>You’ll often hear pedo hysterics assert that 16- and 17-year-olds are “children.” But we never refer to them as children in any other context.
This is not true, anytime there's a victim that's less than 18, people call it, he killed a kid, he killed a child. He threatened a child. Hamas killing sub 18 yr olds is classified as killing children. Like what world are you in if you are unfamiliar with "oh my god, she's just a child" for 16 yr olds.
>Videos of “pedophiles” getting abused and publicly humiliated rack up huge numbers on social media, and again we have to think how strange this would be for any other crime.
Richard consider you don't understand this cause you have a terrible theory of mind. People do not consider most of these other crimes as bad as pedophilia, kids are considered vulnerable, that's the entire basis of parenting, robbing a child at gun point is considered worse, they baked babies or shot kids is considered the pinnacle of crime of Hamas as are "child soldiers", someone that kills a teenager is considered much worse. The ubiquitous of this feeling around the world should show you it's not that simple, as we indeed live longer, some extended childhood is expected but also no period of our history had high or notable rates of teenage marriage, they were almost always frowned upon or shied away from even in region their religion allows it, The Taliban had to change this law by force. Saudi Arabia age of consent is now 18 and they use Sharia law that they could use to justify that.
I think you easily understand this when you see data that says most men find young women attractive and that's natural male sexuality but for some reason don't understand the most people find sexual relations between and adult and teenagers questionable. And even in France with Young age of consent, the relationships are not common and still considered kinda weird.
And you see to keep ignoring that women are the one thta are most against this. Just like that age gap thing, you ignore that while men are okay with ut, the other side largely isn't, and the small age gap (over 15) that are extremely happy, have to go through the great filtering and all the malicious ones would have been filtered out, and most on shaky foundations will also not survive the social sanctions.
And to be honest, as a personal opinion, the guys that indeed go for teenage girls are the kind you don't want around your loved ones.
Everything you described is a very recent, post-60s phenomenon. Even in the West before the 60s teen marriages actually were somewhat common and the average person loss their virginity at younger ages than they do now. Cultural Infantilism is not the historical norm anywhere
1. Losing virginity is not indication of teen marriage
2. It also doesn't say anything about the pedophile adult marrying teens thing. Most teen marriages are between teens.
3. Historically from what Archaeology has shown, teen marriage were indeed never actually common. The average age of first birth is over 20 for both men and women
Stop saying nonsense, what evidence. First birth is the Greatest indication of teen marriage cause like you said contradictorily in the 1st point, losing your virginity is a sign of marriage, you think teen marriage is the common option yet age at first birth is like 23 to 25, that makes sense to you.
I ignored this point before but there is no data on what age people lost virginities outside the west pre 1940s. Indeed, historians largely agree pre marital sex was actually the norm in the global scale. Historians show we know about 20 to 40% of chilren were conceived before their parents marriage, this is higher than even current world but you have to understand rhey didn't have BC. This "disproven by evidence" only to make up everything is dumb. There were a lot of cultures that did the virginity test on marriage day but we also have evidence this wasn't treated tgat seriously and indeed was gamed by couples that had already engaged in pre marital sex. And even the Yoruba virginity test was uncommon globally, the greeks, athens, romans, europe were all having pre marital sex.
Even African and many native cultures: In many pre-colonial African, Polynesian, and Native American societies, adolescent sexual experimentation was often seen as a normal stage of development.
Also teen marriages even now in regions where its allowed like Nigeria where I come from, still largely happen between two teenagers, fathers of kids born to teenage mothers are overwhelmingly also teenagers.
Indeed even Nigeria got the teenage marriage thing only in the North and it was from Arab Muslim culture getting there. And even there most of the teen marriage are between two teens like I stated already as something that bolsters my point not take from it. And you even stated it as if that disproves my point that teen marriages between 14-19 were common. Nonsese, it wasn't common, but most teen marriages were indeed between two teens which strengthens my argument again Richard point not take from it.
Did you miss how teen marriages are common among 14 to 19 years olds does not disprove my point cause I have literally stated most teen marriages are indeed between teenagers and stating that is a dumb way to refute argument against marriage between adults and teenagers.
>First birth =\= first marriage. Waiting years before having your first child is a common thing
OH god you have a terrible grasp of history, this is not historically true, there was no family planning, birth control, condom, almost no abortion, they didn't know how to track cycles and as you just said, they got into marriage to have sex, you think they were getting into marriages and not having sex for years? Like you also claimed, this is not the case cause you literally stated they used to lose their virginities as teenagers. We know europe for one and asia had very much higher rate of pre marital conceiving.
Teen marriage happened at higher rate than they do now, but they were overwhelmingly between two teenagers, and were not the norm or common and it was indeed not common for adults to marry teenagers. The 14 to 19 range you mentioned are within teenager range. Even within teen marriage counts, marriage between a teen and adults like 15 years older was not common. You have absolutely abysmal knowledge of history and archaeology and for some reason feel so confident enough to state "your statement defies evidence" and make up many incorrect claims
You just undermined your entire argument, and no, birth control and family planning aren't uniquely Modern things (even condoms are an ancient invention).
I don't know why you are denying the obvious social reality of 20s-30s year olds marrying teenagers throughout most world cultures. It is only in the Modern West where the idea that relationships between people with major age gaps is a bad thing exists.
Jeez, why do you have so much bad ideas about history, birth control are literally a modern invention as is family planning, kids died a lot then, people lived shorter lives and needed kids to work on farms so they basically had a lot of kids. There were instances of condoms in ancient europe and Asia but they were by no means common or mass produced and used.
Historically, they were used almost exclusively to prevent syphilis and other STIs, usually in brothels. They were expensive, uncomfortable, and notoriously unreliable. A 17th-century peasant or a 19th-century laborer was not using a "sheepskin" every night to space out their children.
Another obvious proof is that inter-birth interval was consistently 2 years which is consistent with no such effective birth control. Breast feeding supresses ovulation for a while and then children again.
Even Richard Hanania reposted a Tyler Cowen article he contributed to that mentioned how birth control and family planning introduction in modern age are responsible for falling birth rates.
"The average age of first birth is over 20 ..." And what does the distribution look like -- how thick is the left tail? The average being over 20 doesn't indicate that a a substantial proportion are at a younger age. I don't know either way.
The bigger segments of the left tail is probably closer to 18-23 than to under that. And again the argument is about the commonality, talking about left tail indeed going towards how uncommon it is. And of course, I'm not saying it didn't happen, it' definitely did happen way more than it does now, it's just also true that most teenage marriages are between two teenagers not between adults that are like more than 15 year olds and teenagers. Look no further than literal cultures that still allow it based on culture and religion like Afghanistan and Northern Nigeria that practice it now and practice teenage marriag more thoroughly in recent decades. It's mostly between two teenagers.
I do not think there is evidence that thinking pedophilia to be awful is the province of "low human capital" or "losers." I believe it is a widely shared view that cuts across socio-economic and educational attainment classes. I think your view on this is rare and very much on the fringe.
The joke of course is that as you mention, they started with QAnon telling them that there was this cabal of largely Jewish influencers in a global conspiracy to traffic children. And it turns out they were right. But their solution was to elect the guy who was most wrapped up in it. But then they believed him when he said Mexico would pay for his wall, and tariffs fix inflation, so par for the course.
I am not particularly interested in debating whether Epstein was a true pedophile or “merely” an ephebophile (I am sure I spelled that wrong, but I refuse to look it up). We often use the term pedophile more broadly than its clinical definition, and that’s OK. It seems clear that in the early 2000s, Epstein sexually victimized teenage girls in a criminal manner. However, where I think Tracey is right is that nothing really indicates that he trafficked these girls to other rich people.
There's plenty showing that he and Maxwell facilitated the victimization of teenage girls - that the pair groomed these girls for themselves and for others - and likely vice versa ("show me yours and I'll show you mine"). And many of these girls were flown around, domestically and internationally.
Tracey is bizarrely obsessed with shitting on any and every aspect of "the Epstein story." Just because some opportunistic shysters, journalists and "influencers" have gone to town on this, doesn't mean that a lot of creepy people didn't abuse a lot of girls and young women, or that some of that conduct wasn't illegal.
Tracey's entire schtick for months now has been Epstein "contrarianism." He's a click-chasing, low-effort, Epstein-obsessed shit-flinger.
It’s the “for others” that I don’t see the evidence of. Do you have anything concrete, other than Virginia Guiffre, who seems to have been done combination of mentally ill and a grifter?
▶ noun an adult who is sexually attracted to adolescents.
adolescent /ˌadəˈlɛsnt/
▶ adjective (of a young person) in the process of developing from a child into an adult
I don't know of a single word for men who are attracted to physically-adult teenage girls, but I believe most men of all ages are. I mean "attracted" in a purely sexual sense that does not imply action.
Clearly you’re allergic to the concept that innumerable references to pre pubescent children (pedophilia) are in the files and yet you spend all of this article bleating and trying to split hairs about the experience of the victims as older teenagers to make it seem less creepy. Revolting.
And yes, perhaps it is “low human capital” to care about young children. Historically, many of the “elites” you worship do indeed sacrifice their innocence of their young children in various ways to achieve their Machiavellian ends. Is it a leap to guess you personally would do similar tactics with your own children to advance your status in some way? Gross.
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, the other celebrity formerly known as Prince, was famously photographed in 2001 with Virginia Roberts (Giuffre) in England. He was 41. She was 17. The age of consent there is 16. Just saying...
The fact that he was photographed with her doesn’t prove they had sex. As it happens, I’ve been photographed with both Brooke Shields and Lynda Carter. I think I’d probably remember if I had sex with either of them.
This hysteria is also spreading across the world with politicians in France, UK & even Slovakia having to resign due to associations with Epstein. Moral panics involving “defending children” are used both by right-wing populists like Orban to ban pride parades and mainstream “liberals” like Macron to censor social media. It really is a perfect storm that has elements of woke hysteria, low IQ right-wing conspiracism and prole resentment against elites. You are right to speak out against this.
Older teenagers are, as a biological fact, sexually mature and fertile - of course they can be sexually attractive. At the same time, society needs to draw an age of consent line somewhere, ours seem reasonable, and there are good social reasons to respect them.
But those two ideas are in tension and low decoupling ability may struggle with that. If "pedophelia" means ever feeling sexually attracted to anyone below the age of consent, then there really are pedophiles everywhere. And if it's also a major felony, then there are criminals or prospective criminals everywhere.
Maybe a simpler read is that "elite human capital" are generally equipped financially and socially to feel safe, comfortable, and secure, while low SES people's core experience is insecurity and anxiety, which is expressed and sublimated in large scale concerns presented by forces out of their control - demonic possession, satanic child abduction cults, conspiracy of foreigners, etc.
Of course high status people also have their neuroses and obsessions but they run media and academic institutions so their neuroses become normative and good to worry about while we can all make fun of the rubes at the bottom.
this is obviously completely correct with regards to the general thesis, but I'd suggest that elites perhaps underestimate the problem of actual pdf:ery (as in: not involving teens). there simply are no palatable and effective solutions to incest, assuming one cares about basic civil liberties, and it's natural to avoid thinking too much about something inevitable and awful. the low human capital crowd cares much less about civil liberties, and is less capable of understanding real trade-offs, and is therefore more free to indulge in fantasies about draconian law-enforcement practices saving the children.
thanks for speaking out on this so forcefully. it won't be a popular cause but the hysteria over it is ridiculous. the fact that this is the leading political issue of the day right now indeed confirms the pernicious nature of this low IQ obsession. there is no conspiracy to traffic children, and Epstein and powerful older men desiring beautiful younger women is nothing surprising, nor particularly galling. we draw the line somewhere on what's permissible, fine, but that this "crime" is more morally repugnant than many others is silly.
perhaps the real thing we ought to address, then, is our attitude towards sex. is it sacred or profane? is it wise or foolish? is it purely biological urge or is it something more?
I listened to a few Michael Tracey podcasts this morning, and I'll admit I have been radicalised against the masses. If you stop pussyfooting around and actually come up with some concrete plans for disenfranchising proles and putting them on reservations, then I'll get on board with neoliberalism.
Asking for Net Tax Balance of maybe above 2000$ (ie all tax & social security contributions minus all welfare checks, tax credit, Obamacare subsidies etc) will disenfranchise most proles.
>You’ll often hear pedo hysterics assert that 16- and 17-year-olds are “children.” But we never refer to them as children in any other context.
This is not true, anytime there's a victim that's less than 18, people call it, he killed a kid, he killed a child. He threatened a child. Hamas killing sub 18 yr olds is classified as killing children. Like what world are you in if you are unfamiliar with "oh my god, she's just a child" for 16 yr olds.
>Videos of “pedophiles” getting abused and publicly humiliated rack up huge numbers on social media, and again we have to think how strange this would be for any other crime.
Richard consider you don't understand this cause you have a terrible theory of mind. People do not consider most of these other crimes as bad as pedophilia, kids are considered vulnerable, that's the entire basis of parenting, robbing a child at gun point is considered worse, they baked babies or shot kids is considered the pinnacle of crime of Hamas as are "child soldiers", someone that kills a teenager is considered much worse. The ubiquitous of this feeling around the world should show you it's not that simple, as we indeed live longer, some extended childhood is expected but also no period of our history had high or notable rates of teenage marriage, they were almost always frowned upon or shied away from even in region their religion allows it, The Taliban had to change this law by force. Saudi Arabia age of consent is now 18 and they use Sharia law that they could use to justify that.
I think you easily understand this when you see data that says most men find young women attractive and that's natural male sexuality but for some reason don't understand the most people find sexual relations between and adult and teenagers questionable. And even in France with Young age of consent, the relationships are not common and still considered kinda weird.
And you see to keep ignoring that women are the one thta are most against this. Just like that age gap thing, you ignore that while men are okay with ut, the other side largely isn't, and the small age gap (over 15) that are extremely happy, have to go through the great filtering and all the malicious ones would have been filtered out, and most on shaky foundations will also not survive the social sanctions.
And to be honest, as a personal opinion, the guys that indeed go for teenage girls are the kind you don't want around your loved ones.
Everything you described is a very recent, post-60s phenomenon. Even in the West before the 60s teen marriages actually were somewhat common and the average person loss their virginity at younger ages than they do now. Cultural Infantilism is not the historical norm anywhere
1. Losing virginity is not indication of teen marriage
2. It also doesn't say anything about the pedophile adult marrying teens thing. Most teen marriages are between teens.
3. Historically from what Archaeology has shown, teen marriage were indeed never actually common. The average age of first birth is over 20 for both men and women
Literally everything you posted is debunked by evidence.
1. In most cultures marriage is the only guaranteed way to get laid for most people so losing your virginity as a teen IS a sign of teen marriages
2. Marriages between 14-19 yrds and and older partners IS common is most cultures outside the West, even today.
3. First birth =\= first marriage. Waiting years before having your first child is a common thing
Stop saying nonsense, what evidence. First birth is the Greatest indication of teen marriage cause like you said contradictorily in the 1st point, losing your virginity is a sign of marriage, you think teen marriage is the common option yet age at first birth is like 23 to 25, that makes sense to you.
I ignored this point before but there is no data on what age people lost virginities outside the west pre 1940s. Indeed, historians largely agree pre marital sex was actually the norm in the global scale. Historians show we know about 20 to 40% of chilren were conceived before their parents marriage, this is higher than even current world but you have to understand rhey didn't have BC. This "disproven by evidence" only to make up everything is dumb. There were a lot of cultures that did the virginity test on marriage day but we also have evidence this wasn't treated tgat seriously and indeed was gamed by couples that had already engaged in pre marital sex. And even the Yoruba virginity test was uncommon globally, the greeks, athens, romans, europe were all having pre marital sex.
Even African and many native cultures: In many pre-colonial African, Polynesian, and Native American societies, adolescent sexual experimentation was often seen as a normal stage of development.
Also teen marriages even now in regions where its allowed like Nigeria where I come from, still largely happen between two teenagers, fathers of kids born to teenage mothers are overwhelmingly also teenagers.
Indeed even Nigeria got the teenage marriage thing only in the North and it was from Arab Muslim culture getting there. And even there most of the teen marriage are between two teens like I stated already as something that bolsters my point not take from it. And you even stated it as if that disproves my point that teen marriages between 14-19 were common. Nonsese, it wasn't common, but most teen marriages were indeed between two teens which strengthens my argument again Richard point not take from it.
Did you miss how teen marriages are common among 14 to 19 years olds does not disprove my point cause I have literally stated most teen marriages are indeed between teenagers and stating that is a dumb way to refute argument against marriage between adults and teenagers.
>First birth =\= first marriage. Waiting years before having your first child is a common thing
OH god you have a terrible grasp of history, this is not historically true, there was no family planning, birth control, condom, almost no abortion, they didn't know how to track cycles and as you just said, they got into marriage to have sex, you think they were getting into marriages and not having sex for years? Like you also claimed, this is not the case cause you literally stated they used to lose their virginities as teenagers. We know europe for one and asia had very much higher rate of pre marital conceiving.
Teen marriage happened at higher rate than they do now, but they were overwhelmingly between two teenagers, and were not the norm or common and it was indeed not common for adults to marry teenagers. The 14 to 19 range you mentioned are within teenager range. Even within teen marriage counts, marriage between a teen and adults like 15 years older was not common. You have absolutely abysmal knowledge of history and archaeology and for some reason feel so confident enough to state "your statement defies evidence" and make up many incorrect claims
You just undermined your entire argument, and no, birth control and family planning aren't uniquely Modern things (even condoms are an ancient invention).
I don't know why you are denying the obvious social reality of 20s-30s year olds marrying teenagers throughout most world cultures. It is only in the Modern West where the idea that relationships between people with major age gaps is a bad thing exists.
Jeez, why do you have so much bad ideas about history, birth control are literally a modern invention as is family planning, kids died a lot then, people lived shorter lives and needed kids to work on farms so they basically had a lot of kids. There were instances of condoms in ancient europe and Asia but they were by no means common or mass produced and used.
Historically, they were used almost exclusively to prevent syphilis and other STIs, usually in brothels. They were expensive, uncomfortable, and notoriously unreliable. A 17th-century peasant or a 19th-century laborer was not using a "sheepskin" every night to space out their children.
Another obvious proof is that inter-birth interval was consistently 2 years which is consistent with no such effective birth control. Breast feeding supresses ovulation for a while and then children again.
Even Richard Hanania reposted a Tyler Cowen article he contributed to that mentioned how birth control and family planning introduction in modern age are responsible for falling birth rates.
"The average age of first birth is over 20 ..." And what does the distribution look like -- how thick is the left tail? The average being over 20 doesn't indicate that a a substantial proportion are at a younger age. I don't know either way.
The bigger segments of the left tail is probably closer to 18-23 than to under that. And again the argument is about the commonality, talking about left tail indeed going towards how uncommon it is. And of course, I'm not saying it didn't happen, it' definitely did happen way more than it does now, it's just also true that most teenage marriages are between two teenagers not between adults that are like more than 15 year olds and teenagers. Look no further than literal cultures that still allow it based on culture and religion like Afghanistan and Northern Nigeria that practice it now and practice teenage marriag more thoroughly in recent decades. It's mostly between two teenagers.
I do not think there is evidence that thinking pedophilia to be awful is the province of "low human capital" or "losers." I believe it is a widely shared view that cuts across socio-economic and educational attainment classes. I think your view on this is rare and very much on the fringe.
I didn't read the article as Richard saying that paedophilia isn't awful, but that older men having sex with 16-18yr olds isn't paedophilia.
Which it isn't, unless you know any pre-pubescent 18yr olds?
The joke of course is that as you mention, they started with QAnon telling them that there was this cabal of largely Jewish influencers in a global conspiracy to traffic children. And it turns out they were right. But their solution was to elect the guy who was most wrapped up in it. But then they believed him when he said Mexico would pay for his wall, and tariffs fix inflation, so par for the course.
I am not particularly interested in debating whether Epstein was a true pedophile or “merely” an ephebophile (I am sure I spelled that wrong, but I refuse to look it up). We often use the term pedophile more broadly than its clinical definition, and that’s OK. It seems clear that in the early 2000s, Epstein sexually victimized teenage girls in a criminal manner. However, where I think Tracey is right is that nothing really indicates that he trafficked these girls to other rich people.
There's plenty showing that he and Maxwell facilitated the victimization of teenage girls - that the pair groomed these girls for themselves and for others - and likely vice versa ("show me yours and I'll show you mine"). And many of these girls were flown around, domestically and internationally.
Tracey is bizarrely obsessed with shitting on any and every aspect of "the Epstein story." Just because some opportunistic shysters, journalists and "influencers" have gone to town on this, doesn't mean that a lot of creepy people didn't abuse a lot of girls and young women, or that some of that conduct wasn't illegal.
Tracey's entire schtick for months now has been Epstein "contrarianism." He's a click-chasing, low-effort, Epstein-obsessed shit-flinger.
It’s the “for others” that I don’t see the evidence of. Do you have anything concrete, other than Virginia Guiffre, who seems to have been done combination of mentally ill and a grifter?
ODE:
ephebophile /ɛˈfi:bə(ʊ)fʌɪl, ɪˈfi:bə(ʊ)fʌɪl/
▶ noun an adult who is sexually attracted to adolescents.
adolescent /ˌadəˈlɛsnt/
▶ adjective (of a young person) in the process of developing from a child into an adult
I don't know of a single word for men who are attracted to physically-adult teenage girls, but I believe most men of all ages are. I mean "attracted" in a purely sexual sense that does not imply action.
Thanks for the info!
My pleasure. I've edited my previous reply to add another definition and my, uh, comment since you posted your reply.
Clearly you’re allergic to the concept that innumerable references to pre pubescent children (pedophilia) are in the files and yet you spend all of this article bleating and trying to split hairs about the experience of the victims as older teenagers to make it seem less creepy. Revolting.
And yes, perhaps it is “low human capital” to care about young children. Historically, many of the “elites” you worship do indeed sacrifice their innocence of their young children in various ways to achieve their Machiavellian ends. Is it a leap to guess you personally would do similar tactics with your own children to advance your status in some way? Gross.
Dave Smith is a neanderthal
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, the other celebrity formerly known as Prince, was famously photographed in 2001 with Virginia Roberts (Giuffre) in England. He was 41. She was 17. The age of consent there is 16. Just saying...
The fact that he was photographed with her doesn’t prove they had sex. As it happens, I’ve been photographed with both Brooke Shields and Lynda Carter. I think I’d probably remember if I had sex with either of them.
Hanania puts this topic onto my screen at least as often as low human capital does, I'll say that much.
This hysteria is also spreading across the world with politicians in France, UK & even Slovakia having to resign due to associations with Epstein. Moral panics involving “defending children” are used both by right-wing populists like Orban to ban pride parades and mainstream “liberals” like Macron to censor social media. It really is a perfect storm that has elements of woke hysteria, low IQ right-wing conspiracism and prole resentment against elites. You are right to speak out against this.
It's probably just low decoupling ability?
Older teenagers are, as a biological fact, sexually mature and fertile - of course they can be sexually attractive. At the same time, society needs to draw an age of consent line somewhere, ours seem reasonable, and there are good social reasons to respect them.
But those two ideas are in tension and low decoupling ability may struggle with that. If "pedophelia" means ever feeling sexually attracted to anyone below the age of consent, then there really are pedophiles everywhere. And if it's also a major felony, then there are criminals or prospective criminals everywhere.
Maybe a simpler read is that "elite human capital" are generally equipped financially and socially to feel safe, comfortable, and secure, while low SES people's core experience is insecurity and anxiety, which is expressed and sublimated in large scale concerns presented by forces out of their control - demonic possession, satanic child abduction cults, conspiracy of foreigners, etc.
Of course high status people also have their neuroses and obsessions but they run media and academic institutions so their neuroses become normative and good to worry about while we can all make fun of the rubes at the bottom.
this is obviously completely correct with regards to the general thesis, but I'd suggest that elites perhaps underestimate the problem of actual pdf:ery (as in: not involving teens). there simply are no palatable and effective solutions to incest, assuming one cares about basic civil liberties, and it's natural to avoid thinking too much about something inevitable and awful. the low human capital crowd cares much less about civil liberties, and is less capable of understanding real trade-offs, and is therefore more free to indulge in fantasies about draconian law-enforcement practices saving the children.
thanks for speaking out on this so forcefully. it won't be a popular cause but the hysteria over it is ridiculous. the fact that this is the leading political issue of the day right now indeed confirms the pernicious nature of this low IQ obsession. there is no conspiracy to traffic children, and Epstein and powerful older men desiring beautiful younger women is nothing surprising, nor particularly galling. we draw the line somewhere on what's permissible, fine, but that this "crime" is more morally repugnant than many others is silly.
perhaps the real thing we ought to address, then, is our attitude towards sex. is it sacred or profane? is it wise or foolish? is it purely biological urge or is it something more?
I listened to a few Michael Tracey podcasts this morning, and I'll admit I have been radicalised against the masses. If you stop pussyfooting around and actually come up with some concrete plans for disenfranchising proles and putting them on reservations, then I'll get on board with neoliberalism.
Asking for Net Tax Balance of maybe above 2000$ (ie all tax & social security contributions minus all welfare checks, tax credit, Obamacare subsidies etc) will disenfranchise most proles.