is two factors, namely male and female have been used. All the salaries of men were added together and averaged, and all the salaries of women were added together and averaged and low and behold, women earn less. This is not only deceptive, but it is evil and wrong because it pits women against men, balkanizes our society, shows improper use of statistics, is intellectually dishonest and for the most part belittles the efforts and the value of men. This balkanizes our societies by saying that this disparity is because of bigotry, sexism and misogynists and only sow resentment on both sides of the issue unnecessarily and is counterproductive.

Normalizing the Wage Gap

If you really wanted to find out if men and women are paid differently, then you need to find the variables that will allow you to operationalize your data and normalize the data based on a multitude of variables or factors that explain substantial differences not only between men and women but also between men and men and women and women.

Why are there not many Vietnamese in the NBA?  We could stat that It must be bigotry or racism, or we could normalize our data by the amount of Vietnamese in the U.S., height, muscle mass or exposure to the game. It could be that once normalized by the amount of Vietnamese in the U.S., height, muscle mass and exposure to the game we find there is a higher representation of Vietnamese in the NBA than there should be or perhaps it is just right.

When looking at the wage gap, for women we can normalize by education and the fact that women tend to be attracted to or focus on occupations that are generally lower in compensation because they work with people rather than things. If you want to make money, then you might focus on becoming a process engineer in the petroleum industry or become a plumber or electrician.  One job requires substantial education, another is dirty and still another is dangerous. All require certification, and all pay well. However, women tend to not dominate these fields, opting for other fields that are required but just do not pay as well.

Other factors or variables would be experience based. How many years of experience do you have? Did you stay home with your children? How many years did you work and earn money? Staying home and raising children does not pay well. Yes, it is noble and yes, it is required but when we average out your salary, the amount of years you stayed home with the children is going to put a substantial downward bump in your average yearly salary over your lifetime.

Complain as one might, that you did not get paid, but face it, you should feel lucky you could do that. Many cannot and would love to stay home and raise and influence their children. If you were lucky enough to stay home with your kids, then it is very likely that your husband or father of your children works and pays the bills. The woman is indeed getting paid. If your husband earns $50K a year, then he pays the woman most of that income. He does not get half of that. He needs to pay for everything, the house, food, utilities, insurance and the woman and kids will get at least $40K of that $50 or more. Is this money counted in this wage gap figure? No, it should be but according to the current wage gap calculations it is not. The man is listed as making $50K and the woman is listed as making $0. If we were to normalize this, then the man might receive $30K and the women $20K and even that is not honest as a fairer account would be $25K for both the woman and the man.

Another factor of normalization would be the variable of IQ. Women tend to follow a bell curve regarding intelligence as men do, but the most intelligent people are men, and overwhelmingly the most stupid people tend to be men as well. If one was not intellectually dishonest and wanted to truly find out if there were a wage gap, then upon normalizing the data you would find out that women are not underpaid relative to men and if you added in alimony, child support, affirmative action programs, and government programs that coercively redistribute wealth involuntarily, it would be found that women are overpaid relative to men and this is not even considering that the data show young, unmarried, childless women earn as much as 20% more than young, unmarried, childless men for the past 20 years.

However, as mentioned, the purpose of stating this erroneous purported wage gap is to sow resentment and balkanize society with the hopes that people forfeit their rights and freedoms to close this make-believe gap that represents nothing but misogynistic bigotry and sexism.

However, what this wage gap rhetoric has to offer is a solution to the unfairness that they want. Why the wage gap is purported is the same as the never-Trumpers goals of the American government failing in lieu of Trump succeeding. Their hatred is so deep they would rather the government to fail than Trump to not fail let alone have any success.  These people are ill. They have a mental deficiency. That is not meant as an insult, it is an observation.

Why the left will never accept genetics or the wage gap as a farce is because, if all you have on offer is solutions to unfairness and there is no unfairness, then you don’t have anything to offer. If you don’t have anything on offer to sell, then you get mad and the only way to get power is to have solutions to unfairness which requires them to invent imaginary bigotry, sexism and prejudices. The left will manufacture unfairness if they can, so they can fix the evil injustices that gives them purpose, that of which they have no purpose in life if injustices do not exist.

The wage gap is relative and requires normalization of some form to see through all the fog and understand the truth. Genetics is a factor or variable of normalization and being so is potentially an explanation for some of the disparities and injustices in the world and offers solutions that compete directly and nullifies the left’s solutions to unfairness, which for the most part are for an unfairness that is few and a far between. To top this off, genetics is a solution that the left has deemed, rightly so, to be profitless politically because they cannot implement legislation to change genetics.

Equality of outcome cannot coexist with genetics. Why would one give up rights to freedoms and property for equality of outcome if disparities and injustices can be explained by genetics? Being kind and fair has no place in equality of opportunity enforced by law as it will produce disparate outcomes because of genetics, but if leftists say that if you give them political power and money, they have solutions to these injustices because everything is 100% environmental.

Leftists believe that fewer women don’t want to become plumbers and electricians because they were not raised playing with screw drivers and wire crimpers as children and therefore, they are going to fix this, make it right and be fair and kind. This is not to say that there is no environment influence at play here, there is but the degree to which genetics is recognized negatively correlates with the degree of power people who offer equity of outcome solutions have based on environmental factors alone.

Genetics undercuts the market for equity of outcome. Leftist say the same as the communists in that the communist manifesto states that you, the worker, produces what the factory or company is selling. You are the one who is making it, and the lazy boss just exploits you and gets rich doing nothing and while you work for low pay for the work that you do.

The reality is that bosses tend to have higher IQs than the workers. The bosses have created the jobs, the factory and invested in this opportunity for people to work. He rents you the machines that allow you to make 200 pencils per hour instead of 20 pencils per hour. He finances the utilities and supplies that you require to be able to produce the pencils in return for some portion of your wages. If you could only make 20 pencils per hour before and now you can make 200 pencils per hour, you are up 180 pencils per hour and this difference you are not going to get for free. The boss is going to take his portion of this production, perhaps 40 or 50 pencils per hour or whatever the percentage is. Either way, you are making more per hour, you get more pencils, and your boss gets more pencils. Everything is good. You can go back to working for yourself and make 20 pencils per hour. However, as the worker you do not have to take the risk of investing in the pencil machine, and the supplies cost, electricity, heating, mortgage, insurance, etc. When you honestly look at it, the boss does not want to keep you down. If you can make more, he makes more. Only someone who has never been a boss would fantasize that the boss is trying to keep you down or someone that has never worked in a capitalist environment.

Again, Realistically, the boss desperately wants to pay you more. If he can pay you more it’s because you are producing more and if he pays you even more, again you are going to produce even more. That is until there are no gains in paying you more. However, a salesman who doubles his sales is going to make more money from the increased sales. But, your boss cannot pay you more, if you are not producing more.

Pareto Principle (80/20 Rule)

The 80/20 rule or the Pareto principle, is where 80% of the peas come from 20% of the plants or 80% of the effects comes from 20% of the cause. 20% of the workers produce 80% of the value.  The numbers do not need to be exact, the principle is that most things in life are not distributed evenly, that some contribute more than others.

So, if you have 100, workers then 20 of them are going to be producing 80% of the value of your business. Of those 20 workers, 4 of them are going to be producing 65% of your business’ value. Of 100 workers, 4 workers are producing 65% of your businesses value. Each of the 4 produces approximately 18% of your business’ value, and the other 96 workers produce approximately 0.3% of your business’ value.

Are any workers going to get paid more than other workers? Of course, there are, or you are either not going to get that type of productivity or those high-producing workers are going to go elsewhere to greener pastures.

If these people are high-energy people who are willing to work seven days a week, forfeit their family life, work nights and weekends, willing to travel, willing to have no work-life balance and they are just super talented people then what is there to resent. In any creative industry be it musicians, painter, actors or writers, 95% of all money goes to the top 5% of the people because they have the above characteristics.

Understanding and recognizing genetics regarding intelligence makes it harder to be resentful and easier to be grateful which drive leftists bonkers. Telling a leftist worker that they should be grateful that this guy or that guy was smart enough or worked hard enough or long enough, took risks and saved money and produced a product that makes our company’s bottom line better and makes it easier for you to sell our company’s products and earn more money than you should earn and drives up demand for your labor which increases everyone’s wages. You should be grateful that you can make 200 pencils an hour.

The notion that your boss is exploiting you by taking 50 pencils from you an hour and leaves you with 150 when you can only create 20 pencils an hour on your own without his machine is fantasy. These machines and factories don’t fall from the sky automagically. You should be grateful.

The singer who just does not quite cut it, can say of the top 5%ers that it is just the connections and that the singers are being exploited and be resentful, but it is that resentment that will hold them back from ever being successful as who wants to work with someone that is resentful.

Leftism doesn’t just describe a lack of success, it doesn’t just predict a lack of success, it creates and manifests a lack of success. Any person that views another person as a bad, negative inhumane person who is just exploiting people isn’t employable and even if they do get the job, they are only going to lose it eventually anyhow. As they exclaim “I knew the capitalist system did not work”, it will be obvious that, no, your hatred of the capitalist system doesn’t work.

The singer who just does not quite cut it can be grateful for these superstars because it is them who have created and keep entire industries afloat and vibrant, they keep radio pertinent, cd production facilities, studios, concert venues, agencies, security, paparazzi, t-shirt and merchandising industries vibrant, blazing several trails that many including the singer who does not quite cut it can hook into and make a fortune. You should kneel and kiss their ring and thank them and be grateful for them. This is not only a perfectly rational perspective, but the perspective of resentment is just a victim mentality, that you are just a resource to be exploited. If women are only earning 70 cents per dollar that men earn for the same work, the same productivity, then who pays them 71 cents, or 75 cents or 80 cents is going to make a fortune exploiting them. Indeed, if this is the situation then the solution that fixes this injustice would be natural especially in a capitalist environment and the need for the leftist’s solution to the injustice is not and never will be required or needed.

Indeed, in accordance to the educational decisions women have made, the choices to have the children they have had and if they are as productive as men over the course of their careers then their wages would be bid up by the greed of the capitalists. However, the leftist says that it is the greed of the capitalists that makes them underbid and underpay women. Everyone is underpaid, every man and woman think they are underpaid.

What is this underpaid amount anyhow? Whatever it is, you are just under that amount. Why is it that you should get this amount that is deemed to be not underpaid? What you get is what you negotiate for. If it is under payment for your services, then do not work there. You get what you are worth and if you are not worth the amount you have deemed to be underpaid then you need to work for less, go elsewhere to work or provide our own work and salary. If you earn a lot for a company, an amount that others can not earn for that company, then economics 101 dictates that you go ask for more earnings. If you ask too much, then there is no benefit for the company to pay you more. There is no incentive for them to pay you more or even keep you as an employee.

If you think you are underpaid, then you probably think you are under-dated.  Again, that magically amount of dates that you should have to be not under-dated, you are just below that. The evil gynocentric society is ensuring you are under-dated, keeping you just below having an amount of dates that is not considered in the under-dated range. One might then assume there is an angel looking over your shoulder down upon you keeping you underpaid so you can maintain your under-dated status. Who knows?

Women are not underpaid. If women are producing they will get what they ask for. On one hand leftists say that profit drives down women’s wages relative to men’s wages and out of the other side of their mouths, on the other hand they say capitalists are so greedy that they use every advantage to get ahead and paying women slightly more than what they are paying now would make a capitalist a fortune. It just doesn’t make any sense. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. It just does not make any sense, but it is not supposed to make sense, it is supposed to sow resentment.

If you can convince women that they are underpaid relative to men, that men are mean and exploiting women not giving them what they deserve. Then you can get women to surrender their rights of property for society, their rights of negotiation, their rights of freedom of association, that they are going to surrender the rights of people for whatever they see fit because it is unfair. In this manner, you bypass genetics, innate abilities and capacities, the bell curve, meritocracy. Then people will surrender moral principles like property rights. Instead of telling women, you want to be empowered, then you need to go negotiate for what you want. By the way if you decide to have children then somebody needs to pay for those. If a woman is on welfare, why is that not considered pay? Technically its not pay but it is a transfer or resource, involuntary mind you, it is the wallet rape of men. If a man is paying a woman’s bills because she stays home with their children, then she is being paid. This pay is not considered income because it would close that ‘wage gap’ and may even put her on top. Women are responsible for over 85% of all purchase be they household or not. In going to any mall, you would be hard pressed to find even one RadioShack. Even BestBuy’s are difficult to find. Mall’s are entirely for women all the time. However, you know, it is a patriarchy though.

It is genetics, whether race or gender that pushes back against the supposed evil bigotry and nastiness that is represented by free society appealing to the resentful and the unsuccessful as it states it is not your fault you are not succeeding, institutional this and systemic that and violence and the patriarchy, massive amounts of white supremacy, racism, and there for you cannot succeed but do not worry, surrender your rights and freedoms and we will go what is innately yours.

That kid Stole My Bike

From a morality perspective, if one was to go to a kid and say, I am going to go steal a bike for you worth $500 for only $50. Most of us will have reservations about that. This person is going to go steal a bike for me, that is wrong. Who wants that, and who wants to live in a neighbor hood where everyone is doing that? In our current society most of us would say no thanks.

However, if someone came up to you and said, when you were little your parents had bought you a nice bike for when you got older, it was a bigger bike than you could handle at the time. I know the kid that stole that bike. For $10 I will go steal that bike back for you. It is your bike. This situation is a lot more tempting. He is not stealing a bike that was never yours. This is your bike and he is just going to get it back. Isn’t that exactly what the police would do? If you called up the police and you told them some kid across the street stole your bike and he is riding around the neighborhood on it. The police will come bay find the kid and ascertain whose bike it is. They will go and get the bike, by force if necessary, from the kid across the street and bring it back to you. People will agree that this is right, and this is fair and that is just and that is good.

However, you have to say that you were stolen from. If you were not stolen from and someone goes and steals a bike for you then that is a violation of property. If you were stolen from and someone gets that bike back for you then that is an affirmation of property.

This is pretend justice. Justice means equality of opportunity and social justice means equality of outcome. Social justice and leftists try and appeal to your sense of morality to destroy actual morality.

Little Jimmy goes and turns off some kid’s computer while in the middle doing some homework or playing a computer game and upsets the kid on the computer. The kid pushes little Jimmy who turned off the computer. Jimmy now lies to his big brother or bigger friend, saying someone wronged him and pushed him and Jimmy gets his big brother or bigger friend to go correct this injustice. Jimmy’s big brother or bigger friend is now doing wrong because little Jimmy was at fault in the first place for turning off the computer and this has resulted in negative behavior of other people. The big brother thinks he is correcting a wrong, but he is creating a wrong. So if a leftist says to you that you should have what these rich people have or you should have what the middle class have or something has been taken away from you or you have been exploited in some manner and they get you to believe this and get you to go the government and get me back my bike that was stolen from me, get me back that money that was stolen from me, get me back the wages that I was not paid and you believe you are affirming your property rights, but you are not. You were never stolen from in the first place. Then you are getting the government to go steal somebody’s bike and bring it to you all disguised as fairness and rightness in property ownership.

In 1992, Charles Murray published the Bell Curve and stated that the incomes across America were that the Japanese and Chinese are very high with the Jews even higher, with whites in the middle followed by Hispanics and blacks at the bottom. If you were to normalize by IQ, then these differences and disparities all but vanished. That explanation is very powerful, but the left lost it and went bonkers as they so often do.

Charles took it particularly hard and found it a rough thing to go through, especially because back in the era, if you were attacked unjustly, the main stream media, who were also left back then, held all the cards and you had little to no capacity to rebut or respond unlike today whereas we have the internet and you can rebut of explain until the cows come home.

We can try and excuse the left and make excuses for them and say that they were sensitive to the feelings of blacks and Hispanics, but if you were sensitive to the feelings of blacks, you would limit immigration from low-skill nations as these immigrants have been directly driving the wages of the most economically vulnerable in society which are blacks. You would also get rid of the welfare state which traps blacks in a perpetual cycle of poverty and underclass and has destroyed the black nuclear family. As Walter Williams has stated, the welfare state has done what slavery, segregation and Jim Crow could not do and that is destroyed the back family. So, the left, if they cared would be against the welfare state and low-skilled immigration.

What is the left about? The left is about selling you a product called injustice. Disparate outcomes are the result of injustice, are the result of bad people doing wrong things like bigotry, sexism, racism and anything else they can utilize to pitch you on what they must sell. They ask you to give up your principles, your property, your freedoms, give up freedom of association and then we will restore to you that of which was stolen from you.

However, genetics is a pushback on all disparities of outcome are the result of injustice and whatever whittles that sense of injustice that the left is selling, whittles down the market that the left can sell into. It is about money and power. They only claim to be scientific as to get religion out of the way because religion has a strong focus on individual choices, individual conscience and recognize that people have different abilities. However, when genetics comes up the left become hysterically anti scientific to the point where they will physically attack people bring up competing theories to the market they want to sell into.

Their hysteria is served by a rigorous devotion to reason and evidence. The superstition of radical environmental triggered egalitarianism is an exceptionally dangerous superstition driving many dysfunctional and destructive policies in the west at the moment that challenging though it may be, that the reality of group differences in genetics, the reality that genetics explains an extraordinary amount of inequalities within society and then turn out to not be inequalities but rather representations of human biodiversity is where we need to take our stand because this is the most important issue that is going on in the world right now. If it diminishes the left’s capacity to sell resentment and sow the seeds of the civilization that gave birth, then so be it.

These ideas are paraphrased from Stefan Molyneux.

Is the Wage Gap a Myth? NO!

Many people today think that the wage gap is a myth. This is not true. These people are sexist, and they ignore substantial numbers of multi-variate studies conducted by reputable institutions and reputable scholars such as the U.S Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Indeed, the wage gap denial is the biggest scandal purported on the human population in the past 50 years. However, facts just do not seem to matter, do they? As long as there is a victim mentality, there will be wage gap deniers.

Let’s look at the facts, shall we? According to a TIME article (Luscombe, 2010) in 2010 based on the 2008 U.S. census data, 10 years ago mind you, out of 150 cities studied, young women earn more than young men in 147 cities. Additionally, they earn as much as 20% more than men, but who cares about facts anyway. The attitude women today have is disgusting and shows their sheer entitlement. Additionally, the author of this article apologizes for these sentiments about as much as women in general do for their unreasonable, unaccountable immature attitudes they present daily.

No wonder men for the most part not only ignore women but safely ignore woman and the growing trend is that women are beginning to ignore women also. There is no question as to why groups such as MGTOW are not only growing at record speeds but encapsulating all demographics of men as young as 13 years old. In fact, women are beginning to sympathize and agree with the MGTOW mind set as well, mind you ladies you are definitely not welcome in MGTOW – men only, happily.

Referring to the TIME article, look at the title, “Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top”, let’s just for one moment see how acceptable that title is, shall we? Change the word ‘women’ to men, “Workplace Salaries: At Last, Men on Top.” Imagine the backlash if that was the title. Why is it OK to see men falling to the bottom of the income ladder? Would it be OK to see women falling to the bottom of the income ladder? Is it OK for young men’s economic gains to outpace women? Then, why is it OK for young women’s economic gains to outpace men?

We constantly hear the term misogynist being thrown around everywhere, all the time and thank god for that or we would not know it was misogynistic. However, misandry is alive and well, in practice, in reality and in fact. For instance, just stating what is observable in reality will trigger some women and white knights to call these statements misogynistic while proving the stated misandry statement.

Men are earning less and less and as of 2015 young men earning less than $30,000 per year had doubled over the past 40 years whereas women earning more than $60,000, yes $60,000 per year has increased, 13% (Vespa, 2017).

Additionally, women are whining about needing more women in management positions. What is it women really want? They already make more money than men. According to the 2017 Bureau Labor Statistics which surveyed the 153,337,000 workers in the United states, women make up 46.9% of the labor force and hold 51.6 % of the best jobs namely, top management, professional and related occupations (Statistics). At what point is it fair, equal or too much? All men know the answer to this; however, women do not know the answer and if you are a woman and you think you do know when it is too much then please elaborate in the comments of this article. Perhaps we have too many women in management positions already and if you think that we do not, then please elaborate. I predict that there will be no comments elaborating when it is we have too many women and if there is they will be dumb arguments and safely ignored.

It is very easy to find statistics and studies which show that women today are earning more than men and that the traditional ‘wage gap’ argument relied on only bi-variate factors namely male and female. No other factors were considered. However, when explaining why women earn more today, specifically with millennials all the multi-variate factors just come pouring out as if one had a nasty case of diarrhea.

So, young women earn more than young men today because they are better educated. Fair enough. However, statistics show that women are more than 60% of university students. Notice the ‘more than’ and all of sudden statistics become vague ( Some stats say 56% which are just not accurate. Most say, ‘more than 60%’. Anyone with recent experience in any university knows there is an issue with male/female ratios in universities. The real numbers are more like 70%  female if not more. Some of the classes the author of this article taught were 90% women.

If women are earning more than men today because they have better education and more women are in universities, namely for every two women there is one male in university, that is half as much men, then what are we going to do about it? We all know the answer to this, nothing. Why? Is it because we don’t agree with this premise? No, it is because woman are hypocrites and there are too many white nights, manginas, simpletons and men in general that just want some tang and are willing to forgo their dignity to get some.

Additionally, there are calls that use this statistic as an excuse to hire more women at universities. Imagine, women at this point do not do anything about nor do they care about the inequalities of gender in universities. One could only imagine the extent of which this crisis would grow if we get rid of what little men are currently represented in universities now. ‘Women represent 57% of college students—but just 26% of school leaders ( and Not only are more women employed in schools and universities, they call for even more! Nothing to see here, move along.

Is it OK if women were making less than men for the same work, same experience and same competency level? If not, then what can we do about this to equal or level out the difference? Now take all those ideas you have and change the word ‘men’ to ‘women’ and the word ‘women’ to ‘men’ and that’s what we need to do to change the scandal being purported upon men in society today.

We need to stop programs for women regarding universities 5 years ago. Men need to be admitted for free just to increase the numbers a little bit, however even something as drastic as this will not create an equilibrium in university demographics between males and females. Men do not want to go to a gynocentric university where they are going to potentially be put in jail!

However, with the recent pound-me-too (#metoo) campaign which I don’t really understand, have some tact you nasty whorish women, it appears it is too late for fixing the current state of society regarding men and women. Today 7% of men are not even in the labor force and neither do they wish to be nor do they plan on entering the work force.

Even if there were a wage gap against women, which there is not, some of the factors being thrown around are that married men earn more as they have a supportive wife helping with his household affairs and married women are penalized for being married (, additionally, women with children, it is claimed, earn less because they have children. If this is true, what is the solution? Don’t get married? Don’t have kids? Why do women hate to be women so much? Why are women so jealous of men?

Perhaps we can tax the heck out of men more, who already pay 200% more tax than women do, earn less than women and use less per capita of government programs. No thank you! I will just take a crap job, earn less, work more under the table in the black market to avoid the tax that go to women and go fishing on the weekends thanks. Additionally, men no longer even want to work with women let alone ‘man-splain’ their knowledge as we have done via apprenticeships for 1000s of years.

Now that women have ‘fixed’ society, I posit that we allow men to back-out of society and go start another society. Give women and manginas the current society, which sucks so bad according to them, that they dearly want for some reason, even though it sucks so bad, for free with no strings attached. Just allow men to go their own way and start a new society for themselves with all their guns, masculinity and patriarchy so as to not offend all the progressive liberals. If not, then there will be a civil war.
Before finishing this article, lets do a little wage-gap reality check challenge shall we?

Wage Gap Reality-check challenge

“It seems to be common knowledge that men are earning more than women as spouted by women, manginas and all the media. However, there are many men, who are very responsible and have lots of responsibilities and important jobs.”

“Yes, but there are also many women dear sir. They too, have responsibilities and important jobs.”

“Yes, but I can name many men, most my friends, who go to work every day and work hard, and get dirty and sometimes injure themselves at work, just to go home late at night to their families and friends”

“Yes, dear sir, but I too can name many women, most of who are my friends and who work hard and long hours who are also subject to getting home late to their family and sometimes subject to injuries”

“But there are so many men working with difficult jobs, I think perhaps 51% of all people working are men, a great number of men indeed and I do not purport that they earn more or less than anyone else. I also purport that they do not earn the same or equal as other be they men or women”

“Yes, dear sir, I proclaim that many women work with difficult jobs also, I think perhaps 50% of all people working are women, a great deal of women indeed and I do purport that they earn less than men and I also purport that they do not earn equal to men, although you also purport men do not earn equal to other men, but I do purport women earn less than men, indeed”

“Ah, I see, so I give you this challenge and give you all the time you need that is reasonable to list 5 names of women who you know as we all know many women and men, who we can name personally, and are not what someone else says but as we anecdotally can state from our own personal knowledge to earn less than a man who has the same experience, knowledge and competency.

No response.

“Hmm, I see you are having a problem, so I extend this challenge to be only 3 names that you personally know, after all this is a pandemic issue that all state to be true, all media state to be true and even some mangina men state to be true and free of false claims as apparent by their overly obvious triggering. Therefore, please provide three names and take all the time you need that is reasonable in nature.”

No response.

“Hmm, problems are to be overcome and not be obstacles and thus I challenge you to name only 1 woman who earns less than a man who has the same experience and competence of that of a man. After all, we all know many men and women and it should be easy considering this pandemic situation and one should quickly be able to name 1 woman who earns less than a man of equal situations”

“hmmm, lest I wait.”

No response.


If you can’t see that you have been tricked, hoodwinked and played the fool then you are really dumb. In your maleficence, you are destroying society. One in your position should be proud of your accomplishment.

So, is the wage gap a myth? No, it is not. Men do not earn as much a women and women are entitled and are provided much more opportunities than men. Are you going to work when you finish university? Who cares. That is such a dumb question and it is a question that is NEVER asked of a man. Women’s problems are rooted in the fact, THE FACT, that they have too many options and this is why women and their opinions are ignored by most men, that is unless the man wants vaj. Women need to become reasonable and accountable and stop acting like adult children.

Oh, and what about men who earn less than women for the same work. I am not going to list full names here because there are literally thousands. Instead I am going to list industries where women earn more than men for no reason other than the fact they are women: The Porn industry, Magazine models, runway models, the fashion industry in general. So, what about you? Name some women that earn less than men for no reason at all.


Luscombe, B. (2010, Sept. 01 2020). Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top. Retrieved from,8599,2015274,00.html

Statistics, B. o. L. Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity Retrieved from

Vespa, J. (2017). The Changing Economics and Demographics of Young Adulthood:1975-2016. Retrieved from