Why do you have so many different accounts with similar names?
Hah. People might not know this, but "Be kind" is Ardern's official destroy-the-economy-with-lockdowns-but-pretend-we-are-nice-people slogan in NZ (along with the equally nausea-inducing "team of 5 million"). While she still has plenty of supporters who buy her schtick, "be kind" has been permanently damaged by her use of it to many others here who can plainly see it's a hypocritical virtue signal.
No the OP, but yes, Malone did mention ADE in that interview. It's been a while since I heard it, but I think that Malone did acknowledge in the Weinstein interview that there was not yet a signal of ADE in the data he had seen. In more recent interviews with Malone, however, he has indicated some data (e.g. viral load data from vaccinated individuals) is starting to trigger alarm bells for him regarding ADE. I'm thinking here of interviews with Malone by Bannon, which you should be able to find on Odysee.
This one right here, yes officer he’s the next incel they’ll lambast in the news.
An analysis of this response provides a a lot of insight into how we ended up in this mess in the first place. Instead of disagreeing with the previous commentator with a rational response, there is an appeal to emotion and use of shame to denigrate the person being disagreed with. Further, the use of shame is based on the target's value to women. No wonder Western societies are so fucked up when everything is based on flimsy emotional appeals, which have no concrete underpinning, and men's value is not based on what the insight they can provide, their skills or abilities, what they have achieved, or even their value to other men, but purely on whether or not they are attractive to women. This is almost exhibit 1 in the series "Feminisation of society".
It's been mentioned here already, but I think the acceptance of deaths in training is an interesting one because it provides a glimpse into their society's attitude towards death overall. A lot of SciFi books go down the road of a futuristic society that tries its utmost to banish death. This is similar trajectory to how our own "modern" society has gone, culminating in our insane current state where so how the only thing that matters is reducing deaths from a virus to as close to zero as possible.
Of course our current attitude to death actually is costing more lives than otherwise due to costs of these 'anti-virus' measures, which makes no sense in a rational cost/benefit analysis. Yet the reason these can be sustained, in my view, is that the drive to reduce death as much as possible becomes driven by the ultimate appeal to emotion - people dying is the worst thing ever, so you need to be on our side otherwise you want people to die and that makes you the worst person ever. This attitude is only possible in a society that has an unhealthy attitude towards accepting death as part of life. The cold, harsh reality is that we are all mortal, and we will all die. It shouldn't even need to be said, yet it seems that such reminders are needed in modern society. Death is far from the worse thing that can happen to someone, simply because it happens to everyone - so why would we make something that is part of life the "worst" thing that can happen? Not living our lives to the fullest extent is, in fact, far worse than dying itself.
Going back to the book, it seems to me that Heinlein is proposing that attempts to avoid death at all costs, which must have already been apparent in his time, are in fact a flawed approach to a society's evolution, and that a healthy successful society would revert back to a more traditional approach where death is accept as a necessary part of life, both for individuals and their society.
Always lie to the outsiders is their number one rule.
Right. So that's why you are so believing when some feminists say they are pro-sex-work?
Fact is that sex work is revulsive to most women. Throughout most of history, female sexuality was strictly controlled by women (hence the name pussy cartel) to their own benefit. Anyone who looks at things rationally can see why: Women use sex to compete with other women and manipulate men for their individual benefit, so naturally powerful women establish systems to ensure they themselves stay on top of the system.
And who has the most sexual power? It certainly isn't the matriarchs that run society - these women are generally old. So the matriarchs formed the pussy cartel to ensure they couldn't be undercut by the young sexy women.
For someone who claims to know a lot about the "Fourth Reich", you seem to know nothing about how women actually operate.
Exactly. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that there are different sides of feminism on this. After all, sex is women's biggest tool in manipulating men. It should be obvious that there are different opinions among feminists on how to best use this - whether to work together to control the supply (and raise the price), or whether they should be allowed individually to simply exploit sex to the max.
No, what led to this problem was the "good women will save us" myth.
And yet here you are rejoicing that the pussy cartel, run by women, smacked down OnlyFans.
Whether or not sex work is a good thing is one of the big schisms in feminism. There are fierce opinions on either side. Seriously, know your enemy.
Men have been dehumanised by women and feminists in far worst ways - divorce rape, the Duluth model, suspected of being perverts for simply hanging out with their children, prevented from seeing their children after divorce, being considered human ATMs. OnlyFans seems trivial in comparison. Your obsession with it is bizarre, to say the least.
Worrying about what women do is what lead us to this problem. Men need to focus on themselves and controlling their own behaviour. "My biology made me do it" sounds more like something a woman would say.
Plenty of feminists consider sex work to be men exploiting women, e.g. those on r/FDS, all those talking about 'sex trafficking' etc.
This will not be a net benefit to men, it's simply a cat fight between women. Never underestimate women's ability to use sex to their own benefit. There are already plenty of other ways women use sex to make money without actual marriage - child support (oopsie! I'm pregnant), common law marriage etc. Shut one thing down and they'll find another.
This needs to be tackled from the root - stopping men being so obsessed with sex in the first place. One way of doing this is teaching men all the facets of how women exploit sex for their own benefit, not rejoicing when the pussy cartel smacks down another group of women.
The two richest women in the world didn't make their money on OnlyFans. They made their money by selling pussy the good old fashioned way. You're dreaming if you think that OnlyFans is a significant means of monetizing sex. The biggest way of monetizing sex is marriage, by several orders of magnitude.
I'm not sure why you are so convinced that feminists are completely supportive of OnlyFans. On the contrary, there are plenty of feminists who want to shut down sex work because it allows them to exploit men better by controlling access to sex - the good old fashioned pussy cartel that existed for hundreds of years, and was extremely effective in making gynocentrism a central pillar of society.
This is a fight between two factions of women - the pussy cartel and pussy free marketeers. One side wants to keep hold over their sex monopoly to keep the price high, the other wants to undercut them to make a quick buck.
It's been ages since I read this book and it was interesting to re-read the part criticising the idea that "violence never settles anything". This is something I've been thinking about recently - this idea that "violence never settles anything" or "violence is wrong" has seeped into our culture and become engrained. It is so engrained that the media has to report violent protests as "most peaceful" in order to ensure public support of said protests, and all the media needs to do is suggest that other protestors are "violent" to make people turn against them.
It certainly makes false flags very easy to implement. But my thinking goes beyond this - this idea that "violence never settles anything" is greatly beneficial to the elites who seek to control the population. This is because violence is the ultimate leveler. Everyone bleeds, everyone dies. While the elite may have far more resources than most people have, and be able to shield themselves from many negative consequences of their actions, the one thing they can never truly shield themself from is harm itself. So what better way to ensure their own safety then to convince the population that it is somehow morally wrong to use force against them?
NZ is in a class of their own, remember when Ardern suspended elections? Nobody said a word in any of the world media.
She did but there was actually not much to it. In NZ the election date is set at the sole prerogative of PM, provided it is within 3 years of the last election. When Ardern postponed the election it was still within that allowed time frame, parliament had yet to be dissolved and the writ yet to be issued, therefore was completely legal under NZ law for her to do this.
On the contrary, the "dumbest shit on paper" would involve a plot that the world becomes a wonderful place once women were in charge because they are all angels, unlike men. Instead, this book actually does a good job showing most women would abuse any power they have.
LOL. Someone tell her about duck penises.
Also a complete lack of empathy, which is perhaps the most terrifying thing. Empathy seems to be dead, in Australian society now (except selective empathy)
You should read the book "Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion". It points out that empathy is a terrible system to base morality on since it is pretty much selective by default. If you look carefully amongst those promoting "empathy" it is always towards certain groups, not others, and, in my view, has become a massive political weapon to drive society in a certain ways. What we need instead is "rational compassion", where we have compassion for all people, and apply this as a rational form of morality.
Another way of thinking about this is we need to step away from a "feeling-based" form of morality, which we have now, and go back to a "thinking-based" form of morality, which was the mainstay of the past (this is the form of morality that religions such as Christianity and Buddhism are based on). I also suspect that the reason "feeling-based" morality now dominates is the feminisation of society - where feelings are considered more important than actually thinking.
To be fair, I think most people on r/MGTOW knew it could be banned at any moment. As for an escape plan, I don't think there was any major plan, but then that was part of the point - people going their own way will be able to still go their own way despite a sub-reddit being banned. It's more of a minor annoyance than a big deal.
I think r/MGTOW2 has been banned as well.
Nah. It had been quarantined for a while. It was only just banned.
No shit, they start crying - a form of emotional manipulation. And how do they garner attention? Emotional manipulation.
As you've pointed out though, they don't think. Instead, they feel. My point wasn't that this was a conscious decision, but rather a subconcious one. And I think they're afraid of Islamic extremists, because the terrorist tactics actually succeeded in doing what these tactics aim to do - instil fear in a population. Because these people are afraid, they capitulate. The whole "we don't want to be racist" thing could be a rationalisation of why they are doing it.
The reason this matters is that it hints towards tactics that might work against them. They are ultimately, well, wusses. It probably won't take much to get them to capitulate when push comes to shove.