Recently got a temp ban from KiA2 for very mildly acknowledging this fact. Just testing the waters here.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (142)
sorted by:
People always flourish best when their actions conform to their nature. But some folks will call you a 'tradcuck' for... advocating what was practiced for 250,000 years of human history before 40 years ago.
Even if true, so what? I know it might seem obvious to some that "therefore, we should hate the Jews", but if you hated and vilifying people for what people of their ethnic group did, who'd be spared a whipping?
Usually because such a stance lacks the balls to acknowledge what is necessary to restore those traditions, namely taking women's rights away.
These 'rights' should be taken insofar as they are not actual rights, but invented ones. But by acknowledging them as rights, you assert that by taking them away you are doing something wrong.
Good insight on the framing of the issue. I presume you're referring to the concept of natural rights??
Fuck you, I don't need Islam.
No, I fully acknowledge that people would consider that necessary, but I have a counter point.
If you have to take everything from them and basically put them in chains to make them treat others like human beings - why on earth would you bother?
Just stop them fucking up society and leave them to their own devices other than that, writing their genocidal screeds on Twitter.
We should have the technology to not be bound to them by now. I'm not talking about sex bots, I'm talking about artificial wombs. Then all the tradcucks can have their kid and we don't have to hear about how women are important ever again.
Nothing strikes more fear in the hearts of female supremacists than men co-operating across divisions to make their purpose obsolete.
The tradcuck's good women argument is the greatest weapon of the female supremacist.
Abandoning nature is how we got into this pickle, why would you think that doubling down on that path would yield anything other than disaster?
Why is it that you are bothered by 'genocidal screeds on Twitter', when far fewer women kill men than vice versa?
Children need a father and a mother. Not an 'artificial womb'.
Has nothing to do with hate. It has to do with incompatibility. Not all Jews subvert, but they subvert disproportionately, and its corrosive to western society. Every bit as destabilizing as disproportionate criminality.
Incompatibility of what?
If 'subversion' (what you call these dumb opinions of the SJWs) is the problem, why are you only interested in it when you can pin it on a certain ethnic group? I don't understand.
Whites are disproportionately criminal compared to East Asians. So would you say that whites are a "destabilizing" element, and what exactly is it destabilizing?
Incompatibility of behavior. Behavior that is extremely marginal and stigmatized becomes more pronounced when a small minority amplifies that behavior by disproportionately engaging in it.
Subversion of cultural norms that lend stability to a society are always a problem. When a group that consists of 2% of the population comprises 50% of the subversion vs 65% causing 40%, it's the issue that is more urgent, because 3% will snowball into greater subversiveness (or criminality) quicker than 66%.
Interesting thought, and I think the answer is likely yes. The problem is that we don't really have masses of white people migrating into asian countries. Around 1:1000 whites will kill someone, and I think that's around an order of magnitude higher than what's generally seen in non-sandnegro Asian countries. Probably the best proxy we have are things like US servicemen raping or killing Japanese, which certainly causes a lot of strife, if not outright destabilization. But again, it's an imperfect proxy, as those servicemen raping and murdering are black as often as not, and the fact that they're young and male further skews any usefulness we could glean from the observation.
That argument, even if we are going to accept it, is an 'is' and not an 'ought'. You cannot get an ought from an is, in other words, you cannot justify your own focus and behavior by saying that "oh, that is just an ingrained psychological mechanism".
My question is: why do you care about 'Jews', when woke Jews are just a subset of the people who are the problem (wokeists), and the vast, vast majority of Jews have nothing at all to do with it?
I don't agree. First of all, it's not 2% causing 50%, but (assuming that your numbers are right) 0.02% causing 50%. And the remaining 50% would then be caused by 0.98%. That is being generous, as it is the demented and reprehensible elites doing this.
Furthermore, I don't agree that a small population causing a lot of the subversion would be a problem. If anything, it would make things more difficult for them, as they generally have a harder time spreading their agenda than if the demographic is broadly based.
In order to cause the instability, or to get the information about whether this would cause the instability? Because most Jews today have not emigrated to Western countries in living memory, so that would not be a correct analogy in the former case.
I certainly do agree with you that a small group being disproportionately criminal creates resentment against that group. But that is quite different from the question, again, of whether this is justified - the is-ought.