Billionaire Leaves Greedy Daughter $3 Million, Judge Orders She Get $25 Million

Olivia Mead can now buy her crystal-covered grand piano and diamond-encrusted guitar. Having previously asked for 77 years of income until she’s 96, the teenaged Mead has been granted AU$25 million (just under US$20 million), to be paid within a couple of months, from her late father’s estate.

Master Sanderson of the Western Australian Supreme Court ruled that billionaire Michael Wright had “provided little” to his fourth and secret child, despite him paying $535,000 for 16 years of her life ($33,437.50 per annum) until he died. The judicial officer thus threw out the explicit provisions of Wright’s actual will, which had earmarked a generous allowance for her until she was 30, when she would be granted access to a $3 million trust fund.

What this case encapsulates is the erosion of “adequate provision,” “reasonable,” and other legal concepts and their replacement by grotesque caricatures which stroke the egos of self-entitled children, vengeful exes and other unfortunate classes of individual.

Toto, we’re not in Kansas anymore…

What exactly is so inadequate about Wright granting his daughter a $3 million trust fund at 30 and a generous allowance until then?

Michael Wright’s intentions were abundantly clear. He obviously wanted his daughter to make her own way in the world. It is entirely foreseeable, given the purely gratuitous wish-list of hers initially presented to the court system after his death, that he sensed in advance that she had poor impulse control, little in the way of realistic ambition and not only a dependence on but also an expectation of others providing for her.

This only compounds the original problem of giving millions of dollars to any teenager, let alone one who demands to be spoiled (PER YEAR) with $40,000 for holidays, $20,000 for pet care, five pairs of $5,000 shoes, 20 pairs of $300 shoes, a $2.5 million house and $10,000 for fashion accessories.

Although an heir himself, Wright made a good fist of his family fortune and was a well-known and respected business figure in Perth, the state of Western Australia, and nationally. Also, describing the $535,000 Wright gave for the upkeep and needs of Olivia as “little” is ludicrous. Nearly $35,000 per year is a huge figure by most parenting standards and more than enough for a very comfortable childhood, not to mention that $535,000 across 16 years is worth much more in real terms due to inflation.

He additionally paid her school fees and gave her an allowance on top of the child support he had to furnish her mother with. The idea that a child should be given support commensurate to someone’s overall fortune is both fanciful and bizarrely self-entitled.

It is one thing for a child or probably self-interested mother, incensed she was dispensed with as a potential billionaire wife, to argue that they deserve more. But for a judicial body, no less the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which is only provincially “outranked” by the Full Bench of that same Court, to entertain such folly and largely accede to the girl’s gargantuan demands speaks volumes about the degradation of family and inheritance law.

You can now write your final testament in three foot letters and have it trampled on by a do-gooder, reality-bending, judicial officer.

Olivia Mead and her maybe jilted mother.

How much is that diamond-encrusted guitar in the window?

Wright’s provisioning for his bastard daughter was nothing short of extraordinary. Without stipulating a new law officially, Master Sanderson has effectively, like other revisionists of his ilk, equated “adequate provisioning” with a certain slice of a billionaire’s fortune, rather than evaluating if the funds furnished in the will reflect the means for a proper, not fanciful existence.

Moreover, why can’t a father or mother simply decide to not include a child in their will or restrict or delay entitlements from the same will?

As unfair as it may seem to Mead, it is likely Wright never expected to father a daughter via an extramarital affair and did not devote equal time and effort to his different kinds of children. It is not uncommon or really surprising that a tycoon’s children born within wedlock would see their father much more or reap more from the family piggybank, even if we discount that illegitimate children are often produced when a millionaire or billionaire is older.

Nor is it shocking that some children are naturally preferred to others. Human beings are human beings, after all, and the negative impact of favoritism is almost certainly more acute when families have less finances to go around.

Having child favourites, either by choice or more benignly by social circumstance, should nonetheless not be a moral basis for receiving $25 million. It is believed that the Wright-Mead case is the highest court-ordered estate ruling in Australian history.

Closing thoughts and collective head-shaking

Pity she didn’t have a wad of $100 bills to push her hair back. Hair grease is plain annoying.

This situation conjures up all sorts of possibilities and other hypothetical horror cases. What if Mead and Wright had had a strained relationship? And although the Gates family resides in the US, if billionaire Bill died today, should his children be happy with $100,000 each if that’s all that he leaves them? Or do they have any recourse to claim more?

Even those who inherited, such as Donald Trump, fundamentally own the wealth they are bequeathed by their affluent parents. They have a choice to give such wealth when they pass. It’s already a problematic field when the will is hazy, but when the words are as bright as Lena Dunham is tactless, what sort of legal sadism is it to reverse or discard their meaning?

If you want to know why the world we live in is seemingly falling apart at breakneck speed, take this Olivia Mead case, assemble a few others preposterously like it, and then use a form of simple induction to work out that nothing should surprise you anymore.

Read More: You Should Judge Books By Their Covers

375 thoughts on “Billionaire Leaves Greedy Daughter $3 Million, Judge Orders She Get $25 Million”

  1. The one bright spot is that she’ll probably blow through it all and end up penniless. Because she’s fat and ugly, this will be particularly devastating.

      1. $25 million in the hands of someone who can make good use of it (i.e. create wealth for himself and others) would be good for the economy. This bitch is just going to wither away someone else’s wealth and then ask the taxpayer to prop her back up. Net negative.

  2. Hm. Two points:
    1) I hope she spends all the money she’s getting. Fast. ALL of it. It’ll all go back into circulation, drive demand etc.
    One big thing fucked up about our economies is people just sitting on shitloads of money. That should be considered a crime. Money needs to circulate to have the greatest beneficial effects in a capitalistic society. Hoarding money is anti-social behavior, from a certain amount onwards.
    2) I know that in German law, you completely disinherit a biological child. Even if the will says otherwise, they’ll always be entitled to a minimum percentage. Maybe this is a similar case?
    p.s.: we all would have gone to court over this to try and get more, no matter what gender or age. Let’s be honest here, just saying.

    1. Nobody gets to tell others how they use or dispose of their money. “Hoarding” is another word for “Saving”. Savings is what drives an economy through creating wealth via banks. They don’t “horde” the money in large steel vaults in their basement, they keep it in financial instruments (benefit) and banks (who provide loans based on assets). Ultimately all money is in circulation or use in some manner, unless it’s directly in your back pocket or in aforementioned safes in the basement.

      1. Many individuals appear to forget that money is also subject to the law of supply and demand.
        One should also keep in mind that even if wealthy individuals kept their money is vaults like Scrooge McDuck this is also a net positive for those without such fortunes. The reason for this is due to supply and demand of money. The greater the demand for cash holdings the greater the purchasing power of it becomes, thus increasing the overall purchasing power of everyone holding the currency.
        However, in reality money does circulate in the economy due to the factors you stated. “Hoarding” is merely a naive view born out of envy.

        1. May not have been the best choice of words, I apologize. It’s not my first language.
          But I stick to my point and would like you to consider this: if wealth is distributed so that one man can buy a Porsche, he’ll do that and be done with it. If five different people used the same money to buy Fiats instead, that would create more demand, more jobs etc.
          It’s a balancing act alright. And no, envy is not a factor, sure I’d always like to have more, but I’m at a very sweet spot between [email protected] and leisure time in a tenured position, I’m okay.

        2. Yes, it is actually a deflationary force, well put. Kind of like burning it decreases the money supply, which gives others more spending power in their own wallets.

        3. You cannot control what people spend money on though, or if they’ll even spend the money. There is no magic solution I’m afraid, outside of leaving people alone to live their lives and make their own choices as they see fit. Every attempt at meddling with the economic models of a free market end up creating huge problems and ultimately those attempts do not actually solve the issue at hand.

      2. I know, you’re libertarian. But consider this: Give a man a million dollars, he’ll likely hold on to it. Give a thousand people a thousand dollars each, they’ll spend the money, thus creating demand and jobs. That’s why the 50s were such a booming decade, lots of people had lots of buying power/excess capital.

        1. The 50’s were actually rife with huge taxation, at least in the States. We prospered because of the industrial boom created by the war, which allowed super cheap production of high quality items. Those items before the war were way more expensive and less affordable despite the lower taxes.
          A man will not “hold on to” a million dollars. He’ll put it into some kind of financial vehicle. At that point it’s working in the economy in some capacity, maybe even in a better one than spending it on twenty pallets of Cocoa Puffs.

        2. Huge taxation and less staggering disparities between the rich and the poor. And still, there was a broad middle class that acted as a foundation for society.
          Productivity rose because there was DEMAND for goods and the supply could hardly keep up. These days, demand is way down but supply is still high, because people have lost purchasing power over the decades.
          The cocoa puffs themselves won’t do much good, granted, but the demand for them would ideally keep many people in jobs and society as a whole would profit from that.

        3. Actually there was huge disparity between the wealthy and the poor. This was the age right after the Vanderbuilts bought their own island.
          The middle class was huge though, but was being cut down to size even then by the tax policies that continue to this day, although Reagan’s term did some good in lowering those rates for the working man.
          The reason demand is down now is due to us not really having many employed people. Using the U-6 number instead of the U-3 on the unemployment rate, we see a huge number of people who simply no longer look for work, maybe the largest in history. Can’t sell when there’s nobody buying.

        4. “Can’t sell when there’s nobody buying.”
          Exactly! Demand is low, how do you prop up demand? Give everybody more money, doesn’t matter if it’s redistributed or people just get paid better wages.

        5. No, that actually doesn’t work. Give a man without a job money and he’ll either blow it immediately and then have no money next week, which provides no real economic gain outside of a one time short term replacing inventory, or he keeps it in his pocket.
          If you “pay everybody better wages” across the board, that simply ups the cost of good across society as each individual business and industry must cover the cost of the increased wages through an increase of the price of the goods or services it provides.
          So if you make minimum wage $100.00 an hour tomorrow, by the end of the month milk would shoot up to $45.00 a gallon.

        6. From each according to their abilities, and to each according to their needs.
          Obviously the father had more abilities and the daughter has more needs.

      3. I’m more for mega wealthy capitalists expanding their businesses and creating jobs, but you are essentially correct: it’s only really ‘hoarding’ if it’s kept under a bed.
        Most wealthy people park their money into property, stock, banks and other revenue generating assets.

    2. “It’ll all go back into circulation, drive demand etc.”
      “Money needs to circulate to have the greatest beneficial effects in a capitalistic society.”
      “Hoarding money is anti-social behavior, from a certain amount onwards.”
      Ever since the writings of Adam Smith and other supporters of the empire of bankers and of paper money, these same arguments have been endlessly repeated to brainwash the ignorant.

        1. Is this what you understood from what I’m saying?
          The main argument of Adam Smith, Keynes and others of the party of bankers is that paper money is better than gold or silver because paper money always goes back into circulation thus creating prosperity while gold or silver is hoarded thus creating stagnation. This is their argument, which is false because gold and silver circulate and paper money is hoarded. Read the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.

        2. I’ve read Wealth of Nations, thank you.
          All money is circulated if it is in the general public. Whether it sits in stocks (which is value creation) or bonds (same) or in a bank account (providing assets upon which the bank can then make loans or investments), it’s always doing *something* unless it sits in your basement in a steel box.
          Last check, there’s not a millionaire around who keeps his money in a mattress and doesn’t spend it, the occasional insane person to the side notwithstanding.
          The entire world is economic now. It’s nearly impossible to avoid participating in it to some degree. If you have money “sitting” in something, it’s circulating and working.

        3. Stocks weren’t originally meant to be traded. They were meant to be bought and held.
          The entire financial market has become separated from the “real” economy. This is what I would identify as the problem about not actually spending money on actual goods.
          Trading shares doesn’t create anything, it shuffles money around.

        4. Odd then that they were trading stocks in the 1700’s.
          You’re right that people bought and held them, to be certain, and when they did they got a return through dividends, so their money was still actually working.

        5. I know! There was speculation way back, going back to the Tulip bubble in Holland in the 1600s.
          But that’s sort of my point, the speculation has always led to bubbles that eventually did way more harm than good, considering society as a whole.

        6. Right, my only point is that they don’t put money in a hole in the ground. It’s always in use, and as such, provides a net gain to the economy. Going 100% consumerist (“Spend it or else! No investing!”) would make for a very tragic economic model to be certain. The U.S. has dabbled in it for a couple of decades and we’re so far in debt that it makes me shudder, and people have no savings to fall back on when they lose their job. It creates AND sustains dependency on government, a self perpetuating cycle.

        7. I’m not saying 100% consumerist, I’m just insinuating that there might be a tipping point above which an individual’s wealth might do more good to the economy/society if it were distributed into more hands.

        8. Sorry, I don’t cotton to wealth redistribution, and never will. When your money is working in the economy it is creating jobs and services. This is distribution enough. Billionaires may buy frivolous yachts, but truckers have to transport them and factory workers have to build them, down to the raw material lumberjacks that have to harvest the wood. It all works out well, really.

        9. I’m still saying that a hundred people buying cars or small boats creates more jobs and more opportunity than one guy buying a big yacht.
          But what I’m really concerned about is that single individuals or companies can bully/lobby governments into bowing to their will. That’s post-democracy right there, the people are not the sovereign anymore.
          One more reason why it’d be in the interest of the people, the ultimate sovereign, to curb wealth at some point. Of course, 99.5% of the frakkers out there couldn’t even explain the concepts of democracy and sovereignty if their lives depended upon it.

        10. But we’re dealing with billions of people here, not just a few wealthy guys. The U.S. is home of the millionaire, and they seem to be doing a decent job of spending and investing.
          Besides, I’ve never gotten a job from a poor man before.
          As to government-corporation joining, I have problems with that as well. Instead of indulging in socialist utopianism, I’d suggest a “separation of business and government” model, similar to “separation of church and state”, combined with making the powers of the government so few and well defined that there is no reason for business to even want to get involved in that line of work.

        11. Hm. Makes sense.
          Now, even though that might also be considered “socialist utopianism”, how about Marx’ solution to foster the working and middle classes: let workers/employees fully share in the profits they worked for.
          Audi is around the corner from me and they do that, every year they turn a profit (which is every year), all employees get a certain bonus and therefore get their share. That might be “Marxist” to some people, but it’s made the area pretty affluent without anyone needing to buy shares. And it’s the core of Marx’ ideas: make the workers/employees quasi-shareholders in the companies they’re employed at.
          But yeah, if we made such a system mandatory, this would again constitute government influence on the economy…
          By the way, as long as things like defense/military are under government control, Big Business will always try to meddle in government affairs, there’s just too much money to be made.

    3. “One big thing fucked up about our economies is people just sitting on shitloads of money. That should be considered a crime.”
      No, that is considered investing in your future. In the old days, back before the US economy went to shit, you could save your money and pay yourself interest on it as banks would pay you a tiny amount of interest for the privilege of using your life savings or so as per it’s day to day solvency affairs.
      It’s ill advisable to do the same thing today however, as the dollar continues to be worthless up to the inevitable point where it will become worthless.

    4. Rich people don’t keep their money in money bins like Scrooge McDuck.
      http://www.insidethemagic.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/money-bin.jpg
      If they did, their money would disappear via inflation. Instead they keep their money in productive businesses either owned outright, or via stocks. Income is largely capital gain, dividends or return of capital.
      You can get into arguments about job creation and all that, with those on the left, but their money does circulate even if it is not all spent on consumer goods like many do in the lower classes.

      1. Reason Magazine did a wonderful article on the Scrooge McDuck perception the Left and many others have, many years ago.

        1. I don’t think this is an issue of Left vs. Right. I don’t eve think those categories mean much anymore in the 21st century.
          It’s a matter of demand-driven vs. supply-driven markets.
          The 50s were a time of lots of demand, now we have lots of supply or potential supply, with lots of people not buying stuff because they don’t have the cash.

        2. Right and left have always been pointless.
          Liberty vs. Tyranny is the true scale. Right and Left simply battle over which side of the center of that scale they wish to exist.
          However, that said, they’re convenient conventional labels that most grok, hence I use them.

        3. I agree and would like to amend your model as follows:
          I propose a model that has conservative and progressive as the x-axis, liberal as the y-axis and then personal freedom vs tyranny as the z-axis, making it 3-dimensional.
          Liberalism is not synonymous with “Left” in European history/political thinking. It’s a category in its own right.

      2. If Scrooge were keeping his stash in paper fiat money, you’d be right. But since he was mythically swimming in gold and silver… not so much.

    5. “I hope she spends all the money she’s getting. Fast. ALL of it.”
      No hope necessary. She’s a woman. It’s guaranteed.

    6. Welcome to the class, Mr. Keynes. I bet you believe in the broken window fallacy or hiring someone to dig ditches then fill them, huh?

  3. The sons of kings would be hidden in villages and receive nothing but a last name of “Fitzroy” and constant derision for being a bastard, and sometimes even be murdered on the off chance that he might challenge the legitimacy of his father’s replacement.
    21st century Happy Princess Powderpuff gets to commandeer and override her late father’s last wishes and raid his fortune at will. Because vagina.
    We’ve come a long way, baby.

    1. She’ll most likely blow it all & scramble for the last branch of the Ugly Tree once she realizes her pipeline to the well of plenty is running dry. Fortune unearned does not buy fortitude of character nor wisdom.
      I’ve got to tip my hat at the shameless opportunity grab though. Went at it like a true master apprentice of the Femicunt movement. You have to know some poor gamma asshole is gonna wife that thing up in the near future..

      1. Shit dude, even sadder, without the money she’d *STILL* find a sorry sap. Thirsty dudes out there these days.

      2. She will just blow it all on shoes. Judging by the pic she might need a lot o materials to make her size no wonder they’re so expensive.

  4. She will be able to afford like a *bajillion* cats to spend the rest of her fat, ugly life with now! Thanks dad (well, she’d thank him if he actually left this for her and she hadn’t looted it via the courts like a common thief).

    1. Dude, be honest, with that kind of money, she’ll be able to afford a couple of thirsty betas too. Until, of course, the money runs out, at which point she will be forced to eat whatever cats she has collected to maintain her awesome figure.

  5. Wow. One would think you could do with your money what you wanted. He should have just gifted it all to his favorite charity.

  6. Women are EVIL cunts. Pure evil cunts.
    Men are losing in society. Women are taking ALL the jobs now. Not some, but all. I mean fucking hell, when is society gonna do something about this? When will HR deparments be exposed for discriminating against male candidates? When? Why are people not doing anything about this?
    Fucking women are systematically destroying the opportunities for men. Instead of competing on best of the best, we have cunts giving jobs to BFFs and female applicants.
    In all my life, I have never witnessed this amount of women in the workforce. Fucking cunts. I swear to christ, men have got to do something, before we all become unemployed and not able to get back on our feets.

    1. Female applicants are usually more educated. Women are outnumbering men in school. Say hello to the new world.

      1. “Female applicants are usually more educated”
        Sure, there maybe more females in education, but they are not as smart as men. Men built companies that females have the privilage of working in. Females do not build, they destroy everything in society. They are fucking parasites, and I swear, men are going to not take this kind of shit anymore.
        Which is MGTOW is on the rise, men are boycotting marriage and refusing to give sperm to clinics. Women have deprived men a right to existing on this Earth. So fuck those cunts.

      2. “Female applicants are usually more educated.”
        That is a specious statement, especially when one considers what sort of education these females possess as a matter of personal preference.
        Gender studies, women’s lib, etc these types of programs can ostensibly allow a female to consider herself “educated” but once she gets out in the real world, their fundamental uselessness becomes obvious.

        1. Agreed. They graduate from college and think they deserve a million dollars. The epitome of ignorance.

      3. The more women in academia, the better. I can’t wait to see it break down and crumble into dust. It’s what they deserve for disenfranchising men for decades.

      4. Correction – female applicants usually hold more degrees. This does not necessarily correlate with an education of any particular merit.

        1. Even more bizarre – the strategy is to double down on how we need more people to hold useless degrees as if this is a panacea for all our social ills.

        1. The feminist version of rage against the machine would probably say “fuck you! I WILL do what ya tell me!”

    2. The problem is that when men have the money they give it to women, and when women have the money they buy shoes.
      What happens when the men are all broke?

        1. I really don’t know the industry, which is why I made the “make machines” edit, since I was sure that they at least did that.

        2. Yeah, just think of the big names, it’s Gianni Versace, Guccio Gucci, Karl Lagerfeld etc.
          Also, famous car designers like Bertone, Giugiaro, Pininfarina, they made the most beautiful cars in the world, and all were men. How else could they have gotten the curves and lines just right? 🙂

        1. a world where victimhood is king (or rather queen) is a world where any resort to overt (as opposed to covert) violence will be used against you. Its like SJWs have all been studying Aikido or something

        2. What is probably not being seen is that if men are destroyed, metaphorically speaking, then the civilization which allows this to occur will ultimately collapse, for women are unable to properly fill this role.

        3. “a world where victimhood is king (or rather queen) is a world where any resort to overt (as opposed to covert) violence will be used against you.”
          ding ding ding! Bingo! History tends to give more of a sympathetic ear to people when they are on defense, rather than offense.
          This is why i don’t advocate taking up arms and taking the fight to them…because we will just be perceived as “right wing terrorists” which will bring a full on a political orgasm to the fascists who want to declare all libertarians and conservatives and Christians as threats.
          The media is salivating at the lips hoping that one of us will go nuts and shoot up a DNC location or something. They would promote it heavily.
          The 2nd American revolution requires us to wait for formal society to collapse and wait until the fascist government comes after us openly and in force…THEN history will mark our crusade no different than that of the Founding Fathers of the US.

        4. “This is why i don’t advocate taking up arms and taking the fight to them…because we will just be perceived as “right wing terrorists” which will bring a full on a political orgasm to the fascists who want to declare all libertarians and conservatives and chrisitans as potential threats.”
          I am sure this right. After the Elliott Rodgers affair SJWs were desperately trying to make the link. A lot of left wing media is also trying hard to conflate ‘terrorist’ (e.g. ISIS) with extremist (i.e. anyone who the SPLC etc think they can call a ‘hate group’ usually because they’re not explicitly marxist in t their politics). Today, when fighting for a cause (left or right) you have to demonstrate your ‘moral case’, which usually means demonstrating that you are defending rather than attacking. You’d think that would be easy enough after 50 years of relentless feminist / marxist aggression except these people are the masters of illusion. They live breathe and fart false flags

        5. ” You’d think that would be easy enough after 50 years of relentless feminist / marxist aggression except these people are the masters of illusion. They live breathe and fart false flags”
          Exactly. They have a BS in bs. They are the masters of spin.
          What they like to do is link legitimate extremes to their political enemies and repeat it per mantra in order to program their bs in the impressionable minds of the typically uninformed American viewer.
          Ergo a phrase like “Christians/conservatives have a lot in common with ISIS members because they both believe in a theocracy” is repeated paraphrased per mantra because they know that if they repeat it enough people will end up believing it, regardless of the fact that it’s total bs.
          Using words to manipulate sensibilities…it’s what the chronic left lives for.

        6. Bill C-51 in Canada will allow the government to spy on its own citizens in the name of sniffing out potential terrorists.
          But what that really means is anyone with controversial thought can be deleted and branded a traitor to the state.
          If this bill passes, Canada is officially DEFCOCK1.

        7. christian used to mean conservative, middle of the road. After years of revisionism, and gay rights, anything but the most moderate reformist christian now means extremist more or less. Gay marriage in particular was sponsored as a device to position anyone with a ‘traditional’ outlook as an extremist. It was a master stroke of political / rhetorical manipulation

        8. I’d never heard of it, but that’s frightening. All the more reason why we have to be careful not to let the SJWs control the debate / terminology

        9. go for it. I’m sure you’re aware that some EU countries are almost as bad as canada though. I left UK for central europe last year (currently czech rep.) – the language is a bitch and I’m not sure how long it will last, but knowing you’re not tied down to one country is a good feeling

    3. While your comment has no relevance to the post, I totally agree with you. Just the other day, after doing really well at an assessment centre and online tests, I got told by HR that I was rejected for the job, while most likely, the other female candidates I was competing with, got the job. And believe me, they sucked in all the tests.
      This is a real problem that needs more attention drawn towards, if men have any chance of getting back into the workforce.

    4. Walk down a typical corporate hall. Count all of the management offices occupied by women. Contrast that with the number occupied by men. In most company buildings I’ve been in, you have a 9:2 ratio of women to men, give or take. If the ratio were reversed the companies would be sued out of existence under “equal opportunity” law. The only exceptions I find are programming shops and places that deal in engineering-manufacturing. Everything else is a fem-fest with full weight of the law to prevent any other outcome.

        1. From what I’ve seen thus far, yes. Medical, insurance, finance are the ones I’ve seen with that ratio, especially medical (not talking nurse managers here, I mean corporate level type managers).

        2. I can attest to this. I work in a hospital and i have been to HR on some occasions. To say it’s been an estrogen fest would be a gross understatement.

        3. I don’t get it. Who the fuck invented this bullshit system where HR plays the gatekeeper. There simply is no way to bypass these cunts. Even at recruitment fairs, you have female hiring managers working in conjunction with HR.
          What the fuck is a man to do for employment? We really are screwed…

        4. That’s not true. Engineering firms regularly hire outside the influence of their HR firms. Network, make male friends, get hired through your male friends. HR will destroy you if you’re a white male.

        5. Right, that’s the exception I noted, engineering-manufacturing shops and programming shops.

        6. HR destroys anyone who is male, regardless of skin color.
          No offence to engineers, but not everyone in the world can qualify as one. What about the simple ordinary blue collar man, who simply wants to pay for his bills and his taxes…

        7. When Women get into these types of positions, and as they move up the ladder, they tend to look out for their own. Whenever you see the token male it’s usually for two reasons:
          1: The women wanted to hire a guy along to offset any lawsuits involving sex discrimination
          2: (and the more likely) the women grew tired of the bs that comes with working with other females.
          I do agree that all it took for this to start was one mangina scum to hire someone based on what they are as opposed to what they do.

        8. Well, blue collar wins in the risky-job department. If I were blue collar I would do everything possible to be a lineman/oil-worker/policeman/fireman/etc… Dangerous jobs = all male.

        9. The system is going to breakdown. No society is going to survive with this many men out of work. Over 100 million Americans out of work, and the same for other countries as well.
          Men need to fight back.

        10. We need to first let society completely collapse and then let them come after us before we fight back, if by “fighting back” you mean the literal interpretation of the words.
          Any armed resistance out of sequential order to the things i listed will only have us branded “gender terrorists” and will only serve to make more manginas out of males and breed more oppressive feminist laws.

        11. I thought as much. It’s fine.
          It just goes to show…females are better at using things than understanding how they work.

        12. True. Society is going downhill and men are starting to sense this kind of bullshit. Women may have outnumbered men in society, but that in no way justifies them outnumbering men in the workplace.
          They simply do not compete for jobs on meritocracy, but get them because of their gender.

        13. Except there is now a big push and drive towards hiring more women in the police and military. And since its all related to government, you can bet that there will be some sick affirmative action drive to hire more women than men.
          Getting fucking sick of this bullshit.

        14. Patience brother. Wait for it. In the meantime gird yourself appropriately.
          Learn survival skills like hunting, building traps, etc and the tools needed for it…this is your sword.
          Learn survival techniques like purifying water or learning how to build a shelter…this is your shield.
          Learn how to better insulate yourself from the bs feminist propaganda all around you…this is your helmet and cloak
          If you haven’t started there’s no point in waiting further. These things will come in handy when what passes for society finally disintegrates.

        15. All the more reason to get some man skills and get a man job. Like welding or laying pipe, carpentry or HVAC.

        16. I think its because HR is a pretty non-essential role and women by an large have no skills therefore putting them in a non-essential role is probably what’s best for companies. Think about it, the job is all paperwork, touchy feely interviewing, enforcing rules, and communism.

        17. At the end of the day they still don’t want to do the “hard” work so you’ll have your token man just around the corner to pick up the slack. These men never protest, they just do the extra shit because they feel obligated to.

        18. Men out of work is a problem and so is the massive employment of people who don’t do anything. It’s all affirmative action based busywork/playacting. Cash bonfires everywhere. Meanwhile in China—production.

        19. I feel for you white collar guys. Although blue collar jobs are physically demanding, the only women I have to deal with are customers.

        20. yep, i hear all the time that cops are to busy helping their female police officers in a brawl instead of dealing with the brawl itself!
          Its like taking your child to a brawl where you have to keep an eye on them. A fucking joke!!
          https://youtu.be/bD4KFqA5O1I

        21. I totally agree! I can’t even get hired at a fast food job because the hiring managers are mexican woman! and im a white male so im enemy no. 1. if you live in so. cal, literally all the jobs here are either women or colored men working in them, i have to leave this shit hole.

      1. So true. I was paying my property taxes the other day at the local office, and I witnessed about 9 female workers and only 1 male worker, who was the security guard.
        Men need to fight back hard, if we are to have a future left in this godforsaken world.

        1. i notice this as well everywhere i go where most women today have short hair, FAT, a manly voice and as well as tattoos.
          Sometimes i seriously think to myself that i died and gone to hell…
          I travel as much as possible (non westernised countries) otherewise i think i would have pulled the trigger!

      2. Also cute women are always the greeters and secretaries (oh whoops, “Admins”, my bad!) so companies can have something pleasing to the eye to look at when somebody first walks in to try to seem legitimate and able. What a fucking scam!

        1. I don’t mind pretty receptionists, that’s actually a fairly traditional role, and for good reason. Get the client staring at her gazongas, and he’s less apt to listen closely to you. Plus, generally, the boss that hired her might well be banging her on the side, which was a great benefit.

        1. lol really? can those women enforce and arrest criminals?
          I can just imagine a guy just over power two female cops and just run away.

        2. But since most violent criminals tend to be male, what will these ladies do? I doubt they’ll be decisive.

    5. I really hope Return of Kings makes an article dedicated towards discussing this issue. Its becoming problematic and more men are now committing suicide because they have been deprived work.

      1. I think this is partly because they still identify with the provider role.
        For some men the lack of money means inability to pursue their passions, for others it simply means inability to be attractive to women and “fulfill their role as men” (nature & nurture I’d say).
        I think this is one of the true benefits of the MGTOW philosophy actually. It gives men a space to step back and question why the fuck they’re working so hard for nothing.
        I don’t think MGTOW and PUA should be at odds with each other. I bet plenty of MGTOW go PUA and plenty of PUA go MGTOW. If it helps men to not hang themselves for feeling like failures, then I can’t fault the MGTOW movement.
        I suppose the MRAs try to fill that role but really they wont make much difference. What they do accomplish however is they confirm to men that nobody cares to listen to their problems, even when their concerns are reasonable.

        1. I got nothing against sex or dating, but if a man decides to walk away from the market to tend to some other part of his life I don’t think that is a point against him. I think that is a point of intelligence and self-respect.

        1. May I ask, what do you do about money? How do you get by with daily necessities? Most things these days aren’t cheap.

    6. When society collapses these females will find out just how utterly useless they are and just how profoundly indispensable we will always be.
      With no supermarkets to provide food, no clothing stores to provide aesthetic accoutrements, no pharmacies to provide their feminine hygiene products, no government to provide order or no republican government to provide the underpinnings of a just society, they will find themselves being unable to depend on products and services that typically come in an organized civilization, and will have to fend wholly for themselves.
      Most of the ugly ones will starve (or eat each other) or be killed off by social darwinism (eaten by wild animals or succumb to medical issues, etc) the decent looking women will try to band together but will fail miserably and fight among each other over the scraps of society they come across in their daily dumpster diving duties.
      The prettiest ones will find the best success, by becoming in essence prostitutes to Alpha males.
      Most of us on the other hand will reach deep into our genetic legacy and pull out that ancient survival instinct that fared us so well hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Even the manginas will tap into that manly potential or have it brought out of them by various Alpha male leaders who will rise from the ruins of society to sort the useful from the useless.
      We will become hunter gatherers, builders, laborers etc…do all the things requiring physical strength and fortitude and necessary for a community’s survival; we will exploit natural qualities which females generally lack in abundance.
      When it comes to blue collar activities, females are undeniably useless. On average a male does at least twice the work a female does, if not more so.
      How much more obvious will this fact be when society collapses? I swear, females have more to fear from that than we do…i actually look forward to it.
      What use will a female be (other than the obvious) when society literally needs to be rebuilt? With no established law and order around a female (an intelligent one anyway) will not be so quick to bark orders to males, for fear of attack or worse.
      Whenever I hear some feminist blathering on about “equal pay for equal work” I have taken to saying “equal work for equal pay” as a means of refuting their gender based solipsism.
      On a tangential note, what do you call a female at a construction site?
      The OSHA inspector 🙂

      1. “Whenever i hear some feminist blathering on about “equal pay for equal work” i have taken to saying “equal work for equal pay” as a means of refuting their gender based solipsism.”
        This is great. I’m stealing it.

        1. Family trusts, and family foundations. Based in a jurisdiction outside of the one you live in.
          Family court judges, tax men, and probate judges can pound sand when they discover the money is out of their reach.

        2. We can say, “equal work for equal pay” all we want, but that will not change anything. The cunt Hillary will be next president and things will just get worse.
          If you want freedom, you have to leave the West. The only things stopping you is your own fear.

        3. Words alone will not effect change, that requires actions.
          However, every great movement begins when an enlightened individual or individuals look(s) at their environment and reflects on how bad circumstances are and why things have changed for the worse, what has made them change, and who has been the biggest advocates for these sort of bad changes.
          A renaissance of thought usually follows, most notably reflected on ROK. Here we can refer to it as the Menaissance.
          Some of us are in the US but not all…the movement to restore Man to his former royal splendor and rank defies border and province…it is a movement that is held worldwide. It began as a whisper, and has increased to a roar.
          Leaving the US will help avoid the US collapse, the problem is there will be cascading effects felt throughout the world as a result of the US collapse. These primarily deal with fiscally related cause and effect market scenarios, but they will also involve carefully constructed schemes already set in place by unknown and known oligarchs like George Soros, who made a considerable fortune by breaking the bank of England, for example.
          You will avoid the US collapse but will likely find yourself in a non US collapse. Like a mudslide, you can’t avoid what hundreds if not thousands of years of malicious shadow government machination and biblical prognostication has in store for the US and the rest of the world.
          The “Illites” have been planning for a global takeover of EVERY society on earth since the days of Pharoah. Their efforts will culminate in the formal collapse of the US and will be realized in the establishment of a one world government subject to a new world order.
          Running won’t help. Your best bet is to make yourself a society of one wherever you are…build up your survival talents when the perks of society are taken away by force and by circumstance.
          Once the society you are in collapses, the fascists will be out in force hunting those who don’t agree to slavery and hunting those who represent ideals they do not.
          Your home will be the shadows, and you can restore society bit by bit, child by child, the way it was meant to be: with a Man in charge on the individual and social scale…with God/Jesus in charge on a spiritual scale as well.
          Perhaps those seeking an easier life should flee the US (especially into the mountains) but i grow tired of what passes for this reality and have no fear of death. I will stay in the US and fight these fascists when they come for me. They can destroy the flesh, but never the spirit. I stand for one far greater than all of us combined.
          We can agree to disagree of course, but i advise you to take my advice and prepare regardless.

        4. “We can say, “equal work for equal pay” all we want, but that will not change anything. The cunt Hillary will be next president and things will just get worse.”
          Oh btw, that email scandal (precipitated by Valerie Jarrett no less) probably means hillary won’t be the dem nominee. I really believe obama is set to give himself a third term.

      2. No they won’t if women downgrades to living in caves and fighting over straw shoes they still won’t care.
        The best example of a communist state of female superiority to see in the future can be found in your nearest ant hill or bee hive. Male are nothing but drones left out to die after their use for reproduction is done.

        1. You’re assuming that the real Men will just stand by and let that bs keep going on once society formally collapses.
          It won’t be like that. we are just waiting for the dust to rise to take back our rightful place as kings of the earth.

      3. Sadly, there is a good chance that the ugly women will (deliberately) focus on killing, and possibly even eating, the good looking women.

      4. One thing you can bet on is 50% of single eligible women buying a plane ticket to a more economically secure country, while you are having a sausage fest rebuilding your home until the golden vagina finds it acceptable to move to your nest again.

        1. As America goes, so will the world. Our collapse will trigger a fiscal downward spiral all over earth with very few exceptions.

        2. I’m doing no such thing, i’m saying that a collapse here would trigger collapses elsewhere because like a domino effect these things are all interconnected.
          Make no mistake, there will always be people who benefit and who will precipitate the US collapse to bring about the “New World Order” that the globalists have been desiring for years now.
          The US is one of the last big impediments to a true oligarchy in the world…as bad as it is here in some places outside it’s even worse. Either religious freedom is nonexistent or you have islamic militancy running things.

      5. Great wisdom man! I’ve been learning archery, so if things turn to hunting and gathering I should do just fine.

      6. I would argue more males would die in a societal collapse than females. They will tap into their ancient nature just as quickly as we will. If religion is completely destroyed, they will harem up to the men that can keep them the safest. The next men down the list will each get one or two girls and the next men down the list will each get one girl.
        The rest of men will fight for those girls as well, as also other resources and many will die.
        This might be prevented if local churches can grab the red pill and make themselves useful during the collapse. If they can quickly convince people to return to family units, violence might be muted a bit, but there will still be violence over other resources. The brunt of which will be felt by the men. This is our nature.

        1. Only the prettier ones will find success in doing so. Right now there are arguably more ugly females or less attractive females than their aesthetically pleasing counterparts, at least insofar as the US is concerned. Unless they have some specific talents many of those will die when they are stripped away from off the glans of big daddy government.
          You’re not taking into account that an Alpha male for good or for evil (probably more of the latter) will bring order to chaos and keep his followers from running amok in the manner you described.
          The Church has been compromised too well and too often to be as effective as you or i would like them to be. They need to be taken back to the old school way of bringing the Word to people: missionaries.

    7. Women are taking ALL the jobs now

      That’s not true….there are plenty of dirty, nasty and dangerous jobs that they don’t want that we can do.

        1. And those fucking betas implemented feminism in government. We seriously need to examine this issue before men hit the tilting point in society.

        2. We seriously need to examine this issue before men hit the tilting point in society.

          If male suicide rates is any indication…..then that ship has sailed!

        3. Then it’s piracy for the rest of us. History hates us anyway.
          Take what you can, give nothing back.

      1. They’ll come after that too. Believe me. The feminists are attempting to get more women in the military, the police and soon they’ll do that for the dirty and dagerous jobs too.
        Men are on the verge of extinction.

        1. That’s the point where they cross the Reality line.
          It’s one thing to place little Princess in HR. It’s another entirely when you put her in a coal mine shaft. Society collapses *fast* when that push comes.

        2. I don’t agree. The military, police fascination for females has peaked, I believe. That’s just my feeling. I don’t have any data. The line was broken already, the emotional payoff has been accomplished (feminism’s only true goal) and the rush of women into the military and police has leveled off and will likely decline. Once there are not any ‘You go girl’ points in being a small town cop, they will start to judge the actual job for what it is and move away from it.
          They will NEVER be drawn to rugged, physical labor in any significant numbers.

        3. All the jobs women didn’t want will be taken up by women when technology advances further. Is nobody getting the message? Technology is taking the role and purpose off men stop supporting technology advancement.

        4. Yes they would when labor is all done by controlling machines and when the military is merely manning computer controlled weapons like drones.

      2. True. I have yet to ever see a woman on a sanitary sewer relining crew. I feel safe in predicting I never will.

    8. The only way that’s going to happen is if one of us puts on a dress and pretends to be an uberfag (but at the same time declare otherkyn-asexuality or some crap like that so there’s no expectation to suck cock) and actually get into one of these HR positions.
      Then expose the fuck out of them.
      I’ll bet the “system” has a vetting process. It’s like much of politics or business today. Today’s SJW at say age 13 will have the long history and be “vetted” but a spy coming in cold is going to have a hard time infiltrating.

      1. Women are like dogs. You have to keep them on a tight lease. Even God said said that Eve must shut her mouth and listen to Adam.
        Bible- could not get more red pill than that.

    9. We’re men. We’ll adapt or we’ll get backed into a corner & fight with ultimate desperation as Sun Tzu observed centuries ago. Either way we will win through. Hard times steel us. We’re men.
      Let women put their trust in the deus ex machina of state protection.
      We don’t have that luxury. Let us not linger in despair for too long, though. We will always find a way out. We’re built for this.

    10. “Why are people not doing anything about this?”
      how about the easy answer? nobody cares.
      most men support women because they enter that “women need to get what they want”-frame. even those who are against them usually argue in their frame: “they like getting harassed”. who the fuck cares? we men harass because WE like it. we dont support feminists because WE want to have a job.
      weirdly, most men never ask “whats in it for me for supporting you girls?”
      i dont think it’s wise to call them evil. they are on the winning side right now. personally, i dont like the gender grouping and i try to see every person as individual. takes a lot of the scare away and keeps me from that irrational “evil women” thing.
      yeah, anger feels great. but man, you should direct it towards solutions for your own life, not towards fighting women. if i was a feminist, there would be nothing greater to look at than a man blocking himself out of hatred.

    11. Are women the only evil cunts? Consider the courts and their black robed devils that that protect them. Consider the legislatures who, after robbing men through egregious taxation to support these women, expect you to continue to support them beyond the grave. Not even death offers a man rest from money grubbing thieves.
      Be forewarned men. You must own nothing in this life and must leave nothing behind after you pass, lest your hard work be stolen and given to those who have not earned it — those who you do not wish to have it.

    12. Women aren’t taking anything. They are being given everything by white knights and manginas, like in this article. Women, like children, will always whine, and want more without considering the consequences. Problem is that men, like this judge, are meeting their demands and more. Thus women will keep asking for more, just like a kid in a candy store.

    13. @@wdhsoish:disqus
      “Women are EVIL cunts. Pure evil cunts.
      Men are losing in society. Women are taking ALL the jobs now.” – – – I see PLENTY of jobs in the TRADES that women aren’t even going for! >:I So don’t say WOMEN are taking ALL the jobs when even MEN don’t seem to go for them! >:I
      “When will HR deparments be exposed for discriminating against male candidates?” – – – when the companies start LOSING money and closing down! >:I
      “In all my life, I have never witnessed this amount of women in the workforce.” – – – You must live in a box, dear.

  7. I wouldn’t make too much ado about it.
    Stupid and lazy people who come into large sums of money (re: lotto winners) very rarely possess the wisdom necessary to prevent squandering it on bs.
    In less than a year she will have blown through most of it (if not all) on tons of cosmetics, vainglorious clothing, multiple cars houses etc that she doesn’t have enough lifetimes to truly enjoy.
    Not to mention wasting it on the obligatory boy toys she will purchase time from.
    This leads me to wonder if the judge isn’t getting a cut of this fortune…i wouldn’t put it past her to make him a offer if he ruled in her favor. He should be investigated summarily.

    1. Don’t forget lavicious parties to get her “friends,” trips to Europe and she will act like the Queen of Britain while she is at it.

  8. Frankly again the article is sorely lacking.
    Wright himself inherited 900 mio. $ together with his sister and expanded that to roughly 3 bio. $ joint with his sister – so 1,5 bio. $ in net assets. It’s a solid return, but nothing heroic. He did not work in the coal mine to get to his position in life.
    He gave his real daughter (never mind whether bastard or not – bastards have in the past created great empires) 35.000$ per year upkeep? So he lives on billions while his daughter gets 2500$ per month?
    Personally I consider 25 mio. $ adequate and sons and daughters can and do contest their fathers wills. (i.e. John Paul Getty gave almost 100% of his wealth to art foundations leaving his family penniless – children contested that and now own Getty Images).
    And Bill Gates is not some kind of anointed saint – he will give his company shares to a tax free foundation that HIS BLOODY FAMILY WILL CONTROL TAX-FREE for centuries to come! Just like the Rockefellers did. Officially his children will be poor, while unofficially they will still control 60 bio. $ in assets. Yeah – that’s how wealth is made and not by perpetrating idiotic myths, that 100.000$ is good for your character and you can enjoy building up your fortune on your own.

  9. Yet another nail in the coffin for the nuclear family.
    Why bother working hard to build a fortune , if its just going to be wasted on $2000 dog sweaters?

  10. Legally, there is nothing that Supreme Court Master Sanderson did wrong. Sanderson says: “The deceased never purchased a home in which the plaintiff
    and her mother could live despite the fact they moved a number of times
    from one rented premises to another.” Well, if Wright recognized her as his daughter and paid school fees and other, he could at least bought them a house as the judge said. Wright made a mess into society and he should have cleaned it.
    “Michael Wright’s intentions were abundantly clear. He obviously wanted his daughter to make her own way in the world.”
    Michael Wright inherited 900 million dollars from his father. This is how he made his own way in the world. Whether his heir is a son or a daughter does not make a difference and does not change the fact that they should be treated as their father was treated.
    “It is entirely foreseeable, given the purely gratuitous wish-list of hers initially presented to the court system after his death, that he sensed in advance that she had poor impulse control, little in the way of realistic ambition and not only a dependence on but also an expectation of others providing for her.”
    Poor Michael Wright! Breeding illegitimate children, not raising them, and then punishing them for poor impulse control! My heart and soul are with him!

    1. Why in the fuck was their housing his concern? They had places to live, just not a house. In what possible way does a man owe a one night stand an entire house simply because she gave him pussy? Child support, yes ok, but a house? Surely you jest.
      If you didn’t read, he also gave her a hell of a lot of money growing up. So yes, he cleaned it up.
      You got a heapin’ helpin’ load of class warfare about you, dude.

      1. “They had places to live, just not a house.”
        When you beget illegitimate children and deprive them of a real family, you could at least make their lives better.
        “In what possible way does a man owe a one night stand an entire house simply because she gave him pussy?”
        It’s his child and he recognized her. He could at least provided her with stability since he could afford to buy a cheap house. One night stand or not, he knew the risk of having children. So the woman is guilty of giving him pussy, but he is also guilty of giving her dick.
        “You got a heapin’ helpin’ load of class warfare about you, dude.”
        What class warfare? King Louis XIV of France had many illegitimate children and he provided for them.
        If you fuck a woman then dump her, you have no responsibilities. But when children come in, this is a whole different issue.

        1. “If you fuck a woman then dump her, you have no responsibilities. But when children come in, this is a whole different issue.”
          No disagreement here.
          But, at what level is the support you provide adequate? Doesn’t seem like this girl has gone without for much of her life. So why does she deserve a mansion just because the father has one. If her needs are covered, he has satisfied his responsibilities. And, let’s be honest, anyone who can’t live the rest of their life on $3M is fucking retarded. I’m still young, and I would never work another day in my life if I had half that.

        2. The above is quite irrelevant. When courts refuse to enforce contracts, instead deciding on fairness, whether real or imagined, then contracts become a mere mockery. Eventually, if this becomes prevalent in other areas related to the enforcement of contracts they will become worthless.

        3. You made no rational appeal on why she is owed a house. There is no legal basis for that claim, ergo, it does not contribute to your claim that the judge was right.
          He provided her with a lot of money growing up.
          despite him paying $535,000 for 16 years of her life ($33,437.50 per annum) until he died.
          See that? See it?
          He gave her a mess of money in his will as well. She’s a greedy cunt who undercut his last wishes, who already was provided for, and you’re here cheering her on
          Good lord, stop being such a white knight.

        4. When you beget illegitimate children and deprive them of a real family, you could at least make their lives better.

          No one who is set to inherit $3 million, and got $535k for 16 years without working, just for being sired by the right man can really say that her life sucks at all.
          Most of us would love to have suffered so awfully.

        5. The original will says that she could inherit 3 millions only when she becomes 30 years old and now she is 19. The Supreme Court Master rectified the will because he can rectify wills according to British and Australian law.

        6. British and Australian laws say that wills can be rectified by Supreme Court. This is the source of the problem.

        7. And in the meantime has to bide her time *fucking being a normal adult and getting a job*.
          Oh. The horror.

        8. “fucking being a normal adult and getting a job”
          That’s typical baby-boomer mentality: wanting everything for themselves and shitting on their children.

        9. Not a boomer.
          Who are you to dictate how others should dispose of their wealth anyway? Social justice warrior are you?

        10. Apparently, according to the individual you responded to, giving a substantial amount of money to ones children is now considered “shitting on them”? Interesting.

        11. “She’s a greedy cunt who undercut his last wishes, who already was provided for, and you’re here cheering her on”
          She’s his daughter, it’s his responsibility.
          “Good lord, stop being such a white knight.”
          Whether this person was his son or his daughter doesn’t change the basic principle of his responsibility. And what does it mean to give her or him the money only when she or he becomes 30 years old? Did his father treat him this way?

        12. Indeed. It also tends to make a mockery of law since it brings to itself illegitimacy in the eyes of many due to such arbitrariness.

        13. You’ve been spoken to and corrected. You were provided with quotes from the article, which you appear to have not read, showing he fulfilled his responsibility throughout his life. Your need to sneer at how he *should* act according to *you* is nothing but social justice nonsense. Who are you to tell other people how to dispose of their money?

        14. Sure he has the power to rectify wills – but he has to exercise that power within the limits of the law, which in Britain and Australia, as in the U.S., is common law. At common law, the rule traditionally is that you enforce a will is written where the intent of the will is clear. It is clear she wasn’t supposed to get anything beyond $3M, and nothing then until she was 30. I’ll grant that this judge exercised his power, but he did so in contravention of well settled law, which calls the entire concept of wills into question.

        15. That you should find gainful employment, if you didn’t manage to keep any of the $500k he sent you during your life?
          Next question.

        16. “fucking being a normal adult and getting a job”
          That’s typical baby-boomer mentality: wanting everything for themselves and shitting on their children.

          Yours illustrates how far and how fast western civilization has collapsed.
          Not that long ago, getting a job upon adulthood and supporting oneself with said job would be considered normal. Now daring to suggest that people who are of adult age do that is “shitting on their children.”

        17. What I tell my children, and leave them, and the hows of it, are none of your business. In fact, none of this is really, you simply have no business dictating to others how they must spend or dispose of their wealth.
          Go social justice somewhere else, dude.

        18. You got it all wrong. The collapse started when parents started kicking their kids out of their homes in order “to become normal adults and get a job”. Of course you know that on farms, children grew up with their parents, worked with their parents and later inherited them. When such a traditional system was disrupted you got what you have now.
          Besides, it is customary among very aristocratic or wealthy people to provide for their children that they don’t become workers for others. They had some sense of honor and dignity. Michael Wright does not have neither honor nor dignity otherwise he wouldn’t accept to make his daughter a worker for others. He could have provided her with a position in his firms as most wealthy people do.
          Of course none of you people will understand what I am talking about, you’re neither rich nor belong to an aristocratic family and you don’t know what it means to be in such a position.

        19. “but he did so in contravention of well settled law”
          No one until now seems to have appealed the court decision.

        20. Do you belong to an aristocratic family? Please enlighten us plebeians on why this woman, who has no skills whatsoever, should be given a position of any responsibility in a firm of her late father’s?
          Children inherited farms? Wrong – the eldest male child inherited the farm and the vast majority of assets. Other children received a small stipend for their upkeep, if anything. Their continued success was dependent on their relationship with the eldest male heir. If they hated each other, they found themselves shit out of luck.

        21. “Please enlighten us plebeians on why this woman, who has no skills
          whatsoever, should be given a position of any responsibility in a firm
          of her late fathers?”
          Almost all noble or rich people give their children this privilege because it is about status.

        22. The collapse started when parents started kicking their kids out of their homes in order “to become normal adults and get a job”.

          Nope. The trend of teenagers rebelling and moving out of their parents’ (notice the plural possessive) house as soon as possible was a thing until this generation, and to be fair, their parental enablers, decided it would be more fashionable.
          Even before you use the recession as an excuse, teenagers during the original Great Depression would work to support themselves, before being shipped off to fight World War 2.

          Besides, it is customary among very aristocratic or wealthy people to provide for their children that they don’t become workers for others. They had some sense of honor and dignity. Michael Wright does not have neither honor nor dignity otherwise he wouldn’t accept to make his daughter a worker for others. He could have provided her with a position in his firms as most wealthy people do.

          And? This woman could have been a total douche to her dad, and perhaps that’s why she didn’t get as rich an inheritance as her siblings. What business does a court have overturning that? Even if it is legal, it is unethical. It isn’t your business to dictate how another person bequeaths his earthly estate.

          Of course none of you people will understand what I am talking about, you’re neither rich nor belong to an aristocratic family and you don’t know what it means to be in such a position.

          And you are. That’s rich.

        23. This doesn’t detract from my point. There are literally thousands of reasons not to continue to litigate a bad decision. Continued litigation is extremely expensive. There may be no further options for higher judicial review. Even if there are options, the higher court may be worse, and you may actually end up with a worse (and still incorrect) result. Etc…

        24. So, if someone is a psychopathic retard, they should be given a position of importance because this is how aristocracy works? Not sure I see much point to continuing such a system. And plenty of aristocrats agree, which is why certain children are groomed for positions of power and importance while others are put somewhere that they can’t hurt themselves. In truly mercenary societies, less desirable children are simply eliminated before there is any issue.

        25. “Nope. The trend of teenagers
          rebelling and moving out of their parents’ (notice the plural
          possessive) house as soon as possible was a thing until this generation,
          and to be fair, their parental enablers, decided it would be more
          fashionable.”
          No it wasn’t a thing. And you thinking that this is how things should be will lead to further collapse until nothing is left over.
          “Even before you use the recession as an excuse, teenagers during the original Great Depression would work to support themselves, before being shipped off to fight World War 2.”
          They had to work because (1) they were poor, and (2) their parents were poorer. They had no choice. Now comparing these poor people to the illegitimate daughter of a wealthy mogul is beyond my understanding.
          “It isn’t your business to dictate how another person bequeaths his earthly estate.”
          If it is a legal question that you all are concerned with, then you should all bring your protests to the specialized courts and to the specialized legislative powers.

        26. “In truly mercenary societies, less desirable children are simply eliminated before there is any issue.”
          Are you a desirable child?

        27. Bring your protests to the specialized courts and to the specialized legislative powers, they are responsible for such laws.

        28. Such a basic ignorance of history he has. I thought it was always well understood that the eldest son received the bulk of the property and assets. This has been practice for centuries on end, since at least the time the Indo-Europeans found Europe (they were recorded in history as patriarchal).

        29. I’m going out on a limb here and guess that you’re not a lawyer. Something tells me this. I can’t pinpoint whether it was the fact that you directed me to a statute you obviously hadn’t read which actually proved the very point I was making, or whether you are now advocating that I personally protest this decision. But I’ll help you out here – you cannot get into court unless you have “standing.” The only people who can challenge this decision are the parties to the case – and as I pointed out above, there are thousands of reasons for them to choose not to appeal. That does not make the decision correct. Period.

        30. This guy argues things as he wishes they were instead of how they actually are. This is prototypical SJW.

        31. Roman law says that all children males or females inherit equally. However, by Falcidian law, in case of will, a testator could alienate only 3/4 of his property to non heirs while real heirs had to retain at least 1/4 of the property. This law was commonly applied in Europe and is still applied now. As for primogeniture, it was mainly applied among fief holders because it was better to keep the fief intact than to divide it, but the other children were given means of subsistence and they were not kicked out of their homes in order to become adults and find a real job. Among peasants, primogeniture was not necessarily applied since most of them did not own the lands.

        32. If this decision is not ruled out, then it will become a precedent. Until it is ruled out, it is correct, in the same way the power of rectifying wills, for whatever reason, is currently correct.

        33. Hence the use of the word “and assets”.
          You still haven’t answered the question I put to you, of who are you to decide how others must use and dispose of their own property?
          NemesisEnforcer has made short work of your legal argument, and you’ve presented no moral argument upon which to stake such a claim.
          You do not sound American (not an insult, an observation). Men of ability relish the challenge of building their own life and not living as a leech on their parents. Perhaps that’s pedestrian to you, but it’s the world we live in, and you live in. Suck it up.

        34. “You still haven’t answered the question I put to you, of who are you to decide how others must use and dispose of their own property?”
          Lets put it this way. Her father gave her 3 millions. The court gave her 25 millions. I never cared from the beginning. But you and David Garrett and all the others want to make an issue of a non issue? What is the cause that you are supporting?
          This a sole judicial case that concerns very wealthy people, which means that such cases are as numerous as the number of wealthy people.

        35. Partially agree with your first statement. Disagree with the second.
          On the first, you are correct that decisions from higher courts are precedential. But this doesn’t ask the right question – the real question is who is bound by the precedent? I’ll admit, I’m an American lawyer, so while I am familiar with principles of common law, which apply across all countries that use it (hence the term “common” – they all borrowed it from one another), I don’t know enough about the Australian court system to determine how far reaching this decision is.
          But I’ll give you an example from the U.S. that may be illustrative – here, if our Supreme Court renders a decision that conflicts with established precedent, the decision is precedential. But that doesn’t mean that it will be followed. Unless the court specifically states that its abandoning prior precedent (which almost never happens), lower courts will simply try to reconcile the conflicting decisions. There are a variety of ways to do this, but one of the most common is to find that the outlier case is distinguishable on its facts, and that the precedent applies only very narrowly under exactly similar factual circumstances. So this decision being precedential does not necessarily mean that it will actually be binding or followed.
          Your second point is just wrong because what is “the law” is not necessarily “correct.” Here again, an example. If one of our Circuit Courts of Appeal decide a case, they have created binding precedent that is now law within that circuit. But upon review by the Supreme Court, this law can be struck down as incorrect. However, Supreme Court review generally only happens under narrow circumstances, and it is possible for an incorrect decision to remain on the books for a very long time. Additionally, the Supreme Court issues incorrect decisions too, and these can be subsequently overruled by a later court (with an equal or higher majority in favor), or by Congress, which can rewrite the laws to abrogate the decision. So this decision is currently “law” to some extent, but it is unquestionably incorrect based upon settled law, and the very statute that the Court acted under.

        36. It is clear this person was born in the 1980s or later. Most everyone up to and including Gen-X couldn’t wait to get out from the clutches of their parents.
          And we’re better off because of it.

        37. “This a sole judicial case that concerns very wealthy people, which means that such cases are as numerous as the number of wealthy people.”
          This demonstrates that you don’t really understand the import of a precedential decision. This doesn’t just affect a few wealthy people – it affects anyone who has a will. Period.
          The import of this decision is that the court can rewrite your will if they deem their post hoc evaluation of the social circumstances more fair than yours. They will not be aided in this determination by the benefit of the entire family history you had. Perhaps your daughter was a completely unruly bitch to you your entire life, hated you, and actively tried to undermine you and financially ruin you. But now, she shows up in court with judges who know none of this, and you no longer available to tell your side of the story or the reasons for your decisions, she turns on the waterworks, and the judges rewrite your will to allow her to profit from her wrongs because they think that is more fair.
          I will say it again, if followed, this is not limited to a few rich people. It is an assertion by the court that they have the power to rewrite your will if they deem their own judgment more fair than yours. This contradicts centuries of common law, and the statute in Australia that gives them authority over wills in the first place. You should be very concerned when your courts don’t give a shit about the laws they are charged to enforce. If they won’t stay within their authority, how are you to ever know what the law is?

        38. I don’t disagree with this issue that you posing. But David Garrett says:
          “If you want to know why the world we live in is seemingly falling
          apart at breakneck speed, take this Olivia Mead case, assemble a few others preposterously like it, and then use a form of simple induction to work out that nothing should surprise you anymore.”
          The root of the legal problem is “will rectification”. The problem is in the law. It is not about persons like a kid called Olivia Mead.

        39. OK, here I will agree to a point. Will rectification – as practiced here is definitely the more dangerous problem. But I disagree that Olivia Mead is not also a problem – this case would never have been had she been willing to settle for the sum of $3M, which is completely reasonable. I will also agree that Olivia Mead did not create the social problems at issue here – greed, entitlement, narcissism, materialism, selfishness – and that she is merely a symptom. But this is not to say Olivia Mead is blameless for perpetuating it. Moreover, I think you’re misreading Garret’s argument. I don’t read it as an attack on her personally, I read it as an attack on the court that humored her.

        40. If David Garrett has gone direct to the root of the problem, I wouldn’t have commented her from the beginning.

        41. There have always been collapses, recessions, depressions, wars and other calamities and yet, prior to this one, each up-and-coming generation managed to progress.
          That won’t happen if people live at mommy and daddy’s house well into their 30s and beyond.

        42. You don’t, and it ushers in an age of state imposed chaos. Law is the foundation for society. Governments have been rapidly changing centuries of tradition and constantly add and modify laws. This brings profound uncertainty and injustice. Chaos. It has real profound impact across the whole of society.
          This dude is daft.

        43. The root of the problem is that agents of government power feel emboldened to act as they see fit, regardless of tradition or law, and very little consideration to the consequence.

    2. “Legally, there is nothing that Supreme Court Master Sanderson did wrong.”
      False.
      The traditional rule for wills is to construe them to give effect to the intent of the deceased. When that intent is clear, you do not re-write the will. It’s pretty clear he intended to leave her $3M. It’s also pretty clear the judge just said, “fuck that, I think x, y, z…”
      In such a world, why bother even having a will?
      Truth be told, this dude would have been better off giving all of his money away before he died. He could have kept just enough to maintain himself as he was accustomed to, and ensured the rest of the money went where he wanted it to go. That way, there wouldn’t be a will to challenge, and this dumb cunt would have exactly what he intended her to have, which is what the law says should happen with wills.

      1. Truth be told, this dude would have been better off giving all of his money away before he died.

        This trend of judges rewriting wills for the hell of it has caught on in the USA as well. Your advice is wise.
        There are plenty of ways to shield one’s heirs from taxes while giving them money before death anyway.

        1. Trusts and incorporating your assets is a good first start down that path. For now anyway, until the judges decide that asset raiding is perfectly legit while we’re still alive.

        2. I figure its not long before the apply the anti-fraud clawback provisions used by people trying to dodge creditors or abuse medicaid to inheritances.

        3. Sure, they’ll try, but this is still a smarter strategy. Force this greedy cunt to fight numerous court battles where she has to prove fraud (very difficult legal standard to prove) instead of one.

        1. Thanks for the cite – but you’re missing the main point.
          It says:
          “The Court may make an order rectifying a will to carry out the intentions of a deceased testator if the Court is satisfied that the will does not carry out the testator’s intentions because —
          (a) a clerical error was made; or
          (b) the will does not give effect to the testator’s instructions.”
          In other words, it says exactly what I said – they can rectify it only if it is unclear what the testator’s intentions are, or if there is a clerical error.
          No such luck in this case. The will was clear, and this judge is wrong.

        2. Sure, he ruled it, but your original comment was that legally he did nothing wrong. This is completely incorrect. He contradicted literally centuries of common law, and he violated the very statute that gives him authority (which actually means he had no authority). In short, he did everything wrong. The fact that “he ruled it” should be of no comfort – people in Australia ought to be up in arms over this, demanding a review by the full court, and demanding the ouster of this particular judge, who has no respect for the law he is supposedly sworn to uphold.

        3. He is Supreme Court Master, so the chances that he did anything illegal are really low. Nevertheless, let those who find any breach in the law protest.

        4. “He is Supreme Court Master, so the chances that he did anything illegal are really low.”
          You should call me. There’s this awesome bridge in NY that I own that I’m dying to sell at a deep discount.

        5. Actually, the case was not brought pursuant to the Court’s power to rectify a will. It was brought pursuant to the Family Provision Act 1972. Copy of that piece of legislation is here:
          http://www.slp.wa.gov.au
          –same place as the other quoted legislation is from. And that act — an act to provide for family left behind after someone dies — comes from a long line of legislation to that effect; its parent act which did very similar things dates back to 1939.
          And a copy of the actual judgment, which nobody seems to have bothered to actually read, is here:
          http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/judgment.xsp?documentId=D5A8ADDE3BE5666448257DF8000ADBB4&action=openDocument

        6. Thanks for this. This alters my analysis that it’s clear cut that the judge went beyond his authority. However, It doesn’t alter my analysis that his assessment that $3M is not “adequate support” is retarded. I prefer our rules that give precedence to the intent of the testator. Even our rules are not absolute when dealing with minor children, but you would have a very difficult time convincing a court that this sum was not adequate, even for a minor.

        7. “The deceased’s estate is colossal. By reference to the statement of assets and liabilities attached to the affidavit sworn by the first defendant on 1 June 2012 in support of his application for probate the value of each of the second and third defendant’s entitlements is in the order of $400 million. That needs to be put in context. Evidence was given by
          two actuaries during the course of the hearing – I will come to that evidence below. Both actuaries agreed a reasonable rate of return on capital is in the order of 6½%. If that is right then each of the second and third defendant can expect an income of more than $24 million per year without touching the capital. Of course that assumes each of their interests is only worth $400 million. In his written submissions counsel for the plaintiff speculated the size of the estate may be in
          excess of $1 billion. No issue was taken with that estimate by the defendants. Anyway it is difficult for most people to comprehend such wealth.”
          The second and third defendants are Leonie Baldock and Alexandra Burt, both daughters of Michael Wright.
          The judge ruled as such:
          “Finally, I would add this. When the $25 million is paid to the plaintiff the rest of the residuary estate will pass to the second and third defendants. They will get about $10 million each less perhaps $1 million for costs. That is on top of the $400 million they already have; and they can rest easy in the knowledge their half-sister will be financially secure for the rest of her life.”
          25 millions, compared to the other sums, is small. And the law is always concerned about proportions among heirs.
          Furthermore, Mead was not a minor on 26 February 2015 when the decision was delivered. The two other cunts got more than 400 millions in capital besides the 24 million dividends that each will get every year. The first cunt, Leonie Angela Baldock, was appointed director of Wright Prospecting on 25 May 2012. The second cunt, Alexandra Burt, runs the family’s Voyager Estate. However, the manosphere has become greatly infuriated when it heard that the third cunt, Mead, will get 25 millions instead of 3 millions. This is beyond understanding.

        8. “25 millions, compared to the other sums, is small. And the law is always concerned about proportions among heirs.”
          No it isn’t. The law MA cited is concerned with “adequate provision,” not “fairness.”
          The law does not care that all heirs are treated equally – and indeed, if it was there would be no reason to have a will. You would simply use the laws of intestacy (which is where someone dies without a will, these laws typically divide the property among surviving heirs in equal shares, though the specific rules differ by jurisdiction).
          Nothing you have quoted changes my opinion that the judge is wrong. This judge based his decision on his own opinion about what was more equitable, instead of simply asking whether $3M is “adequate provision” for a 19 year old. Adequate provision is a minimum standard – I have a hard time finding it not satisfied when some idiot is crying that she can’t have a diamond studded guitar. Adequate provision means food on the table, shelter over her head, an education – the basics. It’s not the judge’s province to decide that the will would be more fair if written another way, his job is to enforce the will as written subject to the minimum requirements imposed by the Family Provision Act.

      2. “Truth be told, this dude would have been better off giving all of his money away before he died”
        Sanderson addresses that in the judgment. He explicitly notes that Wright had the opportunity to give his shit away — but doing so the gifts would have been subject to taxation, gift duty specifically. In Sanderson’s own words, the quid pro quo for giving his shit to his kids tax free was that he became bound by the statutory duties owed under the Family Provision Act 1972.

        1. She just used the courts to raid and loot her dead father’s corpse out of sheer greed. She deserves as deep a cut as she can receive.

    1. Whomever he is, he’s going to need a pirate on his side. I’ve always wanted to try my hand at pirating gold and loot.
      Call me Ragnar Danneskjöld.

      1. That being said, any company that puts a female in charge of its day to day operations is just asking for failure.
        Atlas didn’t just shrug, he exaggerated 😛

        1. Dagny was the exceptional woman, in the mold of Margaret Thatcher. Rand was pretty clear that women should look up to and hold men as heroic, not be their masters. The occasional Maggie Thatcher though I can deal with.

        2. For every 10,000 or so biological mammalian spawnings, an albino animal tends to be born.
          This in no way makes albinism normal, just an unfortunate byproduct of random genetic concatenations.
          It’s no different with “exceptional” Women…they do exist, but they are so rare the phenomena might as well be listed right next to the loch ness monster or the chupacabra.
          I have a love/hate thing going with Rand…she was on point about socialism but her anti religious viewpoints leave a bitter taste in my brain.

        3. She was atheist, but didn’t seem to crusade too much about it. She made a few links here or there, but usually towards pagan type religious expressions (“the voodoo witch doctor” comes to mind). It’s not a difficult leap back to traditional understandings of reason and science to bridge the schism she had between religion and reason. Ultimately we all work on faith when we get to the very core of our reasoning.

        4. She didn’t seem to crusade, but wasn’t shy about offering her views either, and it seemed to be over more than just pagan religions.
          “The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence…Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God… Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith….The purpose of man’s life…is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. [Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual]”
          This and other views tend to make me think Rand would look at a person like myself as some sort of bizarre philosophical hybrid; a person capable of both logical reason and primitive religious affiliation.

        5. My solution is to take what is logical regardless of one’s position on religion, and run with that. Most of her stuff has zero to do with religion, and one can be deeply religious and still highly scientific and rational.

        6. Agreed. As i said elsewhere, i don’t necessarily have to agree with someone’s views on one subject in order to find validation in their views on another.

  11. Looking at those pictures she’s destined to be a land whale. In actuality she’s destined to be everything we here at the ROK community are looking to avoid. Greedy, ugly, pudgy (based on pictures of mom – soon to be grossly fat),unfeminine,aggressive, rude, delayed motherhood ( to get her fuckn degree) and crassly materialistic. Ooohh yuck !

  12. Gates is rumored to only be leaving each child tens of millions instead of billions. Though I suspect he will likewise be doing so for grand kids. Not that it matters, They can just go to work for his foundation and make comfortable 6-figure salaries for not a lot of work.

    1. Which doesn’t bother me. What does bother me is that he’s out pimping to have *my* standard of living reduced on a daily basis.

      1. Indeed. It makes one wonder. Which type of personality should be considered more dangerous: the naive do-gooder or the crony?

        1. I’m on record for preferring pure graft and corruption over do-gooderism. You can pay off a con man, but you’ll never stop a do-gooder from wanting to “save” you.

        2. Quite true. The do-gooder is often a fanatic, possessing a religious zeal that can never be fully quenched. They are also typically control freaks who arrogantly believe their view is so superior to everyone else that any decision they make, regardless of its validity, is on par with a god.

  13. HA! Speaking of post-wall bitter cunts, this mother of two in her 40s that lives in my neighborhood that I used to bang (she has a good body still and is dirty and nasty, clearly from practice and experience) got all bitchy and hostile toward me because I didn’t want her for anything beyond sex and tried “showing me” by saying she now has two guys wanting to shack her up. This was probably six months ago. Suddenly today out of the blue she texted me again saying I “should” ask her out (obviously the other two winners didn’t pan out so she thought she could revert back to comfortable and familiar territory like they all do when lonely). I immediate steered the text talk to be sexual and she gave me the passive-aggressive carrot-dangling shit test of “Not right away” and “Behave!” I just said “Whatever” and exited the conversation. I can WASTE energy on something else, like looking for spiders to kill underneath the wooden office furniture in here.
    Oh wait, the spiders don’t talk, nevermind.

  14. Are these photos of her ‘right’?
    I am not sure why, but, unless I am looking at something wrong, the person in the photo looks like to me, that she is in her 30s or even early 40s.

      1. Burka for her?
        I do not know why, and maybe it is mean of me to think this, but I was just thinking that I wish someone would get her a burka to wear. I don’t want to risk looking at someone that is already run down in their late teens, never mind what the 30s or 40s or going to look like.
        I can’t imagine how poorly she is going to age with how she looks now.

      2. If she’s 19 I doubt she’s had too many years of cockin’ it up. In fact, given her appearance and her mother’s appearance, I strongly suspect that she finds it hard to pull even omegas most days. Not that the odd man out won’t hit it, there are always men thirsty enough, but she kind of sits in HB 2 territory where it gets difficult to get even the most desperate man’s penis hard.

        1. The times have changed. This woman is a slightly more attractive version of Lena Dunham, who has an army of orbiters. The problem is that you and I are not thirsty, so our perspective is skewed. It’s like we live in the gym without ever walking into Walmart. Never underestimate thirst.

        2. Fair point. My perspective is also skewed as I live in flyover country AND a short jaunt away from one of the largest universities in the nation and maybe the world. The girls here are normally of acceptable weight and above average looks, and are not standoffish. Love me flyover country. So yeah, that kind of makes things like this beast nearly incomprehensible to me when it comes to thinking that some dude would let his dick within twenty yards of her.

        3. I envy you. I live in an east coast liberal utopia – there is no body shaming, and no shame among the men who partake of these bodies.

    1. Yeah. I weigh having children or not sometimes. I’m leaning heavily towards, ‘Not’ right now. Just have my fun and tip my cap to the world at the end with no skin in the game. It seems empty but I’m thinking about it anyway. One thing that people automatically assume is that their children will be wonderful additions to their life. It often happens and I wish it on people. But what is rarely considered is the disaster child. I’m sure parental love is almost unvanquishable but it’s something to think about. What if your little daughter ends up as a SJW whack job who disowns you? What if your son is a ponce or a spergy computer game drone? Like I said, once you’re in the game those parental bonds will remain but…ewww. So, probable divorce, plus a culture that will be strongly molding your children into cunts if you don’t hover over them enough…It’s getting to be an easier and easier decision. A lot of my friends have great kids though. So it’s very possible but the disaster child lurks.

  15. Women can do one thing, and one thing only: Gold dig, in one way or the other. For every 10.000 selfmade millionaires, one is female.
    Men invent quantum physics, computers, whormholes and put men on the moon. The device that women are glued to 99,99% of their wakening hour are invented by men, every little part of it. Women: do nothing. Ab-so-lu-te-ly..NOTHING ! unless a degree in gender studies is something.
    This is why feminism will fail, or lead to utter destruction: The replacement of capable people with incapable people. If you punish people who can actually do shit (men, with brains) they will stop doing things, because why ? There’s no reward, unless being called a misogynist rapist is a reward.. This will at first lead to utter chaos, then, doom.

    1. The objective of feminism IS utter destruction. No more, no less. It has nothing to do with helping women, only destroying them, and the society that spawned them.
      Women are just too stupid and childish to see it.

    1. Jesus, I thought she was thirty when I read it and the photo was dead accurate–for thirty. OMG.. What a sugar-face. That’s not an endearment. Here comes a whole generation of Dunham-faced girls. ‘Buh-bye’, said me.

  16. Everyone wants to see you fail, as i read on ROOSHV.com that article is inspiration and TRUE. They want you to fail, your success is their depression, your failure is their cheerfulness, and success doesn’t just mean money, it means taking such good care of your body and brain within your utmost means that the haters ROT with age in their decadence and you prosper, essentially turning into a different species within 20 years time. Imagine 20 years of uncontrolled ageing damage
    We’re in a biological TIME war, against the diseases of old age, it’s just ignored because we live in a cowardly society that isn’t interested in anti-ageing because they are already bored of life by the time they are 25 and think you should suffer the same insults of disease as they worship,
    Ever had a bad hangover? That is you 50 years from now. Pure dread of old age. Do everything you can to avoid this misery that is coming due to your own biological programming. IF only you knew how awful damaged organs feel you would wake up and realize that ageing is the worst curse of the century and every individual should be doing all they can to slow down and avoid it
    whoever dodges the insults of time the best is the winner, it’s not money, money becomes more worthless each year as you approach the grave. Since a common fella has 80 years to live, and probably doesnt do well financially till hes in his 30’s , well than his money depreciates by a value of 1/50th each year he gets closer to death and disease. Thats if money can make you satisfied in the first place, and it gets more boring as time goes on
    We men can live to 100 years and achieve longevity escape velocity in our life-time(basically if we live long enough to get the next generation of medical advancements we can have indefinite lifespans),
    Our obstacles are 1: Atherosclerosis, 2: Cancer 3: Neurodegenerative diseases
    These disease processes start as soon as you’re born they just become fatal after a current average of 80 years, You all have some plaque in your brains right now. You all have some oxidized fat in your arteries right now. You all have some mutated cells right now, it’s just happening so slowly you don’t notice it
    Do 10 things for each of these processes, get blood tested, ETC, ETC, Supplement, LIFT, Do 45 mins of cardio a day You need an aggressive regimen to combat all of these ACTIVE processes, we are our own worst enemies, society can abuse our wallets to demoralize us in this great fight against disease, but do not let it abuse your health
    The amount of knowledge available now a man can make it past his 90’s no problem, life span data is 80 years old! when people didn’t have the type of info about disease progression
    Outlive the slobs and prosper! ignore them and let the insults of age rot their dark uninspired souls, the virtuous and the disciplined will make it, Technology should get to the point where heart disease is pretty much eliminated by artificial hearts(google it) cancer is turning into a “chronic” disease rather than a death sentence that is used to be, So we have neurodegeneration to worry about the most
    In 20 years from now, you will be a different species to your average man, imagine what 20 years of brain plaque and aging damage does to someone vs the man who aggressively eliminates this. It all adds up
    Do not feel demoralized, this is the enemies silent tool to defeat you. They want to remove your hope so that you suffer their fate, they want to make it so you see no point in fighting a battle they convince you is “hopeless” You can do A LOT against ageing and disease
    Encourage the demoralization and decadence of the opponent, while silently doing everything you can to stay healthy. The art of war sun tzu

  17. “Government enemy No.1: Men.”
    The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
    A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.

  18. What an ingrate. No wonder non-Angles naively then justifiably believe why exogamy is seen as a de facto Anglo tradition.

  19. A couple notes:
    – this shit pisses off. I think of a will as a pretty sacred document, and can’t stand seeing judges overrule a private, law-abiding citizens last wishes.
    – he was doing his daughter a favour, and teaching her a valuable lesson, any right thinking person can see that. Given her a wack of cash too early would have corrupted her. Better to have her struggle and live a little so that she need not rely on the riches and understand what it is to be a normal functioning person. Then get a modest income which would have set her up for life, after she learns those life lessons. Am I wrong? To me, this shows that he really did love his daughter and wanted to guide her in life to what is right and proper.
    – it’s clearly the mother pulling these stunts. Look at her, desperately trying to hang onto her youth. The tense body posture. She’s looking for a payday.

  20. Currently working in a engineering company (defence contractor) 45 males 3 females. And guess where the females sit?
    Anyway the whole female dominated HR department thing is entirely true. They stick to their own and only hire other bitches. Only reason I got the job was through contacts and nailing the job interview (3 males interviewers) HR was on confrence call.
    After working there for a year my boss was telling me that even after all that HR still didnt want to hire me. They just didnt “feel right”
    Well turns out they didnt “feel right” about ever single male that walked through the door. My Boss was starting to get the shits and demand that they hired me because the job had been open for months.
    I’m just lucky I was in the seat when the last straw broke.
    If it was left to HR to find and hire someone the seat would still be open.

    1. Oh boy. Here’s the equation;
      Making things+Innovation=Companies+females – (innovation + making things) + government mandates to hire females x 40%= Human Resources Department.
      That was a stupid waste of time. In other words, companies innovate and make things which are two activities that females simply can’t do. So much so that it’s never even on the table for discussion. Yet companies have to hire females at nearly 50%. This has caused the explosion of “HR” or whatever ‘Employee sensitivity trainings’ ‘Anti-Rape Education’ corporate retreats etc.
      Add corporate America to the list of things destroyed by modern women, along with;
      -Family
      -Education
      -Legal system
      -Pop culture
      -Media
      -Males
      Russia and China have maintained the governmental right to just kind of smash bullshit when they see it. I think the future is theirs, sadly. Simply by backhanding any feminist nonsense in its infancy, they will run over the West. Book it. BRICS index fund, here I come.

  21. If ever you have a job interview with a female interviewer and you get the old “we we call you”. After a week has passed go back into the office, quietly and calmy sit down at her desk and politely ask for feedback as to why you didnt get the job, for your own future refrence. Watch them squirm as they shuffle through their papers and try to come up with legitimate reasons why you were unacceptable.
    I have actually done this and after five minutes of her fumbling around she actually told me I could come in for a trial run. I never did because something better came up. But it just goes to show, If you have the quilifications and you stand your ground they may crumble.
    This tatic will only work on the younger ones who have yet to learn how to difuse such situations. I’ve delt with the older battle hardened HR bitches and they are cold. There is no hope there.

    1. Even more ballsy is to ask at the end of the interview;
      “Have I said anything today or is there anything in my work history that gives you a reason not to hire me?”
      Say it in a non-confrontational way. Just straight up confidence. Like you really want to know.

    1. I would of spent that money on a big statue in the shape of a human hand with the middle finger raised and put “Fuck you judge” in big letters. The whole thing would of been the size of Texas and just as tall. Then made another one directed the daughter near her 2.5 million house.

      1. That would be fun. Unfortunately you can’t predict the future and I bet that had he known before he died, he may have made such a choice. I know I would have.

  22. Guys, it might be worth remembering the other bequests in the will.
    Olivia Mead, the 19 year old illegitimate daughter pictured above, was originally left $3 million in the will, on condition that she only got the money when she turned 30, that she didn’t convert away from Christianity (i.e. did not become a Muslim or Hindu or Scientologist), that she didn’t get a DUI between now and then, that she didn’t get done for possession of marijuana, and so on.
    Wright’s other two daughters were left $400 million.
    Each.
    Without any conditions on their inheritances.
    They could expect an income stream of at least $8 million *per year* from interest alone assuming they just chucked it into a 2% savings account somewhere.
    Olivia Mead had her bequest raised to $25 million. That $25 million is coming out of the residue of the estate, i.e. after every other person has already been paid out the full measure of Wright’s bequests to them. If Wright had imposed all those conditions on all his bequests, i.e. all his daughters, I’d be more sympathetic. As it is, 25 million in one payment for doing nothing but carrying 50% of your father’s DNA, compared against 8 million per year for life for doing nothing but carrying 50% of your father’s DNA, is a bit more fucking fair in my mind.
    EDIT: Lastly, while we’re at it, how about we all actually read the court’s decision, since Master Sanderson expresses his reasons and the facts of the case in full there? You can see the text of his judgment in the matter, Mead -v- Lemon, here:
    http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/judgment.xsp?documentId=D5A8ADDE3BE5666448257DF8000ADBB4&action=openDocument

  23. Maybe it’s time to get homosexuals to ally with us. As much as I hate to say it anyone that would hire men and can get a hand around the system would be homosexuals.
    Men of every race and career should band together no more boundaries. Stop putting down other men, if another man gets ahead only sabotage his efforts if he is a mangina but if he is not cheer for him. Manginas must be educated.

  24. If you ever see women with that entitled expression on her face run far far away or smack her across the face.

  25. I understand the “estate” is appealing the decision, BUT you do have appoint the father left her substantial money to make her way through life.

  26. I don’t object this case. The billionaire was hoarding money, the girl was spending it. She is doing a better job keeping the economy going.

    1. By “hoarding” you mean “saving” or “investing wisely”. I doubt he had a Scrooge McDuck “money room” where his money was kept out of productive use in society.
      So many people are so utterly clueless about how economics works in the modern world. If he didn’t Scrooge McDuck, his money was not being “hoarded”.

    2. i don’t agree, although one would have to define what “keeping the economy going” is supposed to mean.
      by providing her with money that was previously unavailable to the market, the value of the money is reduced, likewise is the buying power of all other citizens. the amount of available work force is not increased. spending is not the key, production is.
      if things were that easy, we could just keep on printing money to “keep the economy going”. oh wait, we are doing that.

  27. Bet you a million bucks she and that mother of hers spend it all within five years and then come crawling back to the courts to whine for more.
    And nowhere on her wish list was Jenny Craig, the thing she and her mother need the most?

  28. Well nothing surprises me anymore. It’s always been that men work hard and make money, then their wife goes out and buys clothes and shoes with it. Let’s hope this fat cow goes out and blows the lot and invests unwisely. What a pity, most parents want to be proud of their children and see them make their own way in life. More young women get an easy financial boost by joining sugar dating sites like tempted.com and hook up with wealthy, generous men.

      1. The only downside to that would be that I wouldn’t be able to enjoy you calling this a$$hat spammer out time and again. Which is the only thing that makes his spamming tolerable!

  29. Olivia Mead should not receive inheritance because she a fat greaser. The man needed no other reason for rejecting his entitled accident daughter.
    She should check her privilege before she eats it.

  30. Sometimes having a warm wet pu$$y wrapped around your d!ck carries a very high price tag. Keep that in mind.

  31. If he is a billionaire he should has given everyone of his child at least 100m each, It’s not her fault if he had sex without using a condom while cheating on his 1st wife (in the article there was written she’s a secret child).

  32. Why does this keep happening in all the Anglo countries? Thought ya’ll would’ve stopped this shit by now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *