They can’t get out of they own low testosterone, pseudo iq way and it’s hilarious. The dems have painted themselves in a corner with psuedohistorical grievance studies and rabid frothing female and fag constituents, yet wonder why any sane male that wants a normal life despises them. They can’t “message” their way out of dying out, they gave lunatics reign of the asylum and pray mass immigration will keep them afloat at this point.
"Do you think the problem is that Dems are bad at it or that society is bad at it? Young men writ large are getting brainwashed to lose their common sense and critical thinking, this feels like much more than an election issue"
Get a load of this retard.
The people who insist men can get pregnant are telling us we're being brainwashed LOL
But not a single person has tried to argue Dems are good at messaging to young men. In fact, lots of people have argued young men aren't even WORTH messaging to, which idk, seems like a bad way to win elections!
As retarded as this guy is, he does still have his eye on the prize and hasn't forgotten that you need fucking votes, period.
Also, while not used very nicely, "lizard brain" is a real term used and its something we all have. Its just another way to describe the Id, or really just the "pure instinct" side of our reasoning.
So the part where he says that is absolutely correct. Trump is appealing to the part of men that wants to be a fucking man and it resonates comfortably, while the Dems are appealing to some "ideal man" (aka a spineless beta bitch) idea that is offputting and nobody seems to want.
Dem's were the most successful when they appealed to our instinctual affinity for underdogs and the downtrodden. But if we look at something like Maslow's hierarchy, we can't manage to find contentment or worry about higher order thoughts when our basic needs aren't being met. As in, not being able to afford our food or shelter will always win over helping someone else, which is how they are losing whites, men, and a bunch of other formerly "guaranteed" voters.
Socialism, and all their versions of it, require the population to already be rich and prosperous to be able and willing to "share" with one another and not be envious and angry about it. Something that might have been true years ago, but really doesn't feel so right now.
Yeah, this is similar to Nietzsche's critique of Christianity that promotes a slave morality which invites the parasitism of Leftism to infest it.
You're fundamentally right, Socialism requires prosperity to start because it is, really, a bourgeois luxury belief system of the upper-class, striving to become the new elite.
However, Socialism doesn't die when the society becomes poorer, because it embeds itself with dependency and tribalism; so poverty no longer because a revolutionary force against a socialist state.
I understand that argument, but I don't fully agree with it. The expansion of military debt certainly hurt the USSR, but it wouldn't cause a collapse. If that were true, the "Bomber Gap" issue in the 1950's should have destroyed them because they could never have competed with the US's insane 24/7 nuclear bomber patrol.
The real problem is that the food situation in the USSR was becoming totally unsustainable. If Gorbechev didn't liberalize agriculture from what it was, there'd be a famine and he didn't want what happened to China. He believed that he could manage liberalization in the Soviet Union to a degree that would keep it alive. Unfortunately, he couldn't. Nationalist movements in Ukraine, Poland, East Germany, Checkslovakia, and Estonia seized the opportunity to basically publicly expose the corruption and incompetence of their local Communist parties, followed by the stupidity of the communist party generally.
After Poland's move to break-away and the revolution in Romania, the thing that fully undermined the confidence in the Soviet Union was the discovery of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by the Estonians. One of their nationalist leaders was in the US and discovered it's existence in a museum. They'd never actually heard that the USSR and NSDAP were allies, and were always told that the Soviet Union pushed into Estonia to save it from a Nazi invasion. He certainly never knew that this was simply common knowledge in the west, and that the entire justification of Estonia's membership in the USSR was a lie to support the Nazis.
The Estonians absolutely lost their shit. And the next Comintern, they made an issue out of it, and basically lambasted the Communist party, wanted to argue that they should leave the union, and stop using the Ruble. At that point, there was very clearly blood in the water and the Communists, really for the first time since the Nazis, started really panicking.
The USSR was never going to be defeated by economics alone, see North Korea. In fact, it's hard to argue the USSR ever recovered from WW1. But the combination of pressures from strong nationalist movements, potential famines from mismanagement, and political illegitimacy is what really did the whole project in.
I don't think you are really disagreeing with me, though yours is a more nuanced take.
With a more functional economy,.or even more financial reserves, the USSR could have bought food.
Once the citizens can noonger afford bread, revolution is as inevitable as gravity. Without money, during a famine feeding and paying the army to suppress the revolution becomes next to impossible.
North Korea is something of a special case, but mostly because they are spending all the food and money they do have on keeping the army functional. The North Korean population is unlikely to balkanize.
The revolutions of the "Arab Spring" have all been fairly directly linked to the price of food as an igniting factor, however with the USSR, there were a large number of factions that had been quietly bidong their time and waiting for the right moment to throw off the shackles.
I am sure without the economic situation of the 80s, the USSR still would have fractured, it just happened much faster thanks to deft acceleration by Ron.
Wealthy societies become decadent, one symptom of decadence is rank stupidity. Look how thick the average person is today and the kind of slop the average person believes or falls for on the daily basis.
Also, while not used very nicely, "lizard brain" is a real term used and its something we all have. Its just another way to describe the Id, or really just the "pure instinct" side of our reasoning.
God forbid men actually use their instincts for something and not think thinks over 20 thousand times like some women do in their hivemind and then come to the conclusion that Chad might not be the correct partner and a partnership with 40 cats might be more to their liking.
The commenter was trying to reduce men to pure Id or lizard brain in this case, it’s clear it’s unfathomable as to how someone could disagree with his life view. If we were to talk about the portions of the population that do only seek indulgences well….
reduce men to pure Id or lizard brain in this case
If more people thought in these terms, society and all of their politics would be infinitely more successful. Our subconscious desires and instinctual drives are massively under valued in how much they effect behavior and thought.
Men should be reduced to that, everyone should, but its the most raw and honest reflection of what we want and desire without all the bullshit of us pretending to be something else.
Retarded Leftists fail to land because they believe in Tabula Rasa (most of the time, except when it isn't convenient) and thereby believe we don't have any deep seated instincts. Which is why they say things like "teach men to not rape" as if its learned behavior.
We take for granted that young people will ALWAYS be left, but if the young male vote ends up even close to what some polling is saying, it will be years of electoral disaster for Democrats. These voters are reachable
I've been trying to say this for years. People don't get more left-wing with age, they get more right-wing and conservative.
A few years ago, political and ideological affiliation were being studied, and something huge showed up in the data. Normally, each generation is significantly more left-wing than the previous, and only because as leftist as the previous generation at it's peak. I made up the numbers because I've forgotten them at this point, but it's something like this:
10% of the Silent Generation was Leftist at 18, 0% Leftist at 75
20% of the Greatest Generation was Leftist at 18, 10% at 75
30% of the Baby Boomers were Leftist at 18, 20% at 75
40% of Gen X were Leftist at 18, will likely be 30% at 75
50% of Millennials were Leftist at 18
But then a major shift occurred and it looked like:
45% of Gen Z were leftist at 18
People mistakenly thought Gen Z and Gen Alpha are conservative. They're not, they are just the first generation to clearly reverse this trend of leftist youths in almost 100 years.
And no, those voters are actually unreachable for the Left. As you've seen from former communist states, Reagan voters, and Thatcher voters, they don't actually ever go back because the magic wore off. The Left is actually playing hard defense. Even in our current polling, the Democrats basically lost the majority of the white vote in the 70's, and it never came back. It still hasn't. The only hold outs are the people who are legacy voters. People who vote Democrat because they've always voted Democrat and so did their parents.
Trump winning over young people, without even privatizing the public school system, is probably the greatest electoral accomplishment of our lifetime, because it's setting the stage for an anti-Leftist century going forwards.
the other is not ceding all cultural masculinity to the GOP. Sports aren't inherently conservative.
Because your party's intelligentsia already declared masculinity to be fascist.
Agreed. I think we are on the verge of a "cascade collapse" of Neo-Liberalism. As with Communism and Napoleonic Jacobinism before it; when it goes, it will go all at once.
By all means, keep ignoring young men. Meanwhile, I'll continue to drop food for thought into the conversations I have like "do you really need to go to college?" and "how bad would camps be, if you really think about it?"
Well when you selfishly spend all your time destroying the social contract and pull up every post and plank of Chesterton's fence, a man can't help but not feel castrated by alignment with the left especially as a white male - men always eventually see the plain truth of things and recognize it as unsustainable and humiliating, depending on whether they're a pussy or not they'll say something or lie to themselves. Ironically, to say that this is the act of the "lizard brain" is correct since the gordian knots of marxian sophistry they weave cannot subvert the intuitions; pro-social hysteria cannot override the intuition of a male with a working pair of testicles for long, which makes career leftists overly-feminized or strategically inspired by capital and quite evil.
Retarded leftists believe everything is a "messaging" issue because they are incapable of comprehending the idea that they are just stupid and wrong.
This is just more "conservatives pounce". The problem is never the problem, the problem is always conservatives pointing out the problem. If those big stupid dumb-dumb men were just shut up by the government and Twitter or whatever, then the problem wouldn't be able to be talked about and therefore wouldn't exist.
Doomers, if the Democrats were confident that they could pull off another steal, then they wouldn't be panicking about losing the male vote. Get out and vote for Trump.
Raise white males with constant anti white male messaging and sentiment you get a generation that hates you.
For 15 years becoming a man in an educational system that sees manliness as toxic will produce a generation of men that see thru the bullshit. Operating from a presumption that if you don't lecture boys hard enough they will be racist rapists
so when ads try to reach young men, they come off deeply inauthentic.
That's because they are inauthentic you brainwashed faggot. Literally the easiest problem to solve out of all of them. Just stop talking like fags and having your shit be all retarded.
We take for granted that young people will ALWAYS be left
"We have controlled the schools for so long without any challenge that we actually lost our core competency while holding the biggest homecourt advantage in all of human history."
Like I said, brainwashed faggots, they forgot to leave some of them with a clue so shit like this didn't happen. They all drank the Kool-Aid.
we need to have a discussion about how condescending we are coming off to a huge part of the electorate.
Again, you are condescending, because you are PIECES OF SHIT. Stop being PIECES OF SHIT.
It is a messaging issue, though! The fact they're constantly messaging that men are evil incarnate, unchangeable demons redeemable only through subjugation and extermination, doesn't quite mesh with the voterbase desire of male audiences.
There isn't a policy. If there was, they wouldn't change it to attract young men. The policy is all messaging, too. And they already made those tradeoff calls.
“Why are they leaving us!?”
“They’re idiots.”
Seriously? You baby women and cheer men chopping their dicks off but you still call men dumb while trying to figure out how to get their vote?
They can’t get out of they own low testosterone, pseudo iq way and it’s hilarious. The dems have painted themselves in a corner with psuedohistorical grievance studies and rabid frothing female and fag constituents, yet wonder why any sane male that wants a normal life despises them. They can’t “message” their way out of dying out, they gave lunatics reign of the asylum and pray mass immigration will keep them afloat at this point.
They're fighting against normalcy and sanity everywhere it appears. Their success at it could only last so long.
I fear the massive invasion is the democrats playing the long game.
Get a load of this retard.
The people who insist men can get pregnant are telling us we're being brainwashed LOL
Always projection coming from these cultists
Someone should ask him what a man is.
A miserable little pile of secrets. But enough talk, have at you!
OW!
Put that down!
No, it cannot be, aaaaaaaa....
"Am I out of touch? No, it's the voters who are wrong."
-Democrats
As retarded as this guy is, he does still have his eye on the prize and hasn't forgotten that you need fucking votes, period.
Also, while not used very nicely, "lizard brain" is a real term used and its something we all have. Its just another way to describe the Id, or really just the "pure instinct" side of our reasoning.
So the part where he says that is absolutely correct. Trump is appealing to the part of men that wants to be a fucking man and it resonates comfortably, while the Dems are appealing to some "ideal man" (aka a spineless beta bitch) idea that is offputting and nobody seems to want.
They are appealing to The New Socialist Man.
Dem's were the most successful when they appealed to our instinctual affinity for underdogs and the downtrodden. But if we look at something like Maslow's hierarchy, we can't manage to find contentment or worry about higher order thoughts when our basic needs aren't being met. As in, not being able to afford our food or shelter will always win over helping someone else, which is how they are losing whites, men, and a bunch of other formerly "guaranteed" voters.
Socialism, and all their versions of it, require the population to already be rich and prosperous to be able and willing to "share" with one another and not be envious and angry about it. Something that might have been true years ago, but really doesn't feel so right now.
Socialism always runs out of other people's money.
Yeah, this is similar to Nietzsche's critique of Christianity that promotes a slave morality which invites the parasitism of Leftism to infest it.
You're fundamentally right, Socialism requires prosperity to start because it is, really, a bourgeois luxury belief system of the upper-class, striving to become the new elite.
However, Socialism doesn't die when the society becomes poorer, because it embeds itself with dependency and tribalism; so poverty no longer because a revolutionary force against a socialist state.
That just means that Socialisms limps along until there is no longer enough food or money to pay the military and secret police.
Ronald Reagan was insightful enough to cause acceleration of military spending of the USSR, which hastened their inevitable economic collapse.
Socialism turns a successful country into a third world tin-pot dictatorship run by warlords. Some of these are very stable.
I understand that argument, but I don't fully agree with it. The expansion of military debt certainly hurt the USSR, but it wouldn't cause a collapse. If that were true, the "Bomber Gap" issue in the 1950's should have destroyed them because they could never have competed with the US's insane 24/7 nuclear bomber patrol.
The real problem is that the food situation in the USSR was becoming totally unsustainable. If Gorbechev didn't liberalize agriculture from what it was, there'd be a famine and he didn't want what happened to China. He believed that he could manage liberalization in the Soviet Union to a degree that would keep it alive. Unfortunately, he couldn't. Nationalist movements in Ukraine, Poland, East Germany, Checkslovakia, and Estonia seized the opportunity to basically publicly expose the corruption and incompetence of their local Communist parties, followed by the stupidity of the communist party generally.
After Poland's move to break-away and the revolution in Romania, the thing that fully undermined the confidence in the Soviet Union was the discovery of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact by the Estonians. One of their nationalist leaders was in the US and discovered it's existence in a museum. They'd never actually heard that the USSR and NSDAP were allies, and were always told that the Soviet Union pushed into Estonia to save it from a Nazi invasion. He certainly never knew that this was simply common knowledge in the west, and that the entire justification of Estonia's membership in the USSR was a lie to support the Nazis.
The Estonians absolutely lost their shit. And the next Comintern, they made an issue out of it, and basically lambasted the Communist party, wanted to argue that they should leave the union, and stop using the Ruble. At that point, there was very clearly blood in the water and the Communists, really for the first time since the Nazis, started really panicking.
The USSR was never going to be defeated by economics alone, see North Korea. In fact, it's hard to argue the USSR ever recovered from WW1. But the combination of pressures from strong nationalist movements, potential famines from mismanagement, and political illegitimacy is what really did the whole project in.
I don't think you are really disagreeing with me, though yours is a more nuanced take.
With a more functional economy,.or even more financial reserves, the USSR could have bought food.
Once the citizens can noonger afford bread, revolution is as inevitable as gravity. Without money, during a famine feeding and paying the army to suppress the revolution becomes next to impossible.
North Korea is something of a special case, but mostly because they are spending all the food and money they do have on keeping the army functional. The North Korean population is unlikely to balkanize.
The revolutions of the "Arab Spring" have all been fairly directly linked to the price of food as an igniting factor, however with the USSR, there were a large number of factions that had been quietly bidong their time and waiting for the right moment to throw off the shackles.
I am sure without the economic situation of the 80s, the USSR still would have fractured, it just happened much faster thanks to deft acceleration by Ron.
Wealthy societies become decadent, one symptom of decadence is rank stupidity. Look how thick the average person is today and the kind of slop the average person believes or falls for on the daily basis.
I haven't forgotten that a lot of them would rather that was optional and are willing to break the law to make it happen.
God forbid men actually use their instincts for something and not think thinks over 20 thousand times like some women do in their hivemind and then come to the conclusion that Chad might not be the correct partner and a partnership with 40 cats might be more to their liking.
The commenter was trying to reduce men to pure Id or lizard brain in this case, it’s clear it’s unfathomable as to how someone could disagree with his life view. If we were to talk about the portions of the population that do only seek indulgences well….
If more people thought in these terms, society and all of their politics would be infinitely more successful. Our subconscious desires and instinctual drives are massively under valued in how much they effect behavior and thought.
Men should be reduced to that, everyone should, but its the most raw and honest reflection of what we want and desire without all the bullshit of us pretending to be something else.
Retarded Leftists fail to land because they believe in Tabula Rasa (most of the time, except when it isn't convenient) and thereby believe we don't have any deep seated instincts. Which is why they say things like "teach men to not rape" as if its learned behavior.
The party of bitchy women and perverts can't figure out why straight men don't like them.
To be a liberal is to be devoid of self awareness.
To be liberal is to detach yourself from your own body, experiences and reality and live in a realm of pure theory.
I've been trying to say this for years. People don't get more left-wing with age, they get more right-wing and conservative.
A few years ago, political and ideological affiliation were being studied, and something huge showed up in the data. Normally, each generation is significantly more left-wing than the previous, and only because as leftist as the previous generation at it's peak. I made up the numbers because I've forgotten them at this point, but it's something like this:
But then a major shift occurred and it looked like:
People mistakenly thought Gen Z and Gen Alpha are conservative. They're not, they are just the first generation to clearly reverse this trend of leftist youths in almost 100 years.
And no, those voters are actually unreachable for the Left. As you've seen from former communist states, Reagan voters, and Thatcher voters, they don't actually ever go back because the magic wore off. The Left is actually playing hard defense. Even in our current polling, the Democrats basically lost the majority of the white vote in the 70's, and it never came back. It still hasn't. The only hold outs are the people who are legacy voters. People who vote Democrat because they've always voted Democrat and so did their parents.
Trump winning over young people, without even privatizing the public school system, is probably the greatest electoral accomplishment of our lifetime, because it's setting the stage for an anti-Leftist century going forwards.
Because your party's intelligentsia already declared masculinity to be fascist.
Excellent analysis. I would add that as things deteriorate further, both young and old will turn against leftism. Like Venezuela.
Agreed. I think we are on the verge of a "cascade collapse" of Neo-Liberalism. As with Communism and Napoleonic Jacobinism before it; when it goes, it will go all at once.
There are only so many retards who will buy a shit sandwich and the condiments you put on it doesn't affect that number in any meaningful way.
By all means, keep ignoring young men. Meanwhile, I'll continue to drop food for thought into the conversations I have like "do you really need to go to college?" and "how bad would camps be, if you really think about it?"
Name checks out.
They think White men are the TV trope that’s been trotted out the last 30 years.
They have no idea what’s in store for them when young White men have had enough.
Well when you selfishly spend all your time destroying the social contract and pull up every post and plank of Chesterton's fence, a man can't help but not feel castrated by alignment with the left especially as a white male - men always eventually see the plain truth of things and recognize it as unsustainable and humiliating, depending on whether they're a pussy or not they'll say something or lie to themselves. Ironically, to say that this is the act of the "lizard brain" is correct since the gordian knots of marxian sophistry they weave cannot subvert the intuitions; pro-social hysteria cannot override the intuition of a male with a working pair of testicles for long, which makes career leftists overly-feminized or strategically inspired by capital and quite evil.
The only reason men would even entertain the opinions of women is because of said lizard brain.
Retarded leftists believe everything is a "messaging" issue because they are incapable of comprehending the idea that they are just stupid and wrong.
This is just more "conservatives pounce". The problem is never the problem, the problem is always conservatives pointing out the problem. If those big stupid dumb-dumb men were just shut up by the government and Twitter or whatever, then the problem wouldn't be able to be talked about and therefore wouldn't exist.
Doomers, if the Democrats were confident that they could pull off another steal, then they wouldn't be panicking about losing the male vote. Get out and vote for Trump.
Raise white males with constant anti white male messaging and sentiment you get a generation that hates you.
For 15 years becoming a man in an educational system that sees manliness as toxic will produce a generation of men that see thru the bullshit. Operating from a presumption that if you don't lecture boys hard enough they will be racist rapists
This is what you get when you let yourself be ruled by Satanists and give women the vote.
Also, is there a way to make that page white on black instead of all black? I fucking hate black screens like that. Can't stand looking at it.
There's a gear icon at the top of the page for you to change appearance settings/preferences.
Thanks
That's because they are inauthentic you brainwashed faggot. Literally the easiest problem to solve out of all of them. Just stop talking like fags and having your shit be all retarded.
"We have controlled the schools for so long without any challenge that we actually lost our core competency while holding the biggest homecourt advantage in all of human history."
Like I said, brainwashed faggots, they forgot to leave some of them with a clue so shit like this didn't happen. They all drank the Kool-Aid.
Again, you are condescending, because you are PIECES OF SHIT. Stop being PIECES OF SHIT.
Step 1: Demonize and offer men nothing.
Step 2: Demonize them some more for not voting for your party.
It is a messaging issue, though! The fact they're constantly messaging that men are evil incarnate, unchangeable demons redeemable only through subjugation and extermination, doesn't quite mesh with the voterbase desire of male audiences.
There isn't a policy. If there was, they wouldn't change it to attract young men. The policy is all messaging, too. And they already made those tradeoff calls.