All do respect why are atheist people in this forum God please place me next to them at judgment day lol so many perverted versions of christianity only one acceptable version you either believe in Jesus and live for him or perish in hell
Re: twoxroasties wants you to be a compassionate cuck when your wife cucks you, births some chad's spawn, bails on you, and then leaves you to raise chad's spawn. women are a meme.
(C0nserve)
I had my suicide planned in case the day he would realize I wasn't worthy of his love because of my genetics would come
Roastie on leddit experiences 1% of the hardships of incel lifestyle and wants to rope already
(Brainlaid)
If you ever ascend, DNA test your kids.
Anyway, women don't have consciousness or empathy, she just isn't fucking capable of putting herself in someone else's shoes. It's all about how SHE FEELS and what happens to her.
(Administrative_Worth)
In their minds, them tricking yiu into rasing offspring is actually moral. You see that kid needs resources, it's a kid, it's pure, it's innocent, it deserves fulfillment. Plus she knows it's hers. Therefore she has even more bond to see it succeed and receive resources. Always get your kids tested. Honestly even chad should. Believe me, women cheat, a lot. If they think they can get away with it, and the guys worth it, they cheat. Fact of life.
(Deoxysxx)
I cant even call that man a cuck, he is more of a man than the real father
I'm happy to read this comment in this sub. I also wouldn't leave a little child behind if I have taken care of it for so many years. Cuck or not, if people can show mercy to random people through charity, then you can take care of one more kid. It's not the kid's fault.
Random charity does not mean being legally financially tied against your will to a person you were deceived into believing was your biological offspring. Don't even compare the two. They are nothing alike.
(grilledcheesaroo)
I can. He is a fucking cuck that willingly took unnecessary stress & partially ruined his own life over a whore's bastard daughter.
And you're no better, you fucking cuck. If you don't kick both the whore & her cheat trophy out; you are a fucking cuck. I have no respect for either.
His older parents tried speaking sense into this father but they raised a soft little feminized wimp.
(41PercentIsNotEnough)
Lmao all the comments defending him, this sub is infested by normies, fakecels, and cucks
To each their own
[A peace sign in rainbow colors]
Every color has its place. An ethnic home for every race.
Does anyone consider that there may be some sort of agreement between aliens and humans? Therefor, the aliens decided it's in their best interest to keep things mum. People look at aliens as some type of God, that when revealed, will make all the problems go away. They might be some ramshackle explorers that just barely made it out this far.
Men are superior to women and therefore have more responsibilities than women. Women are superior to children, and therefore have more responsibilities than children. Superiority means "leadership over" due to increased maturity and reason, it does not come with a connotation of hate. Women do not hate children because they're superior to them in the same way that men do not hate women because they're superior to them. Although plenty of men have their hang-ups with women (just as the reverse is true.) Men are more mature than women, who are more mature than children. This is about a hierarchy of maturity, of which men are at the top. The less mature you are, the less reasonable you are. You wouldn't want an immature person in charge of you, and assuming you found someone competent, you wouldn't say you were equal to the person in charge of you.
The problem with people today is women have been told it's bad to let a man be in charge of them, and men have been told to treat women as equal partners rather than subordinate dependants they care for. You are superior, and you have to be in order to be eligible. That's reality. For the sake of ego preservation on her part, she will want to think of herself as your "first mate" or "partner", but you're not the captain, you're the ship. Without you there is nothing, no base nor foundation. She relies on you VASTLY more than you rely on her, and any functional relationship between a man and a woman is always based on this model.
It doesn't mean she's not important, it means you're depended upon more than you depend on her. It means the distribution of burden is disproportionate in order to reflect your difference in maturity, your burden is greater because her need is greater, her need is greater because she is more immature, and by extension of being less mature, less competent. In fact, it's dangerous for you to depend on her emotionally, but the reverse is perfectly acceptable and fine. This is the burden that comes with being at the top of the maturity hierarchy. Emotional loneliness. Accepting you cannot confide all your deepest secrets and fears, not unless you're a schmuck who wants to see your relationship fall to shit. Women are so upset they're not really equals that they're completely ignorant to the fact that not being the final person everybody depends on is a privileged position.
That when push comes to shove, women want someone to lean on and someone to blame, that true equality to men is something they could never handle. Like a child who wants to stay up late and eat unlimited amounts of candy, they only see the privileges of being a man, not the burdens. Notice how women always go on about maturity in a way men don't seem to give a fuck about They're like the damn maturity police. This reminds me of little kids who insist they're grown-ups out of insecurity. "Women are equal to men!" touted by women is the same infantile narcissism as a child claiming "I'm not a little kid anymore!". It stems from the desire to be taken seriously by people you're less mature and capable than. This is all ego, remember you will find the truth in action rather than words, for in words they claim equality to man, but in action they demand superiority from him. In relation to the statement "women are children", this is hyperbole, what /u/redpillschool concretely means is "women are childlike" - if they weren't, you wouldn't want them. Feminine charm comes from a certain present-orientation, feminine beauty comes from a lack of ageing.
Women play up innocence and play down their cunning because this is what makes them attractive to men. Innocence is an inherently childlike quality. Men don't try to seem innocent because it's not masculine, things that are childlike are inherently unmasculine, but they aren't unfeminine. Why? Because women are closer to children than men. Stop thinking this is some way of talking women down or some sad attempt at dehumanisation. It isn't. It's a truism regardless of whether it suits your sensibilities. Shrewd women constantly leverage the appearance of innocence to get people to help them. Women pout, men don't. Women have strops, men don't. Women cry more than men. Women are less rational than men. In summary: women are more mature than children, but less mature than men. You can teach a woman to behave well, but she is still a woman and so requires discipline in the same way a child does. She craves it. She will not "be good" because "she's a good woman" she will only "be good" because you convey authority, and in order to convey authority, you must be superior, superior meaning more mature and more competent. This is the natural order of things. Egalitarianism is an indoctrinated ideal, it is normal to you because you grew up brainwashed by feminist garbage, but it is not normal in nature, and it is not indicative of reality.
Women's childlike qualities are not just physical (smaller, less hair etc), but their neonatality is likewise echoed mentally. The hottest women have greater neonatal traits than uglier ones. She's not your psychological equal. You can love her, care for her, even depend on her for small things, but she's not your equal and never will be. As Schopenhauer said, she is somewhere between a child and an adult, an adolescent perhaps. If you can't accept that, if you need to believe in the feminine ego porn that she's your equal in every which way, fine. But that doesn't mean TRP is wrong, it means you're unable to accept an aspect of reality that discomforts you.
Am white but will speak of black separatists I've observed from the limited exposure I've had to them. From Louis Farrakhan and Malcolm X to Muhammad Ali they seem to just be opposed to race mixing because they want to preserve their own people. They also want a successful homeland where they can be with only their own people so that don't have a perceived oppressor or racial/ethnic enemy.
Tbh I respect black nationalists/separatists a lot, especially those that are 'race realists'. It takes a lot to recognise your people aren't that great at the whole technology and civilisation thing and still be loyal to them because they are your people.
In a way it's kinda easy to be a white nationalist because of the sheer amount of philosophy, science, medicine, civilisational achievements etc associated with European people. That's why we are vilified for honouring our ancestors and our people, because it is perceived as arrogance rather than a simple and natural love.
Also Commander Rockwell was good friends with Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam in general, he even talked at some of their events which goes to show you that the so called ebil nahtzee racists probably are misrepresented a lil bit. Maybe they want determination, success and preservation not only of themselves but of everyone else too? Maybe they are not driven by hatred but love? Maybe they have a sincere love of natural and true diversity in humanity that they want the whole world to prosper in the way nature intended?
Idk maybe we are just evil actually lol fuck you for being black bro let's fight.
[OP of "Eastern Europe Be Like"]
"Visiting the Local Mosque Starter Packs" featuring a Molotov, a bat, a balaclava and a "Blood and Honour" shirt
Sex with children isn't non-violent or harmless. Talk to the majority of victims of sexual molestation and ask them if they weren't emotionally harmed by the people who attacked them. There are small children who literally die from internal injuries after being assaulted by adults. Children usually don't have the knowledge or ability to protect themselves from STDs, pregnancy, or any other injury that might happen. Anyone of ANY age is usually negatively impacted by another person coercing sneaky, non-consensual sexual interactions on them. You can try and call it societal conditioning if you want, but this is the society you live in and neither children nor adults are going out of their way to endorse molestation.
I'm not convinced your last sentence contained an argument. It gives the appearance of explaining why my criticism of cultural conditioning is somehow irrelevant, but I fail to see what that explanation is. Are you saying my criticism is irrelevant because I live in the culture I'm criticizing? Why do you think that? Do you believe all activism is wrong because those who try to incite change live in the communities they are trying to change? And are you saying my call for change is irrelevant because no one is saying they want to be molested? I am not arguing to permit forcing anyone into sex against their will and so your criticism doesn't apply. You are arguing in the unimaginative way people do when they aren't interested in using reason to win an argument but instead only rely on outrage to bully the other party into feeling intimidated.
The way you dismiss my cultural conditioning argument gives the impression you believe all that matters is children are being harmed by sexual activity and it doesn't matter why it's happening. In order to justify criminalization of pedophilia for the reason that it doesn't matter if cultural conditioning is the reason why children experience trauma from sex, but that the fact trauma is caused is all that matters, it would have to be true that punishment for breaking this taboo is in and of itself sufficient a reason to criminalize it. Children are traumatized because of cultural conditioning. In what universe is threat of punishment for breaking a rule a good reason to punish those who break it? That's literally the same thing as saying pedophilia is wrong because it is punished. That's what it means when you claim societal conditioning makes sexual activity with children wrong.
You need a better reason to punish than just saying, "If you don't do as I say, you'll be punished." Cultural conditioning does NOT mean something benign like being taught the difference between right and wrong or learning about the "right" way to live through example. It specifically means punishment and threat of punishment. The specific claim I am making is children are traumatized because of the ultra severe punishments people suffer for breaking this taboo. If a child didn't show guilt and shame and fear and trauma, or some deep sense of wrongness for the sexual activity, but instead expressed positive feelings about it and a defiance to authority and of their condemnation of it, they would be punished harshly. And that punishment would get worse and worse as they got older until they became positively vilified and ostracized by society. They would be a pariah rejected by almost everyone they know. The punishments you are a supporter of is the reason why children experience trauma from harmless sexual activity.
If you are going to allow the accounts of people who report deeply negative experiences from sexual activity with a pedophile to inform your beliefs about the inherent harmfulness of it, then you are obligated to allow the reports of positive experiences to shape your beliefs as well. The reason why it takes hard work to find personal accounts of those who report positive experiences with a pedophile, and why almost all of them are anonymous, is because of the rejection and vilification people face from doing so. Anyone who gives a positive account of engaging in sexual activity with an adult as a child is treated with dismissiveness and condescension. They are belittled and treated as though they have nothing of value to say and they become a pariah. On the other hand, when someone says they had a negative experience, they are listened to and their opinion is valued. That is hypocritical. The fact that sexual feelings and activities are not inherently distressing in childhood, but that they are instead inherently pleasurable, is proof that you're wrong to believe it was the sexual activity which traumatized the people who give accounts of being harmed by a child molester. They were either forced against their will by a heartless and uncaring rapist, and possibly even injured in the process, or they weren't forced into sex acts but only later came to learn of the severe disgust and hatred everyone has for pedophiles, and so the sickening fear of being severely punished for not feeling a deep sense of wrongness caused the child to feel a deep sense of wrongness for the activities. It is systems of rewards and punishments that give humans their sense of right and wrong for whatever society they live in. But things aren't right or wrong simply because they happen to be rewarded or punished.
There is no stage during human development when a child cannot express willingness or unwillingness to be involved in whatever they're brought to be involved in. Physical injury would result in an immediate distress reaction and no responsible caretaker is going to heartlessly ignore cries of pain. It's already the case that parents and caretakers who fail in their duty to keep their children safe and who cause them harm due to negligence or cruelty are punished for it. And so you are foolish to believe sexual activity would result in internal injuries to a child.
Children do not need the knowledge or ability to protect themselves from anything. That's what caretakers are for. Children are protected on a daily basis from drowning and car accidents and abduction in public places. For the same reason there is no need to criminalize swimming and car rides and traveling through busy public places, there's no need to criminalize sexual activity in order to protect children from unwanted pregnancies and STD's and sexual bullies and violent rapists. There is no danger inherent to sexual activity that a responsible caretaker cannot protect their child from.
Children are forced against their will into doing a very lot of things, and yet they aren't traumatized for it. I'm opposed to forcing anyone of any age into doing anything ever, but apparently, unless a child is forced into something to the point of unbearable anguish, they aren't traumatized for it. Sexual activity doesn't possess any feature that makes it uniquely different in some important way from all the other things kids are brought to be involved in. You are unjustified in your support of violence for non-violent activities.
Almost all people can recall exploring themselves sexually in private in their youth and not being harmed by it. It's not sensible to believe that such activities would suddenly and inexplicably become distressing somehow just because another person who happens to have been alive for more years than they becomes involved. It isn't reasonable to believe it's extremely likely sexual activity would cause harm. There is a power imbalance between children and adults in literally every possible way and yet children aren't harmed by all the other normal activities they do with their parents and caretakers.
What is undeniable about sexual activity is how enormously beneficial it is. It builds some of the strongest interpersonal bonds people are capable of making. For humans, making bonds with others is arguably the most important thing a person can do. Sexual activity is also beneficial because it's immensely pleasurable. And because being in a sexual relationship is one of the most universal of human experiences, familiarity of it from an early age with responsible and loving caretakers would better prepare them for the future and it would also cure much of the immaturity and unsafe behaviors that plague so many people's sex lives. The secrecy and embarrassment which surrounds so many people's sex lives is counterproductive to addressing public health concerns like unwanted pregnancies and STD's and sexual bullies and violent rapists. Raising children into a sexual culture that treats sex as the normal activity that it is and not with shame and embarrassment would enrich lives and allow for a more effective way of combating sex related public health concerns. As with all things that people do which benefits them, learning about it from as early an age as possible better prepares them for navigating our world. Laughing, walking, talking, reading, writing, mathematics...
All are good to do as soon as one is able, and sexual feelings and activities, something humans can experience from even before birth, are no different. If it was any other activity we were talking about that built powerful social bonds and was immensely pleasurable and better prepared children for the future and helped them to live safer, happier lives, it would be considered indispensable by parents and the community.
It doesn't matter how many medical professionals claim sex with children to be harmful. No matter how many people say something is true, if evidence and reason prove them to be wrong, then they are wrong. There is no evidence and reason to back up the claim that sexual activity with children causes emotional distress irrespective of cultural conditioning.You show me such evidence, and I'll change my beliefs. Can you even say what evidence would change your beliefs? If it were proven that the violence you are a supporter of is the reason why children experience trauma from harmless sexual activity and that sex acts themselves do not inherently cause any degree of emotional distress whatsoever by way of showing that when punishments are not present there is no psychological harm but that when punishments are present there is psychological harm, would you change your beliefs? If it were really true that you cared that children were harmed, you would not support punishments for having sex with children if it were proven that punishments were the only thing causing them harm.
Are you aware that many religions believe choosing the wrong faith can have permanently negative consequences lasting all of eternity? Can a child make an informed decision about that? In order to justify the claim that engaging in sexual activity requires informed consent and that children can't engage in sexual activity because of their inability to provide informed consent, it would need to be true that there is some feature to sexual activity that makes it importantly different from all the other things kids are brought to be involved in such that informed consent is a relevant requirement. There is no scientific investigation that can be performed to confirm or falsify the claim that sexual activity requires informed consent because the belief is a moral one; it's not a fact about the world that can be checked to see if it is true. Moral beliefs require consistency to be able to justify their application. You cannot apply a moral belief in one case and not in another for no reason. If children shouldn't be allowed to engage in sexual activity because they can't give informed consent, then explain what makes it different from all the other things they do for which you believe informed consent isn't needed. Don't just say it's different; explain yourself.
Are you aware there is a power imbalance in literally every conceivable way between children and adults, and yet that doesn't make all the other things adults do with children wrong? In order to argue that a power imbalance makes sexual activity with children wrong, it would need to be explained what makes sexual activity different from all the other things children are brought to be involved in.
Because all people, without exception, can recall being forced into doing various things as children against their will and not being traumatized from it, it is impossible to make the argument that I am wrong to claim that unless a child is forced into something to the point of unbearable anguish, they aren't traumatized for it. You don't need to be a psychologist in order to explain human psychology, and you especially don't need to be a psychologist in order to make this claim.
Approaching someone while armed with the intent to forcibly confine that person into a prison cell and shoot and kill them if they fight back absolutely is violence. You are a supporter of that for pedophile sexual activity. Sexual activity with minors is not violent. In fact it's undeniably beneficial to them. You are a supporter of violence for non-violent activities.
Don't unjustifiably punish kids and pedophiles, dude.
Consent means to express a willingness to be involved in whatever one is brought to be involved in. There is no stage during human development when a child cannot express willingness or unwillingness to be involved in whatever they are brought to be involved in. It's practically a young child's job to let you know if they don't like something. If you believe that sexual activity requires some "true" form if consent that children cannot give, well you're just wrong. In order to justify treating sexual activity as something that needs a special kind of consent, it would have to be true that it is importantly different from all the other things kids are brought to be involved in. And it would have to be importantly different in some way that makes a special form of consent a relevant concern.
Children are brought to be involved in a very lot of things against their will and they are rarely traumatized for it. Sexual activity possesses no feature that makes it importantly different from all the other things they do. I'm opposed to anyone of any age or level of mental fitness being forced against their will into doing anything, but apparently, doing so doesn't result in trauma in children. But as opposed as I am to making kids do anything they don't want, I'm infinitely more opposed to causing them life destroying psychological trauma. Cultural conditioning is the only reason why something inherently pleasurable would become traumatizing. Decriminalization of pedophile sexual activities is supremely important to combating that fear conditioning. If I believed decriminalizing sexual activity with minors wouldn't result in many parents and caretakers treating sexual activity the same as they treat all the other activities they do with their children and involve them in it even if they are unwilling, then I would be delusional. Hopefully, laws which punish non-consenting sex would still be enforced in those cases, but I wouldn't count on it. But since it's true that there is nothing inherently harmful about sex and that it is instead inherently pleasurable, then that means public hate and disgust for treating it as just another activity parents do with their kids is based in moral beliefs about sexual purity. If the laws aren't about concerns of children's well-being, then they have to be about the hate and disgust people feel for pedophiles and nothing else.
In order to justify treating sexual activity with children as uniquely different from all the other things parents and caretakers do with their children, there needs to be an argument for what that difference is and why it is relevant. Everything depends on being able to argue what that important difference is. If you can't say what they difference is, then you can't win the argument.
It blows my fucking mind that you think sexual activity is harmful to children somehow.
That's not what /u/Sunfl00 or /u/pilarholt said. OP's story is about an adult taking non-consensual sexual photographs of a child, which is not identical to the term "sexual activity", it's more specific. Sunfloo is talking about the same thing with the phrase "pornographic pics of kids".
You do agree that adults who desire sexual activity with children are fucked up, right?
I am perfectly aware of what the conversation was about. I wasn't commenting on the subject being discussed. I was interjecting sense and reason into the conversation by pointing out the deeply flawed beliefs which allowed the discussion to come into existence in the first place. It would be like an atheist interjecting into a theological argument between two people with the statement "your god does not exist". No, I would not agree that adults who desire to engage in sexual activity with children are fucked up. You are fucked up for supporting the cultural conditioning which causes children to be traumatized by something that is not only harmless, but immensely beneficial. Sex is not wrong and it does not psychologically harm children. Punishment causes distress. There is a causally direct correlation between the degree to which an individual experiences distress for breaking a rule and the degree to which that individual's community punishes those who break that rule. Pedophilia is one of the most punished things on earth. There is no magical time during human development when sexual feelings aren't possible or when they crossover from being distressing to being pleasurable. Fear conditioning through punishment and threat of punishment for breaking a deeply vilified sexual taboo is the reason why children experience trauma from harmless sexual activity engaged in willingly.
I have never heard a single good argument that justifies the criminalization of sexual activity with children.
How about the fact that virtually all sexual activity with children is non-consensual?
Even if it were true that the vast majority of instances were not consensual, that wouldn't justify criminalization of consensual sexual activity. If 99% of sex acts among adults were the result of rape, that wouldn't somehow make the consenting examples wrong.
Sexual feelings are pleasurable at every stage of human development. Almost everyone on earth can recall doing sexual things in private in their youth and not being harmed by it. Most parents can report observing their toddlers playing with themselves in their diapers at some point. There are sonogram video images of fetuses masturbating. There's every reason to believe the vast, vast, vast majority of children from the youngest possible ages would want to experience sexual pleasure with others but for the threat of ultra severe punishment for it. If anyone who was involved in sexual activity with a pedophile as a child didn't express fear and guilt and shame for it but expressed positive feelings about it, they would be positively vilified. No one is even allowed to not be traumatized or otherwise express a deep sense of wrongness about their childhood sexual experiences with an adult without being punished for it.
Is it harsh to say we'd be far better off without this little fuck on earth? A fucking 11 year old, man that's fucked
Edit: alright let's clear my point up a bit. The dude took a pornographic picture of an 11 year old. Not only is that morally wrong in every way it's invasion of privacy, and child pornogrophy. Maybe he don't need put to death, but he certainly needs put in jail for quite a while.
Yes, that is harsh. What he did was obviously wrong and deserving of punishment, but in terms of lasting harm done, he's way, way, way the fuck down on the list of people who've been a detriment to society. Muggings and thefts and regularly more traumatic.
It only blows your mind because you're not reading intently. He said he was busted for an upskirt picture, a gross invasion of privacy but not full blown pornography.
Regarding your experiences: Have you ever been robbed? Had your home broken into? It typically feels far worse than getting creeped out by a creepy guy.
The ickiness of the crime alone isn't indicative of its likelihood to traumatize.
[OP of " Literally Born To Play"]
Poster of "Dr. Shekyll and Mr. Kike" from the "Bagel Brothers Production" with the slogan "See Shlomo Shekelberg in the role he was born to play!", featuring Jewish caricatures.
Trump was chosen by God and can be proved.
Use Calculator to confirm dates for proof.
Date Calculator: https://www.timeanddate.com/date/duration.html
Donald Trump D.O.B: 14/06/1946 Donald Trump First Day of Presidency: 21/01/2017 Day Israel became a Nation: 14/05/1948 Donald Trump electors who voted for him: 304 (with 2 defectors) Hillary Clinton electors who votes for her: 227 (with 5 defectors)
1. Donald Trump was born 700 days before Israel was a nation again
2. Which would mean when Israel was 77 days old, Trump would have been 777 days old.
3. Which would also mean Israel’s 70th Birthday will come 700 days after Trumps 70th Birthday.
4. Trump won by 304 electors, Hillary lost with 227 electors. 304 – 227 = 77
5. Also 3+0+4 = 7
6. Trump was 70 Years, 7 Months, and 7 days old on his first day of presidency.
7. Trump became president in the Hebrew year of 5777.
Number 6, 1, 2 & 3 are the most significant.
If Trump was born 1 day earlier or later, or Israel became a nation again 1 day earlier or later, then these numbers wouldn't match.
Only an all mighty God could have made Trump be born 700 days before Israel was a nation again, & make Israel a nation again on that specific date, make and know the 45th Presidency would be on that specific date (21/01/2017), & that Trump would be exactly 70 years old, 7 months old, and 7 days old on his first day of presidency. These are facts, these dates happened and can be calculated by you.
If you show no results then you try harder until you do get results. Nobody grows a six packs in a day you know and the same training discipline applies here. The truth is you won't be able to understand the energy dynamics in a video unless you have experimented with the spiritual energy yourself, so the legit videos become indistinguishable from the fakes. Science in it's current state runs through capitalist institutions which is unscientific by itself. Funding for research only goes to the studies that garners the most profit or has the highest chance of repeatability so uncertain topics like this are given no priority what so ever. This means many truths are simply ignored because they can be hard to understand or control and only easy to reach studies are done.
There is a very hit or miss mechanic with telekinesis and things won't always go the way you want, but those hits are remarkable none the less. Magic is just yet to be understood science and society always has a habit of being biased towards new technology calling it impossible magic every step of the way. With telekinesis you need to develop a deep spiritual connection with the higher forces but science doesn't care unless you can put it in a bottle which you can then give to soldiers so the cause is lost from the very beginning.
There are so many factors that are needed to be understood when trying to introduce this to other people and the practitioners have to figure all of it out on their own without any scientific funding from any direction. So it remains a secret occult practice because in a lot of cases you can end up damaging yourself if you are not careful with this energy.
Just look at how often people on this website and in the USA talk about sodomoy, and "toilet humor", and anything related.
Jewish pornography almost ALWAYS involves some form of sodomy.
It's become so normalized.
Really? Haven't more people taken this critical step yet? Serious people are not interested in some generic virtue signaling bs like ''Civic-nationalism'' or ''Alt right'', the only interest serious people in this movement have is National Socialism, we know the simple truth that we won't be free and white until we deal with the single biggest criminal and controlling element in our society; The Jewish question, and from which group of criminals are trying to destroy every single white country with mass third world immigration, which is calculated ethnic replacement genocide. And there's no escape from that without dealing with the real pathology that causes it. Let me remind you that Jewish controlled/influenced western world unilaterally won WW2 in a Semitic-Revenge against civilized and free white societies. Pointless wars in this world will never end until the people that are turning everyone against eachother are dealt with.
The Jewish question isn't just a question of the European peoples of the world, but one of humanity. It seems that many women and these alt-right types are really jaded in the way that they simply do not understand that people need to actually fight and struggle for their freedom and mere existance when under tyranny, many literally think that we can make up our interests which are being violated every day by promoting bullshit inaction and just talking "to make up our differences". Well let me say this, our differences are irreconcilable because the Jewish controlled systems will under no circumstances cooperate or reconcile with us because they want to destroy us, We will either fight against the ZOG status-quo or perish by being minority in all our countries in just 3 decades from now. Your choice white man, keep deluding yourselves with superficial virtue signaling and think it will work, or realize that the problem is rooted far deeper than that and solve the problem, to finally be free and white on every level economically, spiritually and socially.
National Socialism is the only way since only people who are National Socialists will deal with the actual pathological issue we don't just intellectually insult ourselves by focusing on the symptoms like the Alt-Lite, people like this will never deal with the Jewish question, they will eventually bend over and betray to remain politically correct fearing in an age where the controlled media will defame you calling you a slogan just for not agreeing or pushing the party line of DIEversity and Multiculturalism, Alt-lite virtue signalers and generic nationalists will only ignore the cause and pretend like Jews don't own our Banking system, Printing press, Entertainment industry, Media, and Governments through puppet freemason politicians, and will even hesitate to call out the group of people that are causing our destruction in fear of their own sad skins, without realizing the fact that third worlders never would have gotten here if it weren't for Jewish reforms of our immigration acts to advance their Coudenhove Kalergi plan in order to stay in power indefinitely.
The first doubts were as I described here. I then realized dead things don't come to life by themselves, so life needed a miracle to start. And if there was a miracle there was a Miracle Maker. If the origin of life was by a miracle, then it became possible to consider the origin of species (actually major taxonomic divisions) was a result of a miracle. Michael Denton's book Evolution a Theory in Crisis (it's a pain to read) pretty much destroyed most reason to believe in evolution.
The more I studied biology and science, and the more I studied real scientific disciplines like physics, I realized evolutionary biology is a sham science. Privately, many chemists and physicists (whom I consider real scientists) look at evolutionary biologists with disdain. Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne himself admitted: In Science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to [the pseudo science of] phrenology than to physics.
Then I look at the behavior of defenders of evolution. Many of them hate Christians and act unethically and ruin people's lives like Ota Benga and personal friends like professor of biology Caroline Crocker and persecute Christian students. They tried to deliberately create deformed babies in order to just prove evolution. They tried to get me expelled from graduate school when I was studying physics, merely because I was a Christian creationists. It was none of their business, but they felt they had the right to ruin my life merely because I believed in Jesus as Lord and Creator.
I then realized many evolutionists (not the Christian evolutionists) are Satanically inspired because of their psycho evil hatred. So I realized even more, they are not of God, and therefore not on the side of truth. They promote "The Lie" because the father of Darwinism is the Father of Lies. Darwin himself referred to certain Christian doctrines as "damndable".
When a TIM wants to be a "woman", who does he look to for inspiration? Females. If biology doesn't matter, why do they want the physical characteristics that result from being female? Think curvy hips, breasts, voice pitch, petite shoulders, etc? If being female alone doesn't make someone a woman, why do TIM's still look to females for their goal appearance? What is passing? Resembling a female while being male.
Why do they want all the things that are associated with the female sex either biologically (periods, pregnancy, etc) or traditionally (dresses, nail polish, lingerie, makeup, etc)? I think the answer is simple: because they even know womanhood is not an identity. Womanhood is being female. And throughout time, being female has carried definitive physical characteristics from biology as well as social differences that have endured thousands of years. Womanhood has never been an identity; it's a state of being for XX-conceived humans=FEMALES.
Fuck I'm on mobile and my post deleted. Anyway, the difference is very important because it's the difference between who the movement is for and who it isn't for. Feminism is for females, the black panthers arenfor black people, and so on. If men are allowed to take any degree of control they will inevitably ruin it. If white people were leaders or organizers they would ruin black panthers too.
Seen so called feminist men freak out way too many times to give them any benefit of the doubt. Any activists knows the people who are being affected most have to be the people with the most voice and control. Allies are important to give support and visibility. Look at how straights are ruining LGBT by claiming queerness and kink and bdsm are part of the umbrella. LGBT isn't for gays anymore because straights ruined it.
"Even if the alt-right becomes more popular, it will always have militant opposition willing to fight it at any cost"
According to Reuters at the very least 70 million Americans already agree with our goals. Assuming those are almost exclusively whites that's nearly half of American whites already providing us with implicit support, alt-right or no alt-right. Without a change, and all studies on diversity showing how cancerous it is a civil war is likely regardless of whether or not the alt-right exists.
"and of course a lot of minority people are unlikely to want to "peacefully" get deported."
This is just leftist wishful thinking to act like they have some spooky armed underclass ready to fight. Hispanics are by and large here for money, and money only. Make it less economically viable to be here, and they'll leave. But if forced deportations happen there's no reason to believe it won't just be like Operation Wetback when Hispanic citizens were forcibly deported. You'd be surprised how compliant people are when told what to do by an authority figure. Or did the Germans forced out of Bohemia after WW2 also start a civil war?
Would a 50%+ Asian Harvard be a good thing? That would create massive resentments against Asians in this country. That hatred would effect the prestige of Harvard for sure.
Harvard admissions aren't meritocratic. You can say its selection process against Asians is unfair, but they are still taking up a much larger proportion of seats than their population. A multicultural society won't be possible unless compromises are made.
Are you from the US? If your first response when people ask you about Assad is to condemn him as an evil dictator and go "I support Rojava", then yeah, you're an imperialist my dude. You're providing support for US military actions in Syria against a sovereign government that has explicitly said it neither asked for nor wants US interference there. If you're from the US, your primary objective, as a self-proclaimed leftist, should be opposition to US imperialism in other countries. Full stop.
Through accidents of history, geography and our evolutionary past, the people of the East are more temperamentally adapted to more authoritarian styles of government. Civil society is not nearly as much of a necessity for your average citizen in China or Japan (let's be real here, the democracy of Japan is not at all like that of the West) or Singapore (again, a country that has tolerated an authoritarian party for over 4 decades, yet still a very prosperous and wealthy nation) in order to live a happy and fulfilled life.
Don't get me wrong though, I'm not at all against Western liberal democratic societies. Present and likely future challenges notwithstanding, it has worked well for the West for more or less two centuries now. And if the citizens of the China eventually decide to travel down that path ourselves, then by all means, I won't be one to stand in the way. What I am adamantly against though, is the intentional undermining and fomentation of political unrest by the West in countries like China, or even North Korea. For China, this isn't as much of a problem now as it used to be say back in 1989 (Tiananmen), but clearly this is still a card the US will never fold (ex. support of Uyghur and Tibetan separatists, advocating for FLG cultists, Voice of America), even though its value becomes increasingly dubious.
China is the oldest continuous civilization in the world today, inhabited by the same people, who honor the same culture and reside in the same land. We don't, never did, and never will need to live by the standards of the West. So in fact, it's tough shit for you. Deal with it.
Isnt that just dreadful. So women won't be helped, because of transwomen and their endless selfishness. I want to know, if transwomen are women, when they will start behaving like women, and start giving support, instead of just demanding it? I remember a lesbian saying, there was a rally and afterwards, it was the women doing the cleaning up, while the gay men and the transwomen sat about and chatted. Requests for assistance were refused, because 'they arent that kind of woman".
It made me so angry. They see real women as drudges, child-bearers and themselves as glamour pusses, and like any misogynist, they assign more value to the latter. And furthermore, if you get 'misgendered' it shouldnt bother you. If your identity as so strong the law needs to be changed to accommodate you, then surely, its strong enough to ignore misgendering. Plus, if the ones who are completely male-bodied are really women, they would use male toilets...because women care about other women's safety.
They can use a male toilet in safety, they should do so, so that men cant pretend to be trans..or so toilets wont be made gender-neutral. Its what women would do...and where did transwomen used to go, before all this? they went right beside us and we didnt notice, because they were really trans and coded female. And now, they are complaining that the Women Weinstein assaulted are 'marginalizing' them by speaking up. They are actually say the me too hashtag is transphobic, because they dont get harassed and it would validate them if they did. so therefore..what? women should shut up?
I've been in cults in the early 90s when I was a child. there's certain aspects of trans community that feels very cult-like to me- the refusal to think, but must only obey and believe 100% (or else be branded a sinner for daring to ask questions), the removal of one's own agency when it comes to naming and describing your own personal experience without being shamed. these things I see in the trans community and I dont like it.
To me, a cult was once a community where people had other's best interests at heart, before it was overtaken by dogma and a complete mandatory belief system that will render you helpless if you don't abide by the rules.
I don't like that lesbian women and gay men cant even be allowed to sleep with the same sex according to the transcult- apparently it makes us ''transphobic''. what utter vile homophobia. I've spent half of my life being told by controlling people that there is something 'inherently wrong' with me because I am a lesbina who wants to sleep with other women. Now the transcult is saying there is something ''inherently wrong'' with me because I am a lesbian who wants to sleep with other women. these people are condoning rape and homophobia if they're not careful.
I thought nothing could compel me to become a Reddit user, but it seems I was wrong. Been lurking here for almost a year, and if any sub on Reddit could inspire me to create an account, it is this one. Haven't personally experienced a "peak trans" moment, mainly because I've never considered transgenderist ideology to have any sort of legitimacy.
Politically, I am and was a Marxist(-Leninist) prior to being exposed to transactivism, and the two ideologies are quite simply irreconcilable, what with Marxism being based on materialism, and genderist thought residing firmly in the realm of idealism. I'm also male, and correspondingly socialized, so I've never felt a need to hide or obscure my views for the sake of being "nice" or to coddle men's feelings.
I've noticed a disturbing trend where people who call themselves Marxists, my supposed comrades, are increasingly pandering to transactivists and parroting the regressive ideas of genderist ideology. This makes no sense to me; Not only is it impossible to simultaneously accept a materialist worldview and believe in the doctrine of gender identity, but transactivism is also so blatantly misogynistic, homophobic and racist that I cannot fathom how someone who claims to be a communist could be a-OK with, and even take part in, such reactionary politics.
Being exposed to this bullshit has slowly but surely made me convinced that Marxism is virtually worthless as a tool to change the world for the better, if it is not combined with unequivocal support for radical feminism and radfems. We can wage revolution and build socialism perfectly fine without fetishistic and narcissistic men in dresses, but we can't do it without women.
If you actually believe this, then you're not paying attention. The current party line of trans activists is that transwomen are biologically female and were indeed born biologically female, and transmen are biologically male and were born biologically male. They have not only erased the definition of "woman," but they have now erased the definition of "female." This has multiple immediate consequences: We can't talk about female genital mutilation because any genitals can be female. MRAs love this because they can swoop in to any article about FGM so much easier to cry about circumcision and do their "WHAT ABOUT THE MEN???"
We can't talk about female reproductive health because that can refer to any reproductive organs. Prostate cancer can be a female reproductive health issue. We can't talk about female infanticide or female-selective abortion because we don't know how those babies or fetuses would have identified -- maybe they were really male? We can't talk about girls being denied education because some of those girls might be boys.
We can't talk about shared female experiences like menstruation because there are none -- males menstruate and females don't menstruate. We can't talk about the poisonous way that females are socialized into the inferior sex caste because some of those females are really males and some of what people think are males are actually females, so there is actually no such thing as female socialization. By extension, there is also no such thing as male socialization, because some of those males are actually females and some of what people think are females are actually males. There can be no female-specific spaces, sports teams, colleges, scholarships, clubs, music groups, work places, jails, homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, or rape crisis shelters, because people who appear to be female may identify as male and so be actually biologically male, and those who appear to be male may identify as female and so be actually biologically female.
This fantasy land of magical thinking has made it fully impossible for women to discuss anything related to female oppression. It has made it impossible for women to have anything for ourselves. Your activists come in and trounce on every. fucking. conversation. we try to have and language police, tone police, demand to be centered, and demand that we change actual reality to fit their desires. This is pure male entitlement and it's utter bullshit. We are saying no, and people socialized as male can't handle it when women tell them no. That's why /r/terfisaslur is filled with transwomen threatening women with death, rape, mutilation, assault, and even cannibalism.
And it's not "bad experiences with certain people." It's pretty much all trans activists who behave this way. Trans people outside the activist community are often normal, nice people and many of us call them friends, myself included. But your activists are toxic, poisonous narcissists. They are violent misogynists who are going to eventually tank your whole movement with their increasingly unreasonable, unstable, and ridiculous behavior.
Bashar al-Assad, along with the Ba'athist Syrian government, are bourgeois Arab nationalists. The national bourgeoisie has both a progressive and reactionary character. It is progressive as a bulwark against imperialism, as the nat bourg has interests in controlling its own markets and driving out the imperialist powers. It is reactionary in that the national bourgeoisie does exploit their own working class at home.
As communists, especially communists in the imperialist countries, our job is to oppose the imperialism of our own ruling class at home. Our slogan, first and foremost, should be "Hands Off Syria!". Only the Syrians can decide who governs them; not the U.S., or Israel, or NATO, or Turkey, or Saudi Arabia. Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia, however, play a progressive role because they were invited by the Syrian government in fighting the imperialist proxies.
Communists within Syria are critical of the government, and have opposed the Assad administration's "neoliberal" reforms, but have chosen to fight along the Syrian government to drive out the imperialist powers (the U.S./NATO), their allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar), and their proxy forces (Daesh, Ahrar al-Sham, Tahrir al-Sham, etc.) The smear campaign against the Syrian government has been incredible. Check out this study guide to learn more about the truth about Syria.
The CIA has been trying to topple Socialist Syria for decades. Syrians (including Syrian Communist Parties) support Assad. The people trying to overthrow his government get free weapons from the CIA. Not hard to see who we should support: the Syrian Government (SAA, Assad's Govt).
You know, the excuse a lot of hunters use for their “conservation” efforts is that it benefits the species by removing problematic males who have passed their ability to procreate. Maybe we should start turning old Chinese men loose in the forest and let the hunters go after the greatest prey of all. We’d solve two problems at once.
[OP of "Built It With Us"]
On the poster: "The future belongs to the few of us still willing to get our hands dirty", "Political terror - it's the only thing they understand" and "Build the race war through direct action" along a Molotow cocktail being launched.
Oppressing physically attractive woman tries to explain that she is a true incel.
I feel extremely angered over a conversation I had with a woman who is attractive, but only has eyes for chads. I'm not sure how I began talking with her, because only 0.1% of the female population actually notice me. After I had conversed with her for around 5 minutes, she explained to me that she was an incel herself and how guys don't notice her.
I couldn't believe this cruel woman because I, a perfect man with redeeming qualities, stood right in front of her and she wouldn't consider dating me. She is a middle eastern woman, and only wants middle eastern chads.
I've tried numerous times to get her attention but she sees me as a beta male, I fear I will never beat a chad unless I become one. I've began taking steroids to help me grow big muscles and I also take penis enlargement pills to get a bigger dick. Hopefully this works. Will update in the future.
It seems the way that some TIMs respond to 'misgendering' reflects male socialisation. I was thinking about how seriously men are taught to take gender performance and outward shows of 'respect' for that performance. When boys are growing up, there are displays of competitiveness that get wrapped up in their developing masculine identity. Competitiveness isn't a bad thing in itself, but when someone bases their self-worth on how good they are at an activity that society sees as gendered, then you're going to run into trouble.
To a boy, being good at football/programming/debating/collecting are not just pleasurable in themselves, but grounds on which they're taught they need to prove something - their masculinity. Although this masculinity is seen as intrinsic to boys, it's also something which they're constantly called upon to prove, or else they become almost as lowly as a girl in the gender caste system.
This is why the taunt of, 'you do x like a girl' is seen as a personal insult: girls aren't socialised to see their activities as matters of identity. Girls are socialised with the expectation that they must 'comply' to certain standards of femininity, or risk the consequences.
Telling a woman that she 'cleans like a man' isn't seen as an assault on her identity; instead it's a comment on her competence at performing a task that patriarchy has assigned to her sex caste. She's punished for not pretending/trying hard enough in the submissive role, not for failing to prove her femininity. There's a difference which I'm trying to articulate. So, regarding TIMs - they have that uptightness about gender roles that I recognise in men, but is absent from women. This is why TIMs take pronouns seriously, when to most women they don't even register on their list of things that make up their lived experiences as females. When asked the question, 'how would YOU like it if someone called you he/him/sir?' many women sort of shrug it off; they would be a little irritated at most. Men get why TIMs are uptight about these things because they're also uptight about them, due to their shared socialisation.
TIMs are trying to 'prove' that they have transitioned to a new gender role, and the way they often behave reflects the way that boys behave in order to prove that they're boys. Using the wrong pronouns is seen as starting a fight with them, 'dissing them'. That's how it appears to me, anyway. Has anyone ever seen a TIF get as uptight as many TIMs do about misgendering? I'm sure it happens, which means my theory might need tweaking a bit. Possibly some TIFs copy this obvious facet of male behaviour in their attempt to transition?
Agreed, race mixing needs to be frowned upon. Culture emerges from the behavioral sum of a group of people, and it's been well established that every behavior has a genetic component. Not only is there a good chance that your kids won't look Assyrian, they probably won't even act Assyrian. For those who identify fully as Assyrian despite being mixed, marry an Assyrian and make sure your kids do the same. Bottom line: If you marry nukhraya, you willingly contribute to the Assyrian genocide.
The medicine works by letting the chinese let out all their rage for being on the lowest kind of people socially, that have been taken advantage of throughout the century by pretty much everyone, including their own royalty and governments.
[OP of "People should dress like ICE agent next to voting station"]
Title says it all.
A femoids purity lies entirely within how many people it has had sexual intercourse with and what kind of sexual stuff it has engaged in. To be pure, a femoid must remain a virgin (virginally and analy) until marriage without engaging in any kind of repugnant or hedonistic behavior with men that it does not know of. Unfortunately, in this day and age, finding a bitch who is a virgin is like finding a needle in a haystack; it's nothing but an impossible task.
Why aren't femoids pure anymore? What is the reason for this phenomenon, you may ask. While there are multiple reasons, it could be narrowed down to two main reasons: one being, sexual freedom. And the other being, feminism. These two factors are responsible for the destruction of the femoid organisms, especially the cunts that are raised in this degenerate generation.
Femoid sexual freedom itself was the biggest mistake mankind has ever made. I mean, just think about it: cuntrags are the gatekeepers of sex, in which, they are the ones who decides who they want to have sex with. By giving them sexual freedom one breaks the natural order that has been going on for centuries, which is, men being the ones deciding who bitches should mate with. But now, due to these creatures having immense amount of sexual freedom, they single-handedly hold the monopoly over every man in this world.
When it comes to feminism, it has ruined femoids by indoctrinating them with false and degenerate beliefs. The feminist legbeards view slutting around with multiple people as "empowerment" and "progression" to a point where they brainwash impressionable femoids at a young age saying how there is nothing wrong getting railed by multiple men a week. Cum dumpsters being idiotic as they are listen to these false teaching only in turn engage in degenerate behavior. And by doing so, not only these bitches lose their virginity at a very young age, but they keep on riding the cawk arousal until their cunts are battered, mangled loose beef curtains.
Back in the day, the purity of a femoid was not only encouraged and supported but cherished as well. However, in this day and age, femoid purity is slowly turning itself into a myth, in which, it will become history in a few decades.
It infuriates me greatly that femoids are considered to be the "sympathetic and empathetic" gender because it is nothing but a lie of the highest order. The fact of the matter is that, regardless of the things they do, there is always a hidden secondary agenda inside of these creatures. For an example: most normans will say that bitches are "sympathetic and empathetic" because they volunteer to help old people in elders homes and help people in situations of crisis. While partially true there is always a reason behind it; which being attention. Yes, attention. If a bomb went off today you'll see a bunch of cum dumpsters lining up to help with their phones in their hands so they could use the the opportunity to take pictures and post them on degenerate social media applications to show the world how amazing they are; and also for the likes and comments that comments with it.
If bitches were really sympathetic as they were coined to be, they would actually spread their legs to give Incel men the sex they so rightfully deserve. But do these cunts give us that? No, they don't. How normans even consider femoid organisms to be empathic if they are the main cause for suffering of Incels is beyond me. Every bitch out there has every chance to help an Incel out by giving them what they want; but these cuntrags reject to do so every damn time. Which in turn only furthers are endless torment even more. Femoid cunts would rather fuck Chad/Tyrone for the tenth time even though he abuses the shit out of them than giving an Incel man a chance.
[OP of "Always"]
British parliament surmounted of a star of David and, below, the slogan "A country get the Jews it deserves" from Corneliu Zelea Codreanu
Men are so disgusting. Reddit is a sea of gifs and posts attempting to get people to care about this net neutrality thing, and 9/10 posts have "think of your porn!!!"
"Without net neutrality you won't have porn!!!" And it just makes me sick that men would go to length to protect their beloved free access to taped sexual violence against women. I just. Feel sick.
No it's not. Juche emphasises self-reliance. It's not exceptionalism, it's survival. They have to be strict because they are under siege from a violent, genocidal imperialist military who will absolutely do anything to destroy them. The US has used infiltration, sabotage, and assassinations in multiple communist countries in the recent past, there is every reason to suspect that they will attempt to do so again.
Defensive collective isn't enough when you're a tiny half of a peninsula with 15% arable land and so many sanctions you can't even trade with countries who traditionally used to be your allies. There's a reason why DPRK stands today. Check out the 'Debunking Anti-Communism Masterpost' on the sidebar, specifically it's section on the DPRK for a more nuanced understanding of Korean reality, not imperialist propaganda.
I am glad that the DPRK has this means of self defense now. I saw an anarchist bashing the DPRK on Twitter, and I think to myself: "Does this person enjoy getting their asses kicked? Do this person actually want to win?" I am beginning to think that they don't want to win, or at least that they don't want to fight. I can't believe that anyone enjoys getting their asses kicked that much. You need a state and a means of self-defense to protect revolutionary gains. This has been proven time and time again.
The anarchists' ideas sound very fine, but it seems to me that they only work in frictionless systems where the national bourgeoisie peacefully agree to leave power and the international bourgeoisie do not try to crush the revolution. Most of their criticisms of successful Marxist revolutions seem to be criticisms of the measures those Marxist revolutions had to take to ensure their own survival and continued revolutionary progress.
If the Soviet Union or the DPRK or Cuba grew crooked in the eyes of these anarchists, it is entirely because the imperialist-capitalist nations and their bourgeoisie did not allow those revolutions to grow straight! Rosa Luxemburg excoriated the German Social-Democrats of her time for this sort of criticism of the Bolsheviks, saying that it was wrong of them to expect the Bolsheviks to be saints who could perform miracles.
It seems to me that most of us here understand that plans will not survive contact with reality. We make plans with goals in mind, reality happens, and we adjust based on that experience. Marx himself did this over the course of his life, in light of what he had observed. Socialism in one country had never been anticipated, and was not even considered possible until the Soviet Union did it.
I am strongly against imperialist agression in the DPRK, especially by the AmeriKKKans, and acknowlegde that nearly every claim made about the DPRK (death camps, dictatorship, brainwashed citizens, worship their leaders) has no basis in fact, only in capitalist propaganda and white nationalism.
Even if there is human rights abuse in the DPRK, it is FAR less than the abuse in the U$ on a daily basis. I believe the possession of nukes is necessary to keep the U$ out of the DPRK. Based on what happened to Mummar Qaddafi, the DPRK should NEVER surrender their nuclear weapons unless the U$ and other imperialist powers do first.
This came as a revelation to me, though many of you have likely understood this for some time.
I was hanging out with some British university students and they were telling me how dangerous it is, like the likelihood of being mugged or worse if you happen to walk down the wrong street.
This was quite a surprise to me as I'd always considered London to be relatively safe compared to other Western cities due to all their surveillance. They went on to say that they always have to be on their guard and wouldn't go out at night alone.
When I expressed my shock at having to take these kinds of precautions in a first world country, they just shrugged it off as if it were the most natural thing in the world. "Of course you have to be on your guard, the world is a dangerous place. Don't you know that?"
I told them that in 21 years of living in Japan I've never even heard of someone I know being mugged, and I could walk any street in Tokyo without fear. I showed them some crime statistics comparing crime in the UK to Japan and they wouldn't believe it! They thought at first that I was making them up, then that the Japanese government must be fabricating the numbers!
When I mentioned rape(UK has a rate of rape 27 times higher than Japan), one girl insisted that the women in Japan simply weren't reporting the crimes. Everybody was in total denial, and I was even accused of being brainwashed(The irony!).
That's when it struck me, this horror of contemporary city life in the West is normal to them. It's so normal that anything that comes close to true peace and mutual respect becomes an outrageous fabrication.
This is why they're pro-immigration, what do they even have that's worth preserving? They've lost the very idea of harmony, and violence and conflict are considered an integral part of living in any Western city. What are a few immigrants going to change? Savages you say? The culture is already savage!
I feel like I understand the liberal position with much more clarity now. They were born into this sick culture, so sick that its citizens can't even imagine a better standard of living. When the idea of walking the streets in your own country without fear of violence becomes a foreign idea equated with naivete, you as a people are utterly lost, and there truly is no hope.
The media is CONSTANTLY taking turns kicking Christianity. If you dont believe in something why keep talking about it? Why is satanic imagery and every sinful work imaginable continuously pushed in the media? Why Does the Simpsons, American Dad, Adventure Time, countless music videos, countless movies, countless TV shows bash God if He doesn't even exist? Why do they bother? Why does Imagine Dragons say in their song called "Thunder" say "Before I was lightning I was Thunder" which is a direct reference to satan himself, then in the music video for that song have a character that looks, well, like satan himself dancing around sheep of all things? Why does the female demon in that song have the tongue of a serpent?
Why does Kesha in her songs music vid called "Praying" bow at an altar with the all seeing eye on it which represents lucifer? Why are the pig men in that video who chase her wearing black suits with lightning bolts on it, which again represents satan? Why does the lead singer of Panic at the Disco bother to have the Baphomet satanic pentagram put over his face in one of his vids? Why is it that in the same video you see a satanic ritual happen? Why is it that in Katy Perry's corny basket ball music video the bad guys are called "Sheep?" and why does Katy Perry's team gain so much power after what is obviously witchcraft is performed in the half court circle? You see that over and over again in music videos and in performances. They perform in a circle the with weird spiritual unnatural imagery the same as a witch does her craft within a circle. Is there really no agenda?
Why is it that in nearly every single trending hit music video homosexuality is being pushed, one after another, knowing that aids kills? Why do they continue to glorify smoking even AFTER science now knows very well that it kills you? Why does Thirty Seconds to mars in their video "Walk On Water" push the idea of the NWO, homosexuality, in one quick deceptive flash even pedophilia, and when talking abut faith show muslims bowing to their God more than once, and the only thing they show remotely close to Christianity is an older man putting his hands on a teenage man's head in what looks like could be a church, but looks like no church service I have ever seen? Why does 21 Savage glorify gun violence? Why does Miley Cyrus throw a big fit saying we need gun control although she has held guns in her music video? Come to think of it, dang, thats most of them! "No guns, no guns!" But their music videos glorify it! Hypocrites! No agenda?
Why does Miley Cyrus in her video for "Malibu" close one eye three times throughout the vid? Why does she HAVE TO BE half naked? Why does she have a pyramid and eye tatoo on her fingers? Why is Beyonce glorified as a godess? Why did people cut themselves for her on the night of the blood moon? Why was she lifted up on a throne dressed as a goddess while many bowed to her on stage? Why did those bowing to her form a perfect circle around her? Why does she say that she has a demon in her named Sasha and that it is Sasha who gives her her ability to perform so well? Want more? Oh but, but the devil and God don't exist!??
There are plenty of real reasons Black and Whites hate each other, and they should be kept apart in my opinion. There's no need to deport anyone, there's a black nationalist group called Hotep that wants the same things as the Alt-Right.
As for Whites and Asians, it inevitably leads to WMAF and isolation for the hapas themselves.
"Hitler would be proud. Did your daddy keep his copy of Mein Kampf?"
My father believed in the multicultural dream and was a hippy in his youth.
What does it say about Western democracy if the European majorities in them can't even determine their national makeup? Either you believe that Western democratic values and institutions are largely a farce and window dressing, or you agree that the European people have collectively chosen this path on their own will. Neither is flattering to the European people to be honest.
Women are incapable of unconditional love for anyone other than their children.
I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost, Than never to have loved at all. ~Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Do you know why a man said that and not a woman? It’s unheard of for a female author to write of a past love who they broke up with. For the same reason why all the great romance poets are men; because women are literally incapable of unconditional love. Even all the “great” romance stories written by women, if the man stopped doing what the woman liked and tipped the scale, the long beautiful love story, spanning over decades, would be over in the blink of an eye. The “love” would be replaced with hate and loathing in a heartbeat; which confirms it wasn’t actual unconditional love in the first place.
Women treat men (and even other women) like tools; something they can use that serves them. And the when the tool stops performing as intended, they flip in a second from really appreciating the tool to hating it and wanting to destroy it because it’s not performing like it did anymore. It’s funny that women will complain that men treat women like objects sometimes. Because men even love objects more than women love men. A car that broke down and almost killed a man at the end yet gave them 20 years of service, even if it was constant costly repairs will still shed a tear when the car goes away and they will look back and speak of how much they loved that car for the rest of their life.
Women do unconditionally love their children though, and it takes the largest biological cocktail known to human science of her entire life to drown her brain for months to force change it from the natural conditionally feeling state. Her husband may lose his job for a time and if the scale is tipped, she’ll divorce him and he’ll instantly become the scum of all the earth, evil, jerk, and not only want him to die, but want him to suffer a horrible pain filled life until the end. However, her children could be serial killers who eat their victims faces off, and she’ll still be like “He’s a great kid, I still love him more than life itself.”
In the ending of a relationship with a man, there is sorrow at the lost, nevertheless, he remembers all the good times, and holds it to be true that it’s better to have love and lost than not to have loved. Because all that time passed at an elevated emotional state. A woman doesn’t feel this way. She’s angry. Bitter. Vindictive. “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” is a idea well known in every single culture around the world as long as they were able to write it down.
Why? It’s just the nature of the woman to be a conditional lover. She’s out of this world nice and sweet with the condition as long as you’re giving her what she wants in the moment. But the second the scales are tipped: watch out. If you’re a woman who has never had a relationship, or an inexperienced man, you probably think, “Oh, this guy is just being vindictive, this isn’t how women operate.” That’s why I want you to go prove this to yourself, by yourself. I want you to find a guy, ANY guy on planet earth, who has just gone through divorce, (there are many) and see if he was not shocked and floored at his ex-wife's total transformation from a nice reasonable rational cordial person, into a super vindictive, evil, lying, conniving, super bitch - at the drop of a hat.
I don’t even need to qualify it, you go find any. single. one. you want and you will find this is 100% true. (I suspect there is something feeding this void seeking behavior in the environment of modern feminism western culture that’s amplifying this core nature in women because the problem is getting worse. Women are allowed more freedom now-a-days to unabashedly be who they really are. That is the modern message they are receiving since childhood.) Even if she cheated on him (women’s thinking: if a man cheats, it’s the man’s fault, if a woman cheats it’s also the man’s fault), even if the divorce was her idea, even if she was a lesbian and tricked him/lied to him to get married because she wanted a more "traditional" life, she will turn on a dime and loath and try to destroy him. This isn't unconditional love.
I don’t think it’s their faults, they are just incapable. Which is why evolutionarily speaking something drastic needed to happen to change their natures when dealing with their own offspring (children are never going to act the way women want them to). Women use people for whatever reasons all women do: money, kids, convenience, handy man, stress reliever, babysitter, use men as a trophy in the competition that women all are apart of until menopause. And they ALL do it, and this is the vast vast majority of all women in all marriages. If she really loved you, there wouldn't be this drop-of-a-hat transformation into ultra-beeotch mode.
Men do genuinely unconditionally love. They are capable and it’s in their natures. Things didn't work out dating? Guys will always have a love for these girls, even if they weren't the right ones, even if they dumped them, even if they got dumped. Many women have received the drunken late night phone call/text from their former boyfriend proclaiming their undying love. Men even have a respect their enemies they fight in war. Yes, they want to kill them before they get killed, but they still have a great and profound respect them. Women have no respect for their enemies. Go prove this for yourself and ask any principal for any school in the country and they will confirm that bullying is a huge problem: and it’s a 99% girl on girl problem. Girls want their (male or female) enemies beyond dead, they want them psychologically destroyed, publicly humiliated and irreversibly damaged and live a lifetime of horror and regret for having bothered/offended/crossed them.
Women understand women, and countless women don’t like women and will only hang out with guys in school; they cite no faux relationships, backstabbing or no drama as to their reasons. And guys are cool with that, and will readily accept them into their groups with loving protective arms. Women will readily agree that this is what adolescence was like, and it carries well over into the dating or corporate world, then it continues into The Mommy Wars. (“daddy wars” is not a thing) Then a battle of whose kids are more successful. Eventually, for most, it starts to fade off with menopause. However there are still small skirmishes with grandma wars in the battle of who has more grandkids for the few who can’t let it go. It’s just their natures.
So my brothers, if you saw a someone with down syndrome freaking out in a store, or even if they hurt you physically, you wouldn’t want to retaliate and hurt him or her back. They are broken, it’s not biologically their fault; so be extra kind to women, be compassionate. This doesn’t mean you have to be in harmony and conjoin yourself to diabolically psychotic behavior. Your kindness isn’t because they deserve it, but because you do, it feels better. It’s who you really are. It’s in your nature to be unconditionally loving and be in that state. It’s not for them, but for you. Because you deserve it.
