What the hell is Blue Anon, from the context I guess lefty Qanon? Did someone on the left really feel the need to make a Qanon equivalent? Unless it was a troll that did it to mess with the more conspiracy-ish leftists. And that concept sounds exactly like what some /pol/ack with too much time on his hands would do.
Unless I'm wrong and it's something else, in which case please correct me.
Did not know this, thank you
Voat is dead, too. The owner ran out of money to support the hosting server and pulled the plug.
*Ex-President, sorry.
I can see this going 2 ways- it is censorship free and gets smeared as a hub of racism/sexism/etc, or it self censors to try and "own" the left in the modern "conservative" fashion by showing how tolerant they are.
This proves that men are better at literally everything, including being women. Lmfao
Oh, I didn't think of that. But yes when factoring in abortions, that comparison is probably accurate.
Some Italians showed up to defend Columbus statues during the riots, so I wouldn't count them out entirely. But yes about the Irish.
Woman’s suffrages have killed more humans than communism.
I agree with the general stance that feminism is bad for society, but is this actually true?
Why can't they start over with an actual Englishman for a change? There hasn't been a true English king since 1066.
After 1066 it was a "French" dynasty (that was actually Scandinavian in origin), then Germans, and now a different lineage of Germans. Might have been a few Spaniards or Scotsmen in there too but I can't remember when.
Surely they can track down some obscure duke or lord that is technically descended from the Godwinson line, or descended from King Alfred or Canute or something.
Is the Stewart bloodline still viable? As in, are there any living individuals directly descended from that family, and if so, are they in sufficient physical/mental condition to be royalty and sire heirs?
Why do you think Narnia is bad? Not looking for a fight, genuinely curious.
Read the series when I was 12-13ish and reread them last year, it seems decent for children's fantasy.
Ok, how about these alternatives
-Jeep Conquistador
-Jeep Scalper
-Jeep Jackson
-Jeep Redskin
-Jeep Pilgrim
-Jeep Casino
-Jeep Conquest
-Jeep Manifest Destiny
New brand motto: "Make the trails cry"
wahhh everything I don't like is Q
Q wasn't even mentioned, retard
I think it is some of both.
The natural anonymity of the Internet has lead to the organic growth of a lot of things that would otherwise not exist. In the past, if you had a weird idea, you kept it to yourself, now you go online, find others with the weird idea, and devolve into an echo chamber of reaffirmation. So in that sense it is partly organic.
"literally a simulation" would be an exaggeration, but algorithmically sorted content specifically to drive narrative does exist and was artificially created, either by tech or by government.
Yes, elements of the government, esp. in the CIA, have admitted that social engineering was heavily researched and experimented with beginning in the 1950s and 1960s. My take is that its about 65/35 between a large amount of the trend described in the first paragraph, and actual attempts at social engineering.
Constitutional monarchist. Because power structures will form naturally.
I will use guns as an example- if we ban all or most guns, that doesn't mean guns go away. It just means that the only people with guns will be those that don't care about the law.
If we eliminate most or all government, the power structure doesn't go away. it will simply be filled by someone who cares more about power than about liberty.
Elections are bad 1) because the average person is easily manipulated and uneducated in politics or history, and 2) having frequent changes in administration makes it much harder to carry out long-term projects or programs.
Having the leadership be bound to a specific set of rules to prevent them from being tyrants is simple logic, hence "constitutional" monarchy
Having a monarchy makes sense, as basically the entire royal family would be trained from birth to rule, with a clear and public line of succession. So, if whoever was the designated monarch was physically/mentally unfit to rule, they could be replaced by another qualified monarch without any messy civil wars or power struggles
it would also have the added benefit of the monarch being surrounded by educated and trustworthy advisors.
And the real reason for a lifetime leadership appointment is that, without a constant need to worry about re-election, it becomes possible for leaders to do what is best for the long-term interests of the nation, even if that is not the most popular option, and completely removes the lobbying and corporate interests that have so thoroughly fucked the modern system
And they would be bound by the Constitution to not be repressive dickwads, while simultaneously being actually educated and able to implement intelligent policies.
I know OP is speaking specifically from his experience on 4chan, but I have seen similar instances on Reddit and other large sites. In addition it is already known that the three-letter agencies have a significant online influence and collude directly with the tech companies. So I am led to think this is a reasonable "how" explanation for at least some of what they are doing, but am open to other possibilities.
I know his phrasing may be slightly schizio tier, please focus on the actual content.
With regard to
other things that have been noted but not tied to anything
Things that were very obvious deviations from the norm, like all the procedural and logistical disrepances surrounding the supposed inauguration for Biden, plus all the things he listed about the military stuff in DC that is still going on. At the time, they were taken as evidence for Trump's comeback (that never materialized). So many have written that stuff off as bullshit.
What strikes me as odd though is that, although their claimed conclusion did not come about, the events and disrepancies themselves definitely happened and most have not been refuted.
So what if it was actually legit, but not as proof of Trump's victory but as proof of something else?
Edited to add:
If anyone wants to see some examples of the actual discrepancies, this comment is a nice compilation
https://conspiracies.win/p/11SJoavtUS/x/c/4Dvm6t6m5ly
Not sure about the validity of the "movie set/film studio" claims, but all the stuff surrounding the military, symbolic, and logistical abnormalities listed both there and in the original screencap in this post, I would fully consider legit evidence of something unusual.
Nearly all early feminists were Jews, if it makes any difference to you. Hell, a hugely disproportionate percent of modern prominent feminists are Jews.
It's not Zionist supremacy all the way down obviously- if you think the Zionist faction of elites have total world domination, you are missing a lot of events and facts to the contrary. But if you fail to see the Zionist faction's hugely disproprtionate influence, you are also missing events and facts to the contrary.
The real redpill is realizing that almost every past form of bigotry/exclusion had a logical justification.
Modern media intentionally doesn't explain why bigotry exists- it is strongly implied that it is irrational and the result of ignorance or isolation.
They must do this, because if they actually explained why bigotry existed, it would become very difficult to justify "anti-gatekeeping" movements. Women's emancipation, black civil rights, enabling illegal immigration, lgbt rights, you name it, it would become untenable from lack of justification.
The "anti-gatekeeping" movement in media and gaming is not the cause, but rather the logical endpoint.
Well this place was originally dedicated to ethics in gaming journalism, which is tangentially culture related. And I frequently see explicitly culture-war related posts and comments.
Maybe have a general thread here at a predetermined interval, once or twice a week, to gauge how well an organized collaborative effort would work, if it takes off we can try making a ruqqus or petitioning for another .win forum.
I for one am gathering physical books. Mainly on history and philosophy, but also on politics, psychology, medical science, and dictionaries. Even a decent amount of fiction novels too.
Main goal is to build a repository of information and media from before they started rewriting everything and changing definitions.
I doubt the crackdown will be as extreme as, say, Fahrenheit 451. But I do think there will be a point where non mainstream books will be out of print and it will be encouraged to voluntarily destroy/turn in copies to "fight misinformation" or "fight hate" or something along those lines.
If you mean what can we do on a wider scale to push back? Write your own counter-arguments to debunk/reveal their bullshit. Circulate them by starting a podcast, youtube channel, or getting a job at some newspaper. Write books, talk to people in real life, just circulate the info.
Wouldn't call him "the" Jewish shill, there are several that can be found in both parties. He is "a" Jewish shill.
And imo while the JQ has some validity to it, they are not the only elite faction trying to control things. We should not ignore or downplay the zionist faction, but I feel that many tend to develop tunnel vision that causes them to miss other elite factions where they exist.
Be careful how you talk about that, people tend to be sensitive to that sort of thing here.
I made a post arguing this point a day or two ago, giving a number of points arguing that the GOP, and Trump specifically, were controlled op. It was extremely controversial, most of my in-thread replies were downvoted without a substantive response, and of the four replies I actually got to the in-thread comments, two implied that I was a Jew shill for not being totally pro Trump.... completely illogical given that Trump is quite pro Israel and half his family is literally Jewish.
I love this site usually, and even when there is disagreement people are usually respectful, but some of the more neocon-ish types can be touchy when you question their worldview, even with evidence.
This is what really rubs me the wrong way about modern so-called "conservatives"- they make a big verbal stink about something, barely put up a fight, then when the left gets their way, they try to claim it was actually "conservative" all along.
This is a good example on the culture war front, but you see this in other areas, like how mainstream conservatives are trying to co-opt MLK and the Civil Rights movement, despite the fact that both were/are fundamentally left leaning, and how they stopped defending Confederate monuments so they can say that "Democrats were Confederates, thus they were the real racists".
Someone posted here yesterday or today about how CPAC is actively saying transgenderism is a "conservative issue", that is a good example as well. And how most of the GOP is now presenting themselves as "moderate" pro LGBT when 15 years ago neither party would touch the issue.
They need to stop trying to out-virtue-signal the Left- it accomplishes nothing except allowing leftists to continue shifting the Overton Window. If you allow leftists to set the paradigm, you will lose to Leftists since they will keep changing the paradigm against you.
I see, thanks for explaining