I doubt that this 90% figure means much of anything. So much of what was once regarded as, and objectively is, feminist is no longer regarded as such. The label 'feminist' has lost almost all of its content, and most of its content is accepted even by 'conservatives'. The label is dirtied but the referents remain sanitized, and so if they refer to the referents by another name, the voters will remain accepting of them.

Remember, for instance, that it was the South Korean Centre-Right, the People Power Party (the then Saenuri), that gave South Korea its first and only female President, the disastrous Park Geun-hye, whose only reason for being popular was being the daughter of former military ruler Park Chung-hee. Yet this is the party that most of these self-proclaimed anti- or non-feminist men vote for. What does it mean to be anti- or non-feminist when you support a political party that believes that a female president—and one with corrupt friends who she brought into the government and whose corruption later led to her political demise at that—is a good idea?

By contrast, the comparatively Leftist Democratic Party (Minjoo) has yet to field a female Presidential candidate. This reminds one of Britain, where the three female Prime Ministers, Thatcher, May, and Truss, were all Tories whilst Labour has yet to field a female Prime Ministerial candidate. Shifting briefly to race, the only non-white Prime Minister, Sunak, is also a Tory, whilst Labour has yet to field a non-white Prime Ministerial candidate. Thus one observes that the more Leftist and feminist of the two major British political parties is, paradoxically, more White- and male-dominated. The point is that mainstream parties commonly identified by the mass media as Right-Wing or Far-Right are rarely ever what they are drummed up to be. Contra the mass media, the lesbian Weidel is obviously not a new Hitler, for instance.

But South Korea is a particularly strange case, since men in their teens and 20s are Rightward of men in their 30s and 40s, albeit still Leftward of men who are aged 50+.

My suspicion is that the difference between the latter two groups is political-systemic. Men aged 50+ grew up in the Park and Chun military rule eras. Men in their 30s and 40s are only familiar with the post-democratization era (August 1987 onwards). Thus younger South Koreans, unlike older South Koreans, have nothing else to compare their political system to.

But the political-systemic explanation does not work for the former two groups, since both groups were brought up under the current political system. My suspicion is that it is the result of having of one of the world's greatest underfertility crises. If you're a young South Korean, there is a lot of uncertainty. You will probably, not merely possibly, die unmarried and/or childless. So it is indeed an 'incel' generation. It does not seem implausible to me that this could be a potential cause of 'Right-Wing extremism' for men, whereas it bothers women less, for instance, because women are statistically less bothered by such things as the loneliness that is part and parcel of a sufficiently atomized, individualized society.

Either way, I see elections such as the 2022 one, in which both the People Power and Democratic candidates claimed to oppose feminism, as meaningless. The Democratic candidate, Lee, clearly supports feminism, but without calling it such. For instance, he claims that women are still discriminated against and he calls for the further expansion of abortion rights.

My prediction is that the next election—which, because of Yoon's impeachment being finalized today, will now occur this year—will be won by Lee and the Democratic Party, and, once in office, they will go on to further feminism in all but name. Whoever the post-Yoon People Power Party candidate is, that candidate will clearly suffer a greater defeat than usual. Opinion polls of the Yoon presidency were only approving up to the one month mark of his presidency and then became entirely disapproving from that point onwards, and this candidate inherits that mess.

Now Yoon was impeached by the National Assembly, then Han was impeached by the National Assembly, the National Assembly tried but failed to impeach Choi, and then the Constitutional Court reversed Han's impeachment such that Choi was also removed and Han reinstated. In other words, the presidents went from first > second > third > second within a few months. This utterly farcical end of the Yoon presidency demonstrates even clearer than the numerous previous political crises (e.g. the corruption-related impeachment and later suicide of President Roh, and the corruption-related impeachment of Park Geun-hye) that Koreans are clearly incompatible with this liberal democratic political system.

As for my future predictions, it is clear that South Korea will continue moving along on a Leftward trajectory. One obvious reason is that the most Rightward voting bloc is the age 50+ voter bloc. Another obvious reason is that this anomalous age 18-30 male voting bloc is small because of the underfertility crisis. There are just not enough of them to shift the political culture Rightward. So South Korea will keep moving Leftward for at least thirty years. Then it is the turn of the more Leftward age 30-40 voters to start dying off. Thus that Leftward drift will slow down or slightly reverse by the 2060s and 2070s. But by that stage things will have degenerated exponentially: the number of unmixed ethnic Koreans won't even be half of what it currently is, and South Korea will suffer from numerous new problems, in particular, the masses of immigrants that the wretched Democratic Party in particular are already advocating for. It is quite conceivable that the soon-to-be Lee administration will be the one to conclusively open the borders. (Of course, there are already sizeable non-Korean communities in the country, such as the Nepalese.) Lee's position is that he supports immigration but not 'mass' immigration. This will pave the way, serve as a springboard, for future Democratic Party presidents to go one step further and embrace mass immigration.

In short, feminists and/or Leftists do not have much to worry about in South Korea. Things are going the way they want them to go: you disliked Yoon, but he did not last very long, and you will soon have a president that you will find tolerable, a sort of Korean analogue of Biden.

Fast forward far enough in time and ethnic Koreans will no longer exist. Racially, they will be mixed predominantly with Chinese and Indians, with some other groups such as Filipinos, Pakistanis, and even Africans of various kinds also in the woodpile. They will remain predominantly Asian for a very long time to come, however. Whether the Korean language survives in this future 'proposition nation' remains to be seen—it might survive merely to facilitate communication between all of these groups, just as English will probably survive in many countries for the same reason—it is less realistic to expect that everyone in the country embrace Hindi and/or Mandarin and/or the bastardized Spanish and Portuguese of Latin America than it is to expect that newcomers simply embrace English. But little else that is Korean will survive the coming centuries.

You can survive atomic bombs, and you can rebuild in their aftermath; but you cannot survive this contemporary Left-liberal ideology once it has become sufficiently entrenched. Thus it would have been better for Korea if a few atomic bombs were dropped on it and all else was left alone, than to embrace this political culture and these ideologies that inexorably lead whomever follows them to extinction. Even Kim Jong-un made an impassioned plea on television for his people to have more children: indeed, North Korea is arriving at the same destination, but merely by a different path. We in the West are often so preoccupied with our own myriad problems that we are unaware that there are others who have these problems the same or worse than we do.

I only have one point to contribute: Cicero mentions in his writings that they had too much power in the Rome of his own time. He was thus also an 'anti-semite' observing the same things that contemporary 'anti-semites' do, 2,000 years removed.

I wonder what he would have to say about their vastly increased authority, influence, power, wealth, etc. in today's world? Not long after Cicero's time, the Romans slaughtered many rebellious yids, during the reigns of Vespasian and his son, Titus. This is something which is practically inconceivable in today's world, in which the yid has become nigh-omnipotent and beyond even the mildest of public criticism—unless you're willing to sacrifice at the very least both your career and bank accounts—and is himself the one doing plenty of killing in Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria.

Enter Antarctica. We can send any number of robots to Antarctica, but we're incapable of forming permanent settlements there, let alone off-world.

Consider the food problem: there are plants growing inside at least one of the Chinese research stations. But that's enough for just the few dozen researchers stationed there, who are probably all involuntary vegans.

How are entire cities going to be fed? Constant food supplies would most likely be sent to Ushuaia and from there to the Antarctic Peninsula. That is the fastest route to get them to Antarctica, but we'd still need a way to get them over to West and East Antarctica, which are more distant from any other continent than the Antarctic Peninsula. There are all kinds of other problems, such as the fact that you'd be moving supplies over several different countries' territory. For example, Argentina and Chile dominate the Antarctic Peninsula. What would happen if they hypothetically decided not to co-operate? It's a logistical nightmare.

You also have all kinds of socially constructed roadblocks to Antarctic colonization. The widespread idea that Antarctica is purely for scientific research. For instance, military presences are essentially banned in Antarctica. So are hotels and other tourist attractions. There is a limit to how many tourists are allowed on shore at any one time. (For the record, I do not even disagree with those last two points: overtourism is a clear problem, including in Antarctica.) And so on.

Re-enter outer space. Let's revisit the first sentence of my last paragraph, but take it one step further. Musk laughably wants humans to colonize Mars when they can't even colonize Antarctica, let alone the moon. This is a man of wrong priorities.

Finally, sending a robot to Mars is nothing to compared to colonizing the moon. No problem concerning food, water, shelter, gravity, governance, and many other things emerges in the former scenario, whereas it is abundantly clear that these things present insurmountable problems for contemporary humans in the latter scenario. You probably thought that your comment was some kind of gotcha, ya' nonce.

For some years I've thought of that as a fait accompli.

Of course, post-2050 there will be a slow and then rapid decline in the global population. A big question, then, is just who will even be left to contemplate this question? Between low birth rates and mass race mixing, it is easy to envisage entire ethnicities soon disappearing from the Earth.

For instance, I expect Koreans to be effectively extinct within the next few centuries, and Japanese to be extinct at some later point. The remaining descendants of the Japanese and Koreans will be heavily mixed with other peoples, particularly with Chinese and Indians, but plenty of Africans and others will also be in the woodpile by that time.

China is the greatest non-European civilization—for instance, alongside Ancient northern India, China is the only non-European civilization to have philosophical achievements, such as Confucian ethics—and has the greatest chance of surviving in such a world, but I have strong doubts that they will be able to withstand 'diversification' coupled with their underfertility crisis.

All of North America I see as simply Africanized and Hispanicized. Asian immigration should be expected to slow down over the coming decades for a number of reasons (e.g. Asian governments curbing emigration more and more in their doomed attempts to curb their own population decline; Asians seeing an Africanized/Hispanicized North America as simply less appealing to live in than Asia; increased hostility between Western countries and China and its allies), and African immigration, in particular, should be expected to sharply increase.

Oceania will almost certainly become thoroughly Asianized, and it has been government policy for decades. In the 1980s, then Prime Minister Bob Hawke, for example, famously said that Asianization must not be allowed to become a political issue, viz. the process of becoming a Asian country should not be open to debate. Another senior minister said, in 1983, that Australia becoming 'an Eurasian country' was both 'desirable' and 'inevitable'. As for New Zealand, I have heard that it may now only be 56% European in the latest census, but I haven't seen the census data personally.

Europe is more complicated, but it will definitely become more African and Maghrebi. I do not think that it will become Arabized, Asianized, Hispanicized, etc. Numerous Arab countries and Hispanic countries are also already below or well below replacement level birth rates (e.g. Chile, UAE) or barely above replacement level (e.g. Turkey, Iran). And the Hispanics, as I said, will continue going to North America.

I also agree that if we look far enough in the future, all of these peoples, who will be so racially mixed as to have widespread cluelessness as to their ancestry, may even conclude during their rare moments of clarity and sobriety in between shooting up drugs and imbibing 'potions', that 'tha Wypipo' were simply a myth. How can we be descended from Wypipo? We look like our ancestors were crackheads, not crackers.

For why should they believe that Wypipo ever existed? They will never see one in person. Any surviving photos and videos they might dismiss as mere fakes created by AIs. Maybe a Yakub-like black scientist created the AIs so that they could help him conquer the world. Maybe he also created the myth of Wypipo to drive fear into these future people. As for stuff like old space rockets and whatever: If we can't build them and therefore probably could never build them and the Wypipo never existed to be able to have built them, they were probably built by aliens or mythical creatures like tokoloshes.

As for the moon landing, it is something already coming to seem miraculous and beyond belief. When humans first discover a new place, what is it that they tend to do? They come back in bigger numbers. They form lasting settlements on it. They stake claims on it and try to prevent others from taking it from them. Why then, hasn't this logic unfolded on the moon? Let's face it: getting to the moon, something presumably feasible last century, might not even be feasible in today's world. Do humans even still have what it takes to get there? Maybe NASA and other relevant institutions are already 'diversified' to the extent that they can't repeat something that they presumably managed over half a century ago.

Musk laughably wants humans to go to Mars when it is increasingly doubtful that they can even return to their own moon. Has it ever occurred to him that his rockets keep exploding for the same reasons that Man has never returned to the moon? Can a minority White country (especially if the 30,000,000 illegal immigrants claim is correct) with an average IQ below 100 achieve what a 95%+ White country with an average IQ above 100 did?

This iShowSpeed retard wouldn't even exist in a sane world.

Only an utter moron would do things such as screaming at babies in prams and setting off fireworks (at least twice) in his own room.

His scream in one of those videos is so comical that I used it as a death scream in a dub over video.

This unevolved, ape-brained baboon buffoon is competing with Johnny Somali to be the most stupid famous black of all time.

'I don't like Hitler, the Le Pen family, Musk, Putin, the Trump family, therefore all of them are each other: if Hitler was here today, he'd be a Trumputler supporter, if Trumputler lived in Nazi Germany, he'd support Hitler' is some of the most moronic Left-Wing 'reasoning' yet.

Vikvladelonaldolf Le Trumpenputorbanmuskler doesn't actually exist. He's a figment of hysterical, paranoid Left-Wing imaginations. How can liberal centrists—like Milei, Musk, and Trump—be Hitlers?

Even funnier is that the absurd notion that women like Giorgia Meloni and queer women like Alice Weidel are Hitlers. When Meloni and Alice 'my wife is Sri Lankan' Weidel would be nowhere near political power under the actual Nazis. Nevertheless, we're expected to believe that Mussomeloniolini and lesbian Fuhrer Aldolfice Weidtler are real rather than yet more figments of Left-Wing imaginations?

It seems that just about anyone can be Hitler and just about anything can be Nazi nowadays. You do not have to be a straight White male: you do not even have to be straight or White or male, to be the next Nazi Hitler. The standards for becoming a Nazi Hitler have drastically fallen.

And as for these morons, imagine thinking that shouting 'heil Donald Trump!', 'heil Elon Musk!', 'heil Marine Le Pen!', &c. is some kind of way to own the 'fascists'. If they were fascists and knew about this, they'd just laugh at this crude display of idiocy.

Before the 1980s-1990s, the divergence was actually in reverse, something which is visible here on the leftmost part of these graphs. Women were Rightward of men until a few decades ago in many Western countries.

By the 2000s, a convergence had been reached, and now we see a divergence in the current direction, viz., women moving Leftward faster than men.

South Korea is a particularly strange case, since men in their teens and 20s are Rightward of men in their 30s and 40s, albeit still Leftward of men who are aged 50+.

My suspicion is that the difference between the latter two groups is political-systemic. Men aged 50+ grew up in the Park and Chun military rule eras. Men in their 30s and 40s are only familiar with the post-democratization era (August 1987 onwards) and have nothing else to compare it to. But that is not the case for older South Koreans. The Park presidency remains popular in South Korea.

But the political-systemic explanation does not work for the former two groups, since both groups were brought up under the current political system. My suspicion there is that it is the birth rate crisis and the related realization that something is seriously wrong. If you're a young South Korean, there is a lot of uncertainty. You will probably die unmarried and/or childless. It does not seem implausible to me that this could be a potential cause of 'Right-Wing extremism' for men, whereas it bothers women less, for instance, because women are statistically less bothered by such things as the loneliness that is part and parcel of a sufficiently individualized society.

Yet, despite these statistics, South Korea actually has less of a political Far- to Extreme-Right than Japan. Japan has Japan First at its Rightmost, with Sanseito and the Conservative Party adjacent to them. South Korea only has a bunch of disorganized people who, far from being political outsiders, are usually supportive of the Park family.

Another oddity involved here is that the South Korean culture strikes me as noticeably more Right-Wing than Japan's. In short, Japan is politically more Right-Wing (e.g. has a more organized Far- to Extreme-Right, although the Japanese Centre-Right is Leftward of the South Korean Centre-Right), South Korea is culturally more Right-Wing (e.g. sees more value in history and spiritualism, whereas Japan is more modernistic and materialistic). South Korea is also more feminist and anti-feminist than Japan, with feminism being more of a polarizing wedge issue.

Remember, for instance, that it was the South Korean Centre-Right that gave South Korea its only female President, the disastrous Park Geun-hye, whose only reason for being popular was being the daughter of former military ruler Park Chung-hee. Japan, by contrast, has yet to have had a female Prime Minister, although women have came very close on numerous occasions (e.g. Renho from the Centre-Left and the Thatcher-inspired Sanae Takaichi from the Centre-Right).

These graphs are such a damning indictment of the US, Germany and the UK: they make South Korea's pitiful state look good. Furthermore, due to the Leftward cultural shift, many views which would lead people to self-identify as 'Lib' in past decades would now be leading people to self-identify as 'Con', making these graphs misleading. For instance, feminism is probably more 'con' than 'lib' in the 2020s, since 'lib' has moved on to supporting a transsexualism that is blatantly antithetical to many feminist beliefs, e.g. women-only spaces. 'Lib' is now for 'people who identify as women'-only spaces. Well, they wanted equality, only to receive much more than what they bargained for, and so I think the likes of 'Alana' McLaughlin beating up actual women in their own sports to be quite amusing and well-deserved.

In 2020, Greenblatt addressed a letter to the Egyptian government practically demanding that they disallow several 'antisemitic' books from being sold at the yearly Cairo Book Fair. Funnily, the number of available 'antisemitic' books had in fact increased between 2020 and 2023.

However, I suspect that the offending books were probably disallowed in 2024 and 2025, since the ADL and the Jewish media outlets that also complained at the time do not seem to have written anything on this topic since 2023. Alternatively, perhaps they simply did not send anyone to investigate the Cairo Book Fair in 2024 and 2025. (It appears to run from late January into early February each year.)

https://media.scored.co/post/LgOTRJZL8HxS.png

The above book was written by an Egyptian academic and has been described as a 'history of Zionism'. The four below books are Arabic translations of Mein Kampf.

Other books available at the 2023 Cairo Book Fair about which they were kvetching include:

• The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
• Henry Ford's The International Jew
• William Guy Carr's novel Pawns in the Game

As for whose embassies, I'd say he means America's.

So, yes, they are indeed tracking 'antisemitism'. There are, after all, websites with 'hate maps' dedicated to tracking such events.

Never in recorded history has there been a group so obsessed with what outsiders think of them.

Cameroon's Paul Biya has been in office since 1979; Uganda's Yoweri Museveni has been in office since 1986. Togo's Gnassingbe family (father, then son) have been in power since 1967.

Being in power since 1994 isn't that impressive. Belarus' Lukashenko also came to power in 1994. Azerbaijan's Aliyev family (father, then son) have been in power since 1993. Even with all the so-called democratization in the late 1980s and 1990s and the resultant End of History, viz. the conclusive triumph of liberal democracy over all other political systems, there are numerous countries where leaders have and will continue to hang on for a long time.

And there will be more to come. Egypt's el-Sisi hasn't been there that long, but he'll probably still be there for decades to come. Same with Chad's Mahamat Deby. Some of those recent coup leaders in West Africa—Doumbouya, Goita, Tchiani, Traore—could also conceivably be in power for decades to come, even though their countries all looked to be developing multi-party electoral systems in the 2010s.

There has been a lot of what liberal democrats call 'democratic backsliding' in the Africa of the 2010s and 2020s compared to the Africa of the 1990s and 2000s. Though this form of government doesn't look to me to be seriously threatened outside of Africa, I think that it's too soon to declare the End of History thesis either verified or falsified.

Covenant Press compiled 120 into a text titled The 120-Book Holy Bible and Apocrypha Collection.

This collection includes all 66 books of the Holy Bible, as well as Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1-4 Baruch, 1-4 Maccabees, Apocryphal Esther, Apocryphal Psalms, Apocryphal Daniel (including Azariah, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), 1-2 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (12 works), Jubilees, 1-3 Enoch, Book of Giants (from the DSS), Jasher, Life of Adam and Eve, Book of Creation, Testament of Abraham, Testament of Isaac, Testament of Jacob, Ladder of Jacob, Joseph and Asenath, Testament of Job, Testament of Moses, Testament of Solomon, Psalms of Solomon, Lives of the Prophets, Words of Gad the Seer, Ascension of Isaiah, Revelation of Abraham, Revelation of Elijah, Revelation of Zephaniah, Apocryphon of Ezekiel, Epistle of Aristeas, Didache, Revelation of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, 3 Corinthians, 1-2 Clement, Seven Epistles of Ignatius (seven works), Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, The Shepherd of Hermas, Odes of Peace, Apology of Aristides, and additional apocryphal fragments.

Additionally, given that the Ethiopian Bible contains texts that are not in this collection, the total number required to make a truly comprehensive compilation aiming to include absolutely everything without exception probably exceeds 130.

I should have mentioned in my first paragraph that the Ahmadiyya technically consider a second book, the Tadhkirah, to also contain the word of God. The Tadhkirah is believed by Ahmadis to contain revelations which were received by the group's founder (MGA), committed to paper by him at the time, and compiled and published 15 or so years after his death. However, because of the pervasive belief among non-Ahmadi Muslims that Muhammad was the last prophet, MGA claims prophethood in an unusual way, using Sufi arguments; namely, that his prophethood is merely a continuation of some prior prophethood. MGA seems to have claimed to be a 'reflection' or 'shadow', a metaphorical second coming, of prophet Jesus. (Ahmadis reject the Israeliyat idea accepted by most non-Ahmadi Muslims that Jesus will literally return, but someone will come who shares his qualities.) Thus Muhammad was still the last prophet, since MGA is a continuation of the earlier prophet Jesus, possessing not the soul of Jesus but his qualities, rather than a new prophet. This is similar to how the return of Jesus will not mean that Muhammad was not the last prophet, since Jesus was born earlier and therefore in a sense is not the last even if he spends time on Earth and then dies after Muhammad.

This is also why certain Ahmadi offshoot leaders also claim to be messengers and/or prophets, e.g. Ahmed Azim from Mauritius, and in the case of Abdul Janbah from Pakistan, to also be Jesus. They do this through claiming to be 'reflections' of MGA, and since MGA is also a 'reflection' of Jesus, Janbah also claims to be Jesus.

Given that Jesus claimed that John the Baptist was a sort of non-literal continuation of Elijah, similar or identical to the Sufi 'shadow' or 'reflection' concept, Jesus himself seemed to believe that such a thing was possible.

It is, however, the only text believed to be divinely dictated in Islam, viz. the direct word of God/Allah transmitted through Gabriel (Jibril) to Muhammad while he was in a trance-like state.

All other texts, such as the Muwatta and other hadith collections and the tafsirs (texts equivalent to Bible commentaries), are accepted as man-made.

One difference between Christianity and Islam is that the Quran's authenticity is much less debated. There are no debates as to whether certain chapters are pseudepigraphal and very little debate as to whether certain verses are insertions.

By contrast, Christians can't even decide whether the Bible is a compilation of 66 texts, 73 texts, &c. If we simply include everything, we'd have a compilation of at least 120 texts.

Wikipedia:

Ishii openly identifies as queer, bisexual, or pansexual with no preference between labels, and genderfluid. They have been vocal in their opposition to transphobia, and have raised funds for LGBTQ supporting charities such as The Trevor Project.

Her sister is also a Democrat politician.

Isn't AoV racially Arab or other non-yiddish Middle Easterner? If so... what a loathsome, vile traitor to his own people. No different to that 'Saudi German', that insane anti-Muslim Zionist who went on a killing spree.

An anti-Zionist libertarian and a Zionist Arab? This place is schizophrenic.

Let's speculate on the course content.

Lecture 1: Why Trump is literally Hitler:

• Both men have been selected as 'person of the year' by TIME Magazine.

• Both men are of German ancestry. Hitler and Trump represent a 'German authoritarianism' that is competing with an 'English liberalism' in America. Also, we totally aren't racist for connecting political ideologies to ethnic groups.

• 'Donald Trump' consists of 11 letters. 'Adolf Hitler' consists of 11 letters.

• Hitler died in 1945. Trump was born in 1946. This leaves enough time for the soul of Hitler to be re-ensouled into Trump. In short, Hitler's soul simply migrated into Trump's body.

These four arguments are sufficient proof that Trump is literally Hitler. Whoever disagrees that these arguments constitute sufficient proof is to be expelled from this college immediately.

Russia, Russia, Nazi, Hitler, Zelensky, Slava Ukraini, Agent Orange Cheeto Benito Vladonolf Trumputlerolini, Nazi Hitlers, Russia hacked the election in 2016, Trumpenfuhrer, Zelensky is Churchill, Vladolf Putler, Fourth Reich, bomb threats by Russia Nazi Putlers, 2020 was the most secure election in American history, Russia somehow hacked the election in 2024, it is no longer a most secure election, we must cancel the election and have another most secure election in American history.

Oh, and Russia Fourth Reich Nazi Putlers, more Zelensky, I have my mental illnesses and the medications that I take for them in my social media bios, I have Ukraine and pride flags in my username, I am abrosexual, alexigendered, disabled, neurodivergent, and trans, Love Is Love, Love Always Wins, Science Is Real, Russia Nazi Putlers Slava Ukraini!

I think I did it right.

This guy is highly aberrational (Leftist with four children), and it's quite likely that they'll be the end of his worthless bloodline, unless they repudiate his views. Hopefully they'll all turn trans. Good riddance.

You ask the impossible of him, fellow AIDS person.

Trying to put arbitrary bounds on liberalism, as he does, has always failed and will fail. Since he doesn't want to accept that liberalization is an unboundable process, his mind is simply forced to sanitize liberalism by positing that every conclusion that liberalism has reached with which he disagrees is simply the fault of 'subversion' by some other force, the 'Left'. Having persuaded himself of this, he can then live a life free from guilt for what it is doing today.

The 'Left' is simply the wastebasket into which classical liberals and libertarians dump their more modern, updated counterparts.

What they will never understand is that a clear line can be drawn from Locke through Marx to today. Positing that Locke, Paine, etc. belong to a different line altogether from Marx and his acolytes is remarkably disingenuous: Marx was all about expanding the Enlightenment and the ideals of the French and American Revolutions, that is, about expanding liberalism to include more than just landowning men. The last few centuries have simply witnessed its yet further expansion; having expanded now to encompass almost all that fits under the human umbrella, it is now expanding to the animal kingdom and beyond. Hence rivers with human rights, marriages between humans and trees, and so on.

Painting a line from Locke to Rawls, Rothbard, etc. without going through the 'socialists' is simply to paint a false view of history. Dewey and Popper are just two of those in the last century who seriously blur that faint line, the trivial differences, between the fraternal, deeply overlapping ideologies of liberalism and Marxism.

The obvious theological answer for the learned: Islam is far too egalitarian. The practical answer is that this strategy doesn't work. Discard these useless, Tommy Robinson-tier answers that rely on false 'Islamofascist' narratives. They want you to believe that Islam is totalitarian, 'Nazi-ish', and committed to destroying everything incompatible with itself.

First things first, there is no reason to adopt Abrahamic religion v3.0 when Abrahamic religion v2.0 has failed to stop, and possibly has a causal link to, today's problems. Glenn Beck flew Christians out of Afghanistan to America; a Muslim Glenn Beck would do the same thing but for Muslims instead. Indeed, v3.0 has many of the same problems as v2.0. If one considers Bahai'ism as a yet later version rather than as a false religion, Abrahamic religion becomes even worse still.

Oddly, Abrahamic religion v1.0, viz. what we now call 'Judaism', is actually the least egalitarian, for instance, since miscegenation between Israelites and non-Israelites is punishable by death. Stuff like this from the Jewish scriptures, viz. most of today's Bible, is ironically what White Nationalist 'Christians' cherish most about Christianity. But since they are repulsed by Jews, they rely on dubious narratives in which the descendants of the Israelites are today's Europeans. Now having conceptually eliminated today's Jews from Judaism and othered them as imposters who have hijacked Judaism, they call White Israelism the true Christianity. What they really want is to be the people with whom God made a covenant, so that they can then say that these laws against homosexuality, incest, miscegenation, &c. apply to them rather than to today's Jews or to some extinct peoples.

I suspect that there is a common mistake in thinking that because God told these laws to the Israelites, therefore that these laws are only for them. That if you aren't an Israelite, then none of them apply to you, perhaps that nothing that you do will ever be virtuous, and that you're condemned to Hell no matter what. I need to study this more, but I suspect that most of these laws apply to all peoples and that God merely reminded the Israelites of what all peoples should be doing, and that God favours whichever groups sufficiently please Him.

One might say, for instance, that He abandoned the Jews and embraced the Arabs somewhere in between the time of Jesus and Muhammad, but God also indicates in the Quran that He possibly has hostility to the Arabs. (However, other translations use terms such as 'Bedouins' and 'nomads', terms which do not rule out the possibility of the Arabs once having been God's Chosen.)

[Quran 9:97] The desert Arabs are more tenacious in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be ignorant of the ordinances which God has revealed to His Messenger. But God is All-knowing, Wise. (tr. Sayyid Qutb)

The sheer weakness of Israel in the face of the impoverished Hamas strikes me as a potential example of this playing out in the world in the here and now. By all indications, Israel should have destroyed Hamas a long time ago already. Why not? God may favour Hamas, perhaps not so much because they are virtuous, but merely as a means of punishing the Israelis, who are indubitably vicious.

Departing from theology, and as for the strategy part of it, don't you think that White Israelites would have done the same thing that you advocate but with non-white Christians already? They could hold up all of these Christian Nigerians as shields against accusations of racism, but they don't bother with it. So why opt for the vastly more difficult option of doing the same thing but with Islam?

Obviously, you think that it will allow Whites to deploy the twin shields of Islamophobia and racism against liberals and 'Leftists'. Surely these two weapons are stronger than one. But do you think, then, that some Bosnian immigrant can wield Islamophobia in that same manner? Doubtful. You have to be non-white to wield that weapon. They aren't so stupid as to believe that the Whites are X, Y, and Z but only on the condition that they aren't Muslim. If enough Whites became Muslim, the term 'Islamophobia' would disappear from public discourse and those non-white Muslims that you may hope will lead the way in remoralizing our societies would suddenly come under the same attacks that non-white Christians already do.

I suspect that I am better able to answer this question because a) I've actually studied Islam, though nowhere near to the level of any scholar, and b) My mind isn't warped by anti-Muslim narratives: indeed, I have discovered a compelling but as of yet unpublished reason to accept that the Quran is a true scripture of God, which puts me in a highly unusual position, viz. someone who accepts the Quran without identifying in the least bit with Islam and Muslims.

The reason why this is so is because I believe that all organized religions are false and that God's Religion no longer exists: man-made rubbish permeates all religions, and the task of discerning truths from falsehoods so that the latter can be eliminated is practically impossible. Indeed, one would need a time machine to even begin to figure out what Religion looked like before it became religions: jumbled messes of innovations and traditions that have effectively replaced the original content. We can see this in real time with how fast 'progressive Christianity' is developing: now consider the fact that these same developments have been going on to varying extents for thousands of years. It is clear that whomever claims that he has the 'true Hinduism' or 'true Judaism' or 'true Christianity' or 'true Islam' in fact does not have it: at best, his version has only eliminated some falsehoods. Likely, its attempts at purification have introduced new falsehoods. This is how I perceive, for instance, the Ahmadiyya in Islam. Their effort to eliminate falsehoods has led to the introduction of new falsehoods. We can't even trust that true scriptures remain unaltered, especially those written further back in time.

Horse license: How many horse accidents were there in the past? Who even owns a horse today? Are horses routinely crashing into each other? Clearly doesn't require regulation.

Boat license: How many horse accidents were there in the past? How many people own a boat today? Are boats routinely crashing into each other? Clearly doesn't require regulation.

Bike license: Same as above.

Ride-on mower license: Now you're going to ad absurdums. How many fatalities have they caused? You may as well have just said that the guvmint will one day force people to get a license to breathe. (You libertarians wouldn't support said license because muh guvmint, but many of you would support companies charging people to breathe if they could: thankfully, companies haven't worked out a way to charge us to breathe.)

Gun license: There should definitely be gun licenses.

Luddites

This is obvious retardation. First, Luddites would need to have exercised significant power. When did Luddites ever have that, anywhere? Second, said Luddites would have to be making public policies based on fear and envy. You sound like a Left-Wing retard: muh xenophobia, muh homophobia, muh technophobia. Of course, you libertarians are cut from the same cloth.

Your comment almost reads as though it's facetious. But you really are serious. Thanks for making my point. The reverse Midas touch I just wrote of has completely blinded you to reason.

These idiots are blaming the Democrats today for supporting the social policies that libertarians supported back in 1971 when they founded the LP USA.

Libertarians in 1971: Support abortion on demand and any form of relationship between 'consenting adults'.

Retards: crickets

Democrats in 2024: Support abortion on demand and any form of relationship between 'consenting adults'. (Actually, 1971's libertarians were even worse, since they believed in abolishing marriage, a 'slavery contract', altogether.)

Retards: Woke! Snowflakes! NPCs!

That's sufficient proof of their retardation. Additional proof abounds for those who need it. They debate such things as:

• Whether child labour should be legalized
• Whether simple driving licenses should be abolished (https://youtu.be/ZITP93pqtdQ)
• Whether selling drugs to children should even be punished at all (https://youtu.be/U2Nad1b_3yY)

These aren't points of any contention in any sane society. He who seriously considers the merits of decriminalizing child labour and the sale of drugs to children, or of abolishing driving licenses, belongs in a loony bin.

The 'national libertarianism' or 'libertarian nationalism' in some of these comments is equally retarded. There is no point in a 'heterogenous society of White people' if it's governed by this cancerous, dysfunctional ideology. One may as well say that a 100% White commune writ large in which everyone is some sort of drug-addicted Antifa tranny is somehow desirable. It's like saying that the CHAZ-CHOP could have been great, but only if it were White-only. That makes a parody of White nationalism: it's Hollywood White nationalism.

Libertarian ideas have the reverse Midas touch: they turn everything that they come into contact with into excrement. 2024's Democrats? Arguably still saner than these freaks.

Burger-buggering, bum-blasting, bloviating liberetardian gaymerfag! Catamitic cretinous cross-dressing cum-fuelled crapitalist curmudgeon! Mad mindless monstrous moronic mental midget maricon! Get those cheeseburger wrappers off the floor! Pronto! And just what are all these Cheetos packets lying around for!? And just why are you hitting that piece of fried chicken!? Look, that's not what 'beating your meat' means!

Wait! The Muslims and Nazis are coming to burn your funko pop collection and your gay porn stash, and, look!, they are already underneath your bed! We must save our liberties and freedumbs and tha constitushun and tha Jews from tha Mooslims and Nasties.

They've already intercepted your latest package of adult diapers from Amazon! They are coming after TheImpossible1, too!

Run along, now! For it is time for you and your beloved Agent Orange Julius Caesar Cheeto Benito Vladonolf Jenkem Trumputlerolini to Make America Gayer Always! You will be tread on. MAGA! Wait... that's wrong! Lady MAGA!

Let's put this in the most straightforward terms, since there is no point in elucidating things to low-IQ morons like yourself.

I've never watched anime. Anime is for degenerates. You are a degenerate. Maxime Bernier will never become Prime Minister. The PPC will never enter government. Literal Marxists, such as Hinkle and Maupin, are more regenerative men than any libertarian. Stay mad, libertarian scum. Someone will take your anime away, and there is nothing that you can do about it. You will be tread on.

Good to see some pushback against the pervasive libertarianism here.

We banned Spinoza for a long time, but we missed many others of his ilk. As Louis XVI famously observed, it was Rousseau and Voltaire—the former, a radical democrat; the latter, a liberal—who destroyed France. But the British have yet to realize that it was Locke and Mill who destroyed the Anglosphere; likewise, the Germans have yet to realize that it was Kant who destroyed them. That is, of course, the liberals of each respective country.

Too many of late-modernity's problems stem from degenerates not having had their stupid mouths shut back in the day: freedom was already too excessive back in those times. If anything, the march of freedom and equality throughout the world has killed human intelligence. Notice, for instance, that academia these days merely reflects, albeit begrudgingly, on the works of the very 'dead White men' that it paradoxically despises? Why is that so? The answer is plainly obvious: there has been no progress since those times, with more recent persons such as Crenshaw, Freire, Irigaray, Kristeva, Lorde, &c. simply being inadequate as replacements, unless, of course, one wants to complete the destruction of human intelligence rather than conserve what little there is left of it. If they threw out the 'dead White men', it would be intellectual suicide, for almost nothing would be left of the sciences and the humanities except people who would never achieve even a tenth of what any of those 'dead White men' managed, and whose limited successes are built on the backs of these men. Universities would have nothing to teach were it not for the legacies of 'dead White men'.

Fast forward to today: the degenerates now run everything and have, amusingly, reeled freedom back in on their end, such that the Right, who gave them that freedom and who once ruled society until they degenerated to the point of becoming indifferentiable from their enemies, no longer has it.

The answer to this obviously wasn't more freedom: that's playing right into the hands of the degenerates themselves. It was less freedom: it was thoroughly eradicating the ideas of Locke, Mill, Marx, and their countless acolytes. In doing so, late-modern scum like Marcuse and Popper would never even have arisen, and most of the users here, being liberals of some stripe, would funnily instead be complaining about the Far-Right instead of the Left. 'The guvmint called me a filthy degenerate consumer.'

However, the ship for that has sailed, for the degenerates are too deeply entrenched to give up their winning combination of excessive equality and freedom combined with a positive/reverse discrimination that ensures that their intellectual and moral superiors, who are too few in number, can ever get the upper hand over them again. They, instead, are bringing about the slow death of the human species, since degeneration always leads to destruction. The future is thus a long wait in which enough persons must survive late-modernity, a high-tech Dark Age, to see what lies on the other side. No 'Conservative', 'National', 'Republican', or 'Tory' political party can avert this.

One thing is abundantly clear: in the slim chance that the liberals and Leftists are conclusively defeated, we must nip this problem in the bud once and for all: a totalitarianism that will have to synthesize itself with many primitivist characteristics will be the only possible future for this species. No space must be given to the political ideals, ideologies, and values that drove this, nor to the technologies that facilitated this, ever, ever again. We must ruthlessly search for the causes of this present and future malaise and eliminate them without prejudice, all the way down to the genetic level. Yes, if there is even a link that can be found between a certain gene and the problems of today, say, a 'pathological altruistic gene', or a 'ressentiment gene', this foul contaminant must be eliminated from the genepool without prejudice. Everything that our enemies have inflicted upon us must be inflicted upon them tenfold: anything short of that is a grave injustice to the countless people who have and will continue to suffer under their rule today and for the indefinite future.

'Individualism', by which you mean liberalism-libertarianism: All social groups are false and are not the basic units of society; the (reified) individual is all that truly exists. Sociopolitical, non-economic equality is sufficient.

(Marxist) 'socialism'/communism: All social groups are false and are not the basic units of society; the (reified) individual is all that truly exists. However, 'individualism' does not realize true freedom if Man is still enslaved to basic needs; additionally, any reasonable understanding of equality cannot be restricted to the sociopolitical. It must be extended to the economic. Economic equality is thus required for true freedom and equality to be realized in the world.

The only differences between you and them are economic and trivial, you blithering idiot. You're a liberal stuck in the nineteenth century, just like most of the other users here. You simply argue with the Left over implementations and interpretations of the very same ideals and values that they hold. If you just accepted the last 150-200 years of liberalism wholeheartedly, without putting up some arbitrary, nonsensical boundaries, you'd be a guaranteed Democrat voter: practically all Americans who do not vote Democrat are simply Democrats with some minor reservations here and there—'I like gays, but... trannies are one step too far'—your beloved Trump being a prime example.

Making any sense of this meme whatsoever requires having knowledge of the video game Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain (2015). Without that, it is just Trump's face overlaying some video game character.

At the end of the original Metal Gear (1987) video game, the player character, Solid Snake, defeats the final boss, a body double of long-time series protagonist Big Boss.

Who was this body double? MGSV: TPP, chronologically prior to the latter game, tells us this story. There are numerous interpretations, but the following is the mainstream interpretation.

Before the events of MGSV: TPP, Big Boss had gone into hiding. The Medic from the end of MGSV: GZ, who has been in a coma, is misled into believing that he himself is Big Boss, going under the code-name 'Punished "Venom" Snake'. Eventually, he realizes that he is indeed not Big Boss, but the Medic.

With the benefit of hindsight, we now realize that in Metal Gear, Big Boss sent Solid Snake, his clone, to eliminate his own body double, Punished "Venom" Snake. He always viewed Venom as dispensable if not necessary to dispense with at some point, and, presumably, then seized control of the organization that he and Kaz built and integrated it into his own.

(This interpretation actually makes little sense once you've actually played the game to the end of level 46 as a thinking person. The game is full of symbolism: notice that this very meme, which is a frame of a cinematic right before the game's end, is full of "smoke and mirrors": something intended to disguise or draw attention away from an often embarrassing or unpleasant issue. There are numerous other reasons to believe that level 46 does nothing other than replace one lie with another. Personally, I didn't believe that Venom Snake was the Medic, I believed that Ishmael was the Medic and that Venom was someone else entirely. Just to take one of many examples of why nothing is as it seems: why does the passport that is supposedly Venom's have a stamp for 1978—that is, during the time that he was in a coma—and for August 1984 when levels 1/46 supposedly take place in March 1984 according to the calendar next to the hospital bed at the start? Even if Ocelot gave him a fake passport made up for him, surely it would be easily detected as fake by the authorities with that August 1984 stamp on it. I took a lot of interest in the oddities of this game's plot at the time I completed the game [over seven years ago, now], and have plenty of arguments to make against the mainstream interpretation that the story gives you. Ishmael as the Medic, Ishmael as a hallucination, and Ishmael as Solidus Snake are all heterodox interpretations of Ishmael that I find plausible. Venom Snake as the Medic remains plausible, but Venom as another, almost hidden MSF soldier who is very easy to not notice in the helicopter destruction scene at the end of MGS: GZ is a plausible heterodox interpretation of Venom. My personal conclusion: Ishmael was the Medic, Venom Snake was the almost hidden soldier on the helicopter.)

Next, is there really any similarity between Venom Snake and Donald Trump? I'm not seeing any clear parallel, except that both men have been through a lot of suffering and torment and survived a lot of dangers.

A more conspiratorial-minded interpretation: Venom and Trump have both been used and have both outlived their usefulness to those using them?

Another parallel: Venom Snake and Trump cannot trust anyone. Of the two who seem to be Venom Snake's allies, Ocelot regains his memories and remembers that Venom is an expendable body double over whom he prefers Big Boss. When Kaz also learns of Venom Snake being a body double, he becomes hostile to Big Boss and becomes only interested in Venom Snake as an instrument to get revenge against Big Boss for his being duped. Eventually, both men abandon Venom Snake outright. Similar thing with countless people that Trump probably once trusted, like Cohn and Pence, who have all abandoned him. Can Trump really trust Vance... or, for that matter, even his own children?