Cassady Simons

She has “Five Solas” in her profile. 🤦‍♂️

🚨 Myron Gaines is asked to explain the phrase which his whole career is based on and is the title of his two "books": Why Women Deserve Less He... cannot.

She was blatantly anti-natalist. She was a degenerate, amoral woman who dabbled the occult and abandoned her husband and children. That’s your hero? “But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies.” -1947 interview with John Parsons “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
-From her 1920 book Woman and the New Race

You strawman my position. I did not “blame women working” I said that specifically pushing mothers of young children into the workforce in huge numbers, and making a female workforce participation on par with that of men fundamentally transformed the economy into something it has never been throughout all of history. This created a two income household that we have never recovered from. The exact quote from my book is this : “in 1940 the number of children under age 6 with mothers working full-time outside. The home was 6% in 2013. That number had jumped almost tenfold to 58%.” my source for this is the US Bureau of labor and statistics. If you want to do a debate on this, I’m happy to do a live stream debate, but I am definitely not going to sit here and write essays back-and-forth on X. Nobody has time for that.

Blaming women working for macro outcomes is the laziest possible model of the economy. Here’s why 98% of this is misleading at best and absolute bullshit at worst. The premise leans on numbers that aren’t even true. It was not “only 5% of mothers working prior to the 1970s.” By 1970, the labor force participation rate for married women (husband present) with children ages 6–17 was 49.2%. If you want to tell a “something spooky happened in the 1970s” story, monetary policy is a much stronger candidate than women getting jobs. In 1971 the US severed the dollar’s convertibility to gold. From that point forward, we moved fully into a discretionary fiat monetary regime where money and credit could expand without constraint. Inflation isn’t caused by “too many workers." Sustained price inflation comes from monetary expansion outpacing real output. Adding workers increases the economy’s capacity to produce goods and services, it’s literally the thing that should make stuff cheaper over time if markets are competitive and money is stable. In competitive markets, higher output can actually LOWER prices and raise living standards. If goods get cheaper, real wages improve even if nominal wages don’t rise. So if you’re claiming women entering the workforce “must” have crushed living standards, you’re implicitly claiming the economy got less capable at producing... which is backwards. The reason the “more workers should have lowered prices” dynamic didn’t show up is because the supply-side gain from more labor is operating inside a system where money is elastic and intervention distorted key sectors. If anything, women entering the workforce should have been disinflationary in a sound money, high-competition environment. The fact that the biggest pain points since the 1970s have been asset-heavy, subsidy-heavy, regulation-heavy sectors with restricted supply and weak competition (housing, healthcare, tuition) should point you toward monetary and regulatory distortions, not toward women entering the workforce.

James Talarico not only fights Republican extremism, but also Republican hypocrisy. James fought against the Ten Commandments bill from people who don’t even follow it themselves. “You’re saying you’d rather tell people to follow the Ten Commandments than follow it yourself?”