The truth: nearly all past bigotry was justified, or at least had a logical component, even if it was unconscious. Men rejected female power because they knew what would happen if females got power. Men were racist because they knew what would happen in mixed race societies. Men were homophobic because they knew what would happen if degeneracy was allowed through the door. While historically most reactions to these taboos was purely based on instinct and not reason, we're seeing clearly in the modern world why men reacted instinctively towards these things. Sadly somewhere along the way our biological reactions were subverted, and we were told that they were wrong, and that we must embrace the deviants.
It wasn't instinct. There have been countless documented cases of women screwing up societies. Everything from ancient Egypt, to the Ottoman empire, and now we get to see it with our own eyes in this day and age. Faggotry is also an easy one. Faggots have no limit on group sex and spread disease like plague rats, in a society that didn't have modern medicine, the faggots would be a ticking time bomb. It wouldn't take people long to figure out that all the sickness in the city/town comes from the fags. Lastly, racism is a thing because humans have tried on countless times to "come together" over the ages and it always failed, that's why we have ancient stories like the tower of babel, people knew diversity was shit over 4000 years ago.
There have been countless documented cases of women screwing up societies. Everything from ancient Egypt, to the Ottoman empire, and now we get to see it with our own eyes in this day and age.
Can you elaborate more on this? Or at least point me towards some sources because I doubt official history books will say outright that women are responsible for fall of civilizations.
Read this paper. It's 26 pages and outlines the history of various empires. You can skip ahead and look at what happens with mass immigration, women taking power in society, etc. What we're seeing today is the end of the west, just as it's happened many times throughout history to many empires.
While historically most reactions to these taboos was purely based on instinct and not reason
I wish I could find this via google right now, but there's ancient writings from greece or rome, possibly even a play, speculating and ridiculing what would happen if women were allowed to run civilization.
It's exactly what you'd expect - single mothers on welfare, nanny-state shit, foreign men welcomed in with open arms.
Even the idea that this 'instinct' and 'not reason' is false. Any man who has figured out roughly what motivates women can figure out what a woman-run government will look like, and any man who has figured out what keeps a society functioning on an inter-generational time scale can figure out that a woman-run government is a road to slow death.
While historically most reactions to these taboos was purely based on instinct and not reason
Instinct and gut feeling is just subconscious data processing and analysis. That feeling of unease didn't come from nowhere, it came from your brain processing all available data and sending you a survival impulse.
It's my natural instinct to be prejudiced against useless, weak, resentful, failures that depend on racialism to excuse their own failures in life. Especially if you're stupid enough to talk shit about my friends because your ideology of victimhood and resentment.
But I suppose your right. Let's rely on my own prejudices about people like you. You and your kind belong on the helicopter with the rest of the divisive, anti-American, scum.
It's natural to look out for your family and care for their well being. When villages and cities were populated only by a single people group that includes them as an extended family in what Aristotle called philia.
To say that one should not care for their extended family the same as they would for their close relatives is foolish at best and hateful at worst.
Our current society is one with low levels of racial solidarity and extremely high levels of propping up the weak. In a society with significant solidarity people would know when they are being a detriment to those around them. Which happens in many cultures with extreme environments like arctic or desert where they cannot tolerate somebody taking up resources and not contributing to their people.
When villages and cities were populated only by a single people group that includes them as an extended family in what Aristotle called philia.
Cities were never populated in that way. That's simply the nature of cities. The density grantees division. No one """"family"""" can populate a city of 10,000. Families that large are simply clans, not families, and not races, and they stop functioning as genuine families, and function more along the lines of a clan higherarchy with dynastic struggles within them.
To this day, Arab families still have these same issues. Everyone exists within some larger extended dynastic family order with family members and arranged marriages being created to serve the purpose of the sole patriarch. Failure to serve the family by virtue of doing the bidding of patriarch can mean death.
Broadening the family to include not only clan, not only the ethnic group, but the race, is absurd.
The stupidity of racial identitarians in black communities calling people brother, sister, or cousin is utterly nonsensical. Especially when a black American is raging about how much he hates black Africans.
A race is not a family, not even remotely. It's a broader abstraction than even an ethnic group or a clan. Within that, a race of people should never be governed like a family because it means that an entire race of people is subjugated like a clan structure. Dynastic totalitarianism for a race is not only fucking crazy, but utterly ludicrous to even consider implementing.
What ends up actually happening is a bunch of Progressive Racialists demanding totalitarian control and claiming that these racial identities are effectively "political identities", so that they can be broad enough to adopt anyone stupid enough to believe in them. This is why the Europeans were calling Italians "politically black", and why Democrats were already considering Hispanic to be a political affiliation.
low levels of racial solidary
Good. We're not brothers. I have a real family.
extremely high levels propping up the weak
Yes, that's the point.
they cannot tolerate somebody taking up resources and not contributing to their people.
Not a fan. It's also why I'm not a fan of Palestine either. That whole region is a giant shithole of tribalism and sectarianism. That being said, Arabs living in Israel seem to be genuinely better off living in a Jewish racial-state rather than an Arab Psuedo-Socialist one. That being said, it's not like the Arab states are any less racist than Israel. "The Jews must somehow be to blame" is basically a fucking competitive sport. The Arab Nations took over a UN "anti-racism" conference and spent the entire time ranting about Jews.
To me, that tells me just how completely retarded Socialism really is.
That all being said, your point is still correct. Any Zionist crying about how he has to discriminate against others to protect his race is just as much of a failure as any other racist trash. Frankly, they should ban the right-of-return. Honestly, it keep most of the SJW Jews out of Israel anyway since many of them seem to occupy Europe and America.
Telling degenerates they could still be valid and valuable human beings was the well-intentioned first step on the road to hell we're currently barreling down at break-neck speeds.
The truth: nearly all past bigotry was justified, or at least had a logical component, even if it was unconscious. Men rejected female power because they knew what would happen if females got power. Men were racist because they knew what would happen in mixed race societies. Men were homophobic because they knew what would happen if degeneracy was allowed through the door. While historically most reactions to these taboos was purely based on instinct and not reason, we're seeing clearly in the modern world why men reacted instinctively towards these things. Sadly somewhere along the way our biological reactions were subverted, and we were told that they were wrong, and that we must embrace the deviants.
Don't believe their propaganda. If we know anything about them, it's that they lie constantly.
It wasn't instinct. There have been countless documented cases of women screwing up societies. Everything from ancient Egypt, to the Ottoman empire, and now we get to see it with our own eyes in this day and age. Faggotry is also an easy one. Faggots have no limit on group sex and spread disease like plague rats, in a society that didn't have modern medicine, the faggots would be a ticking time bomb. It wouldn't take people long to figure out that all the sickness in the city/town comes from the fags. Lastly, racism is a thing because humans have tried on countless times to "come together" over the ages and it always failed, that's why we have ancient stories like the tower of babel, people knew diversity was shit over 4000 years ago.
Can you elaborate more on this? Or at least point me towards some sources because I doubt official history books will say outright that women are responsible for fall of civilizations.
Read this paper. It's 26 pages and outlines the history of various empires. You can skip ahead and look at what happens with mass immigration, women taking power in society, etc. What we're seeing today is the end of the west, just as it's happened many times throughout history to many empires.
I wish I could find this via google right now, but there's ancient writings from greece or rome, possibly even a play, speculating and ridiculing what would happen if women were allowed to run civilization.
It's exactly what you'd expect - single mothers on welfare, nanny-state shit, foreign men welcomed in with open arms.
Even the idea that this 'instinct' and 'not reason' is false. Any man who has figured out roughly what motivates women can figure out what a woman-run government will look like, and any man who has figured out what keeps a society functioning on an inter-generational time scale can figure out that a woman-run government is a road to slow death.
The play is "The Assembly women" by Aristophanes.
Instinct and gut feeling is just subconscious data processing and analysis. That feeling of unease didn't come from nowhere, it came from your brain processing all available data and sending you a survival impulse.
It's my natural instinct to be prejudiced against useless, weak, resentful, failures that depend on racialism to excuse their own failures in life. Especially if you're stupid enough to talk shit about my friends because your ideology of victimhood and resentment.
But I suppose your right. Let's rely on my own prejudices about people like you. You and your kind belong on the helicopter with the rest of the divisive, anti-American, scum.
We get it already.
I get it already.
It's natural to look out for your family and care for their well being. When villages and cities were populated only by a single people group that includes them as an extended family in what Aristotle called philia.
To say that one should not care for their extended family the same as they would for their close relatives is foolish at best and hateful at worst.
Our current society is one with low levels of racial solidarity and extremely high levels of propping up the weak. In a society with significant solidarity people would know when they are being a detriment to those around them. Which happens in many cultures with extreme environments like arctic or desert where they cannot tolerate somebody taking up resources and not contributing to their people.
Cities were never populated in that way. That's simply the nature of cities. The density grantees division. No one """"family"""" can populate a city of 10,000. Families that large are simply clans, not families, and not races, and they stop functioning as genuine families, and function more along the lines of a clan higherarchy with dynastic struggles within them.
To this day, Arab families still have these same issues. Everyone exists within some larger extended dynastic family order with family members and arranged marriages being created to serve the purpose of the sole patriarch. Failure to serve the family by virtue of doing the bidding of patriarch can mean death.
Broadening the family to include not only clan, not only the ethnic group, but the race, is absurd.
The stupidity of racial identitarians in black communities calling people brother, sister, or cousin is utterly nonsensical. Especially when a black American is raging about how much he hates black Africans.
A race is not a family, not even remotely. It's a broader abstraction than even an ethnic group or a clan. Within that, a race of people should never be governed like a family because it means that an entire race of people is subjugated like a clan structure. Dynastic totalitarianism for a race is not only fucking crazy, but utterly ludicrous to even consider implementing.
What ends up actually happening is a bunch of Progressive Racialists demanding totalitarian control and claiming that these racial identities are effectively "political identities", so that they can be broad enough to adopt anyone stupid enough to believe in them. This is why the Europeans were calling Italians "politically black", and why Democrats were already considering Hispanic to be a political affiliation.
Good. We're not brothers. I have a real family.
Yes, that's the point.
Agreed. Pinkos & racialists to the helicopters.
Not even sure what you're trying to aim at here. It doesn't look like it relates to anything I said.
Not a fan. It's also why I'm not a fan of Palestine either. That whole region is a giant shithole of tribalism and sectarianism. That being said, Arabs living in Israel seem to be genuinely better off living in a Jewish racial-state rather than an Arab Psuedo-Socialist one. That being said, it's not like the Arab states are any less racist than Israel. "The Jews must somehow be to blame" is basically a fucking competitive sport. The Arab Nations took over a UN "anti-racism" conference and spent the entire time ranting about Jews.
To me, that tells me just how completely retarded Socialism really is.
That all being said, your point is still correct. Any Zionist crying about how he has to discriminate against others to protect his race is just as much of a failure as any other racist trash. Frankly, they should ban the right-of-return. Honestly, it keep most of the SJW Jews out of Israel anyway since many of them seem to occupy Europe and America.
Comment Removed - Rule 2
You can remove it, but you can't make it false.
Telling degenerates they could still be valid and valuable human beings was the well-intentioned first step on the road to hell we're currently barreling down at break-neck speeds.
There's a big difference between "they could still be valid and valuable human beings" and attacking them with a gorilla.
There's no telling how tolerant the hypothetical gorilla might be.