I hope it's just the style of rhetoric you're using, but you seem to be suggesting that 'Women are literally told to do bad things by jews' is the argument you're refuting.

I also hope you can appreciate the impact of

decades of soft power and influence

as mentioned by u/assassin47.

People do make their own individual choices. They must be held responsible for them. There are also terrible forces at work within society to brainwash and coerce and manipulate and suppress, and like any weed infestation, it will never go away until its roots are pulled out.

The entitled sociopathy of women (as a demographic) and the outsized, subversive influence of (elite) jews are both only facets of a larger problem. There is plenty of blame to go around.

That's actually fascinating, thank you

Makes more sense in that context. If you want to know a culture, look at what it teaches. It doesn't completely match the blame that I often see attributed to secular jews but I guess religious teachings have a big impact on secular culture too. Look at how many atheists celebrate Christmas and adopt (halfassed versions of) Christian values.

I don't get it.

#notalljews and all, but... assuming for the sake of argument that their expulsion was justified in every single instance, why does it keep happening? It can't be genetic, I'm pretty sure it's not a divine curse, so what is it about their culture that always leads to this outcome? I understand it with cultures that don't assimilate (Gypsies etc) but jews seem extremely good at assimilating.

I'm willing to accept the premise that a large enough number of bad apples try to subvert and harm their hosts that said hosts want to kick the entire tribe out, but I can only understand it as an abstract. What are the behaviors and psychological mechanisms behind it? And why is it always so bad that the entire group gets targeted, not just the culprits?

It's an open question to anyone who wants to answer. Generally, since there are too many examples to cover in detail.

It makes more sense to me that they are grossly incompetent and more terrified of optics and their careers than stopping people injecting themselves with death because of their incompetence.

It all comes back to the same lack of sanity and standards that is seen in all once-great empires that have become terminally ill with greed, degeneracy and arrogance. The evil cunts that make life hell for us are convinced of their own greatness but they have no fucking clue what they're doing and we're not allowed to fix it because decades of propaganda has been so effective that sanity has essentially been criminalized.

Here's to hoping humanity has learned this lesson enough times by now to turn things around. Here's to hoping the persistent connectivity that modern technology has given us turns out to be a blessing as well as a curse.

Hi Imp. You would probably call me a 'holocaust denier' but I don't dispute its entire existence, I have just seen inconsistencies that make me question the specific narrative surrounding it. Is this a bad thing? What is it about that particular event that makes it, to a man like yourself who asks questions about the propaganda pushed on him by society, uniquely unquestionable?

Do leaders and elites not lie? Do groups not conspire to present information in a way that aids their causes and discredits their enemies? Why is that 'conspiracy' more ridiculous than the one that you present about women, which also goes against majority consensus? What makes it so unthinkable that we might not have been taught the entire truth about a vitally important, world-changing event and which, according to you yourself, has led to the suppression of speech that we are seeing right now?

Were you there personally to verify the authenticity of what we are told to believe? If not, why is it so unthinkable to question it?

Meant for it to happen? I bought into the depopulation stuff at first but now I just think they didn't give a shit. Extracting wealth and exerting control is all they care about, and they don't care who they hurt, they don't have principles or standards and they think they're untouchable.

And some of the less malicious ones just wanted to LARP as an important authority figure without taking any of the responsibility that comes with the role. No forgiveness for them either.

I don't even know whether to believe the numbers, since so many polls don't exist to represent reality but instead manufacture it

But I completely believe that people would be stupid enough to think this

Brain damage is their ideology. The mental gymnastics and wilful ignorance of reality inevitably lead to complete mental decline. This state of decline is a virtue to them.

“I take full accountability and responsibly for my actions,”

I'm trying to remember that not everyone can be strong in the face of overwhelming social and economic pressure, but fuck it, he retroactively deserves this, and he deserves what may come now that he's put blood in the water.

Have some fucking self respect.

remotely criticizes them

Or fail to actively worship them and denounce criticism of them

It's horrendous and vile, but it's good. Let them burn themselves to the ground and show the world what's really happening.

My theory is: it's the opposite. They're encouraging LGBT-etcs to be batshit insane to force the right to openly oppose them, so they can say: 'MAGA/Republicans are hateful and they want you dead. Vote for us, or else lose your rights and die.'

If it had stopped at gay marriage (and grudging tolerance of transgenders), most people on the right wouldn't care, and the left would lose its captive LGBT+++++++ voters. They HAVE to keep them estranged from the right.

They do the same with other minorities too, with tools like BLM. And who could ever forget 'You ain't black'?

Take a look at what the alphabet people are saying - the only issue they care about is LGBT positivity. They genuinely believe that republicans want them dead merely for existing. BLM types think blacks are being murdered with the full approval of the state.

It doesn't matter how terribly the dems fuck everything else up. It wouldn't matter if the republicans were better on 99 issues out of 100. In their eyes, whoever doesn't worship LGBT/BLM is evil. They emotionally blackmail their family and friends to vote blue no matter who, because if they don't, 'You're voting for people who want me dead!'

But it's not just about the fringe vote. The democrats are perceived as the party of love, tolerance, and enlightenment. That false image gets them a LOT of midwit votes. If they normalize something, they have to push the envelope further in the next cycle so they can keep 'tolerance' out of the hands of the right, and maintain a monopoly on the whole 'party of love' shtick.

In the end it will be their undoing. But remember: they're evil and they're cunning, but they're also incompetent. Their entire worldview demands incompetence.

They probably could have done more, but it's always been very hard for parents to win against the dominant culture, especially when it's being actively pushed from every angle and their hands bound more tightly by the day.

It's not a democracy now, but democracy led us here.

Democracy puts power in the hands of people who are most adept at manipulating the voter base through pretext and propaganda, and stacking the deck through policy. Even with a government that does what the people want and even with safeguards to ensure election integrity, it's still a race to the bottom, where the best con men win.

I'm not saying democracy can't work, but it depends entirely on the intelligence of the public, and the public has been shown time and time again to be deeply stupid, even when they mean well.

Are judges the world over actively trying to create destructive legal precedents? This shit is going to destroy the few dregs of free speech we have left.

Further, they're never going to allow blacks any kind of identity other than oppressed descendants of slaves. They do not want to lose their golem by instilling some kind of moral or ethical racial pride.

So maybe the "we wuz kangz" types are trying to break free from that, but in an irrational way?

Potentially based.

Not pictured: The unhinged twitter rant where she demanded the arrest of all the filthy unvaxxed

YOU are causing harm in vaccine confidence by refusing to investigate. Closing your eyes and covering your ears doesn't inspire confidence in medicine any more than it inspires confidence in elections!

But we can't have citizens making informed decisions, can we?

leverage its supply chain aggregation capacity and technical assistance expertise to increase the wholesale readiness and representation of Black, Brown, and other farmers in the Mid-Atlantic region’s food aggregation supply chain

Can't tell you how much I've come to hate this mealymouthed, buzzword filled, faux-intellectual corporatese. Speak plain, you fucks.

Except they won't, because the point is to make it impenetrable to the common man. The point is to obsfuscate how nonsensical and empty it is. The point is for it to be impossible to pin down and define, so it can mean anything they want it to. The point is to impress the TRUST THE EXPERTS crowd who think technical words = smart and trustworthy.

I hate these people.

I called you unhinged in a deleted post, because I thought you said 'and make them ineligible for all employment', which would be reprehensible.

Come on though, 90% tax for exchanging money for sex? That's some oppressive bullshit. We live in a world where liars, tyrants and marxists collude to oppress and destroy us, and you want to use the state to crush people for engaging in voluntary transactions? You can make the argument that sex work isn't good for society but they're not directly hurting anyone.

Yeah, I've seen your reasoning that it's 'coerced', but that's asinine. Women as a general demographic are privileged, spoiled, have a heavy ingroup bias and enable their own, which causes all sorts of problems for society and men specifically, but they're not a monolithic organization wherein all or even most women collude to exploit and harm men.

For one thing, that kind of argument sounds far too much like the 'men/white people all benefit from systemic sexism/racism so they're all guilty' sophistry for my liking.

For another, having one branch break men down so the other can charge them for sex would require a greater understanding of cause and effect than feminists are generally capable of.

Outside of the total psychos (which the rest of them enable) they're not rubbing their hands together gleefully and saying 'NOW I CAN ABUSE MEN'.

It's more insidious than that. They're taught that men are inherently violent and masculinity is a problem that needs to be 'fixed'. A lot of them think they're improving men by feminizing them and helping society by keeping them from power, and they certainly don't care if men get hurt or disenfranchised in the process. Why should they? Most men don't care either.

Western society is wholly gynophilic. Every value it holds and every policy it enacts encourages the worst traits in women and suppresses the best traits in men. A woman simply being inconvenienced is a horrific tragedy while men are, at best, entirely expendable.

Ideological rot suffuses every layer of society. The problem is more far reaching, and far more complicated, than 'woman are genocidal and want us dead'.

compound this with the fact that everyone but the pants-shitters KNOWS it's disgusting

A significant percentage of the pants-shitters know it's disgusting and get off on making you witness them shit themselves.

It is heartening to see people reject obvious lies, but I worry many of those aren't actually independent thinkers, just the easily led types who happen to be pointing their tribalism in the right direction.

I'm probably being too blackpilled pilled here, it's just frightening how easy it is for liars with power to lead the masses to destructive conclusions. But there is hope. Thanks.

The thing about civil wars, you rarely want to be the instigator, it's usually best if you're the one responding as it sort of gives you more legitimacy

I dunno man, they've spent a long time conditioning the masses to accept any manner of tyranny if they come up with a good enough pretext for it.

'The person who shoots first is bad' might fly with the subset of people who are -

1. Perceptive enough to see through obvious propaganda

2. NOT perceptive enough to see the underlying issues and aggressions that sometimes makes violence an inevitability

but how many people are in that cohort? Awake enough to question, but not awake enough to see the war that's already happening and the outcome it leads to?

I mean, you're right, which side fires the first shot will define how the narrative plays out. But if they want to fire first they'll come up with some bullshit, lie-filled appeal to emotion to justify it, and a frightening amount of people will lap it up and beg for more.