/arcane/ - Esoteric Politics

Feminists need men who protects them. They are lazy and weak minded, they don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

During the first world war, the suffragets (brittish feminists) would give men a white feather, if they didn't want to become soldiers. This was a symbol of cowardice. Being given one by a woman was the greatest shame. Even those who had been excused from military service after being wounded, or because of illness, would enlist after being handed a white feather.

This is a strong example of how feminists use men's view of honour for their selfish purposes.

Similar things can be observed online, when "loser men", alse called "betas" complain about women. A feminist will tell them to man up, and to accept an unattractive, lazy female in her 30s as a wife. They even go as far as saying "Are you gay?", despite feminism being generally supportive of the gay community.

If the males start talking about how they'd rather get a mailorder bride from asia, the feminists will turn to blatant racism, attacking asians. This again despite feminists being generally anti-racist.

These examples all show just how dependent feminists are on men to defend them. Without men standing up for feminism, they would not have any power at all.

For this reason, the /pol/ mentality of victimizing white women and excusing their promiscous behaviour, is actually the greatest enemy of /pol/.

The root of the problem lies in a messed up concept of honour, wanting to act as a medieval knight for the lady and protecting her. The hard truth here is probably that the /pol/lacks who fall for this have so little experience of women that they can't differ between the lady and the witch.

This way the concept of "honour" gets hijacked by feminists and used against men who are not supportive of feminism. The solution is simple, but seemingly impossible for the general /pol/ poster to accept:

Women need to feel the pain of their own shitty decisions, they need to take the full consequences of their actions.

Do not defend whores.

When you choose this path you will be called

>gay

>beta

>having yellow fever

>pedo (for liking young attractive women rather than old hags)

>cuck (for "letting" immigrants fuck white women)

>and so on

If you then cave in and start defending and victimizing slut females, you are supporting feminism. Their tactic worked, you have been shamed into assuming responsibility for their actions.

If /pol/ can't take the pain of doing the right thing here, you're not going to get anywhere. Feminists will continue to control you and you will be "betas" and "whiteknights" forever. Simply put; you are a cuck.

Females are mostly reactive to males. That is their nature. This is the nature of the "victimization" that you speak of. Most females react to males, hence, most of the fucked upness is because the males of our civilization are fucked up. This is not as much about being "our fault'' or whiteknighting, as actual energy dynamics.

Pro tip: if you get triggered when some girl calls you a bad name, a beta, or whatever… you are…by definition….a reactive entity….a female or a "beta"(even thought these definitions are not really accurate when it comes humans)

>>6784

> I'm sure there's a group of redpilled women discussing how to make emasculated men more alpha and how to avoid the harmfulness of feminism. Them taking responsibility for everything would make them just as right as the men taking responsibility for everything.

I'm not against someone taking responsibility for fixing the issues, unfortunately this is not what the general /pol/ whiteknight is doing.

Let me try and differentiate the 2

1) /pol/ cuck way of taking "responsibility" means to base all value of a person on their race. In doing this, a white woman is always white not matter what she does, and she must always be protected from bad things - including the negative consequences of her actions. This means she learned nothing and will do the same degenerated things again later. This is how feminists want it, total immunity given to them by men. They can do anything and will always be excused because they are white women. Follow this and you will end up alone and poor, paying child support while your wife fucks new immmigrants every week.

2) The way to solve this is by giving females opportunities to fix themselves. The first and most important step is to not protect them from the consequences of their actions. If they get pregnant, offer them a way to raise the kid. It's fine if they live in a government home for single mothers, as long as they get to experience what sex actually leads to. Other girls will see it, and they will think twice before mindlessly fucking someone. Reward the correct behaviour and let reality punish stupidity.

These 2 ways of doing things illustrates how natural selection has functioned in all of history, perfecting our genes and creating civilized humans. If you let stupid decide, your race degenerates and such traits are removed from the gene pool. If you let people experience hard reality they learn to survive in it, and useful skills are passed on.

Doing the right thing here is a matter of life and death for the western world. Right now it's the "savages" who are doing it slightly more right than us, because they actually let behaviour that is harmful to them lead to punishment. They all suffer because of the blunt way it's executed, but it still works better than what the west is currently doing.

This thread and where it came from suffers from the central fallacy of >/pol/ is one person

There's a multitude of people on /pol/ not just the despairing single man who thinks finding a good woman is hopeless. Remember when MGTOW tried to hijack /pol/ back in 2014? It didn't happen and they're laughed off the board. Similarly despairing single men are given roughly the same treatment. I've even seen more posters than ever talking about their wives and families.

>These examples all show just how dependent feminists are on men to defend them. Without men standing up for feminism, they would not have any power at all.

I disagree. Feminism, as a tentacle of the Marxist octopus, strives to restructure society and social relations. Men, being a part of that, are needed to conform. They're needed just as much as SJWs need people of colour to accept that they're being oppressed by whites. When these people fail to conform, there's a backlash. It's not that men are needed to conform because they're some kind of special, driving engine. It's just that they too, must play the role that's been designated for them, just as everyone else must play their designated role.

>Women need to feel the pain of their own shitty decisions, they need to take the full consequences of their actions.

This is not a valid solution. If women start taking personal responsibility, they stop being feminine women as they have now abandoned their femininity. Femininity can only exist in the shadow of masculinity. This is why strong, apathetic, jaded women were pitied in the past. Much like a child forced to mature much sooner than was expected and lose his childhood and all of the purity and innocence that's a part of childhood, the woman was forced to abandon her femininity. Childishness and femininity are both things that can only exist in the shadow of masculinity.

In my experience with /pol/, the irresponsibility of women is not the perceived problem. The problem is Feminism encouraging women to believe that they could function as well as men but they can't because of men doing x, y and z for the sole purpose of maintaining his position of apparent superiority. The problem isn't women being stripped of responsibility then but rather, the fantasy they've been sold that encourages them to reject their place. The fantasy that gender (as well as race I suppose) are merely social constructs.

>>246

>and she must always be protected from bad things - including the negative consequences of her actions.

In my experience of /pol/, this is not what I see at all. In fact, I always see /pol/acks laughing at white women who chose to have relations with a black man (i.e. "coalburners"), arguing that she deserved her black eye or acid thrown in her face or death or whatever because, turning against her race, this is what she deserves. These women typically receive no sympathy. Again, I feel as though you have confused the ideal (white women being free of jewish influence, free to express their femininity and thus, absolved of responsibility) with the implementation of that ideal into reality. The few times I see /pol/acks genuinely try to argue that you should try to marry and have children with the modern western woman, I've always seen them quickly shut down by others for their delusional thinking.

>Reward the correct behaviour and let reality punish stupidity.

How is reality punishing their stupidity exactly? The government still gives them a home. The government is still giving them welfare. There is no real punishment here. You need to be actively socially ostracised.

>>247

>This thread and where it came from suffers from the central fallacy of >/pol/ is one person

This is your notion, you're seeing something which isn't there. At least I never used this outset.

I'm going by /pol/ as an ideology. It's easy to recognize it, go onto youtube or any other place and you'll here and there see /pol/ repeating the same things over and over.

The "/pol/ is one person" implication is just a way of trying to discredit criticism against the body of /pol/ ideology by pointing out that some individuals do not agree with said ideology.

It's the same as

>I'm not racist, I have black friends

It doesn't change anything, it just moves the focus to something else so you won't have to defend your flawed views.

I'm not against the /pol/ ideology as a whole, but I'd prefer to change certain things about it. I can see the shills have done a good job in cementing the parts that stops /pol/ as a movement from reaching anywhere, you're still set on defending your inferiour cuck mentality in the hopes of getting some feminist pussy.

>>>/fringe/7365

So you're basically trying to argue that men who have children at a later age are giving their children a longer life span? Have you considered the quality of that life?

http://www.menshealth.com/health/age-and-risks-of-fathering-a-child

>Interesting discussion but I feel this is more relevant in those countries where "gay marriage" is a thing.

That wasn't my point. I just wanted to bring your attention to the reasons why gay marriage is bad for a healthy society. Those very same reasons apply here: marriage's focus is no longer on procreation. My point then is that this means that the culture changes into one where the ideal of the healthy nuclear family doesn't have as much strength and absoluteness in the people's minds. Quite simply, they've normalised their deviancy.

>From a legal point of view children are not effected by their parent's registered relation in any way, so the procreative part does not apply.

What do you mean by this?

>>250

> the ideal of the healthy nuclear family

That's the deal, I don't think the nuclear family is a healthy ideal at all. It's weak and has nothing to fall back on for support. You need to focus on a strong "extended family" or conflicts will stay between the parents and escalate in this small sphere until possibly divorce.

The nuclear family has no depth, to use a military concept. A single fortified line will be completely lost if overrun, unless there is one or more fortified lines to fall back to. This is the role of the extended family, and ignoring this is the reason why the nuclear family has been destroyed. Again the welfare state is to be blamed for this, when the government agencies take the role of your extended family you stop relying on them, and normal human relations break down. Then because of democracy, the state is adapted to the new situation and in turn reinforces it, leaving only the nuclear family alone in the open. Next step leads to it's breakdown, and divorce children do not have the concept of a stable male-female relation at all existing.

>>From a legal point of view children are not effected by their parent's registered relation in any way, so the procreative part does not apply.

>

>What do you mean by this?

I'm referring to the linked youtube vid, that guy is talking about how the institution of marriage between a man and a woman has an unspoken hope for procreation built into it, which gay marriage doesn't have.

I'm merely pointing out that this is not so when talking legal terms. What he is talking about is a matter of values and philosophy, or maybe expectations from society. Looking only at the legal aspect it's just about who inherits who.

If we use the example of two married couples where one man has a child with the other man's wife; this means the child will still have the right to inherit property of both parents, irrespective of them not inheriting each other.

The conclusion of this is that marriage does not explicitly include procreation between the two married persons. It does not apply. Any statements that procreation is a part of marriage is a mere implication based off notions originating in religion or ethics.

>>250

>So you're basically trying to argue that men who have children at a later age are giving their children a longer life span? Have you considered the quality of that life?

I have to say I consider the published articles of this kind, trying to rush people into having children early, to be affected by a political agenda. You may not want to take this seriously because it touches on controversial topics, but let me explain the argument.

There was a line of research in the sovjet union working by the hypothesis that learned traits can be inherited. They had their reasons for believing this, but that doesn't automatically invalidate the research.

This field has recently been picked up again, and the results had a certain impact, becuse they show clearly, contrary to popular belief, that learned traits can be inherited.

See attached files.

This means, younger parents with less experience, get dumber children. If this is repeated generation after generation, with young women having children right after leaving school, the inherited skills for the female side does not include working or being self supporting, at all. For men who may traditionally be a few years older than their wife on average, this gives the male side a small advantage because his little professional experience is passed on to his children. But it still means most of the perfection of skill a person gets during his lifetime goes to waste, and the next generation has to start over.

On the contrary, if men had waited for as long as possible with having children, maybe working in a profession for 30 years, then this will be passed on to the next generation via the genes. Earlier in history a profession was inherited from the father to the child, and this makes perfect sense, knowing this.

You may now want to take a look at who gains something from making people dumber and dumber like this… selling the idea of public schooling to change people into something they traditionally have never been. Propagating for early parenthood is the most effective weapon you can use against a population if you want to keep them down.

>>247

>>/pol/ is one person

This, if you don't believe or understand this then you need to lurk moar.

>>253

>there is no such thing as a /pol/ mentality

Let's keep repeating that "one person" strawman instead of taking constructive criticism against the /pol/ mindset seriously, that's the recipe for success.

In my view one of the aspects of manhood is to claim being a man (or anything realy) whitout offering any backing or needing anyone to affirm or support your claim. Allso about women I will only say one quote as I cannot talk for them or speak of my knowledge. Let the dead burry the dead. The only woman that concerns me is the one I will marry and I am willing to wait thus I can disregard 50% of the world population (minus one)

By disregard I dont mean ignore or despise I simply mean not bothered/stressed by.

>>255

I should add that I do have temporary regard when a new (unknown) woman enters my feild of awareness until I am able to judge them (tends to be rather quick here in the west) If I rule a woman as possibly being fit for a wife then I give them space while observing there interactions whit the world (best suited over long term like a classroom or workplace) while chasing off thoughs about said woman by reafirming that only one woman concerns me thus allowing me to constantly observe judge and attempting to learn about women whitout pooring gratuitous amounts of energy down the drain

>>249

>>254

>/pol/ as an ideology

This is why you don't make any sense. You claim to understand what you're criticizing but you clearly don't. The mindset and viewpoint you're describing, the very thesis of your issue has no bearing in reality; i.e. that which you describe doesn't exist on /pol/. This is why you're getting the "one person" response. People are giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume you heard it from one or even a few posters but in essence it doesn't even matter; because trying to ascribe it to a board with roughly 2500+ active posters and outlining an oddly specific and elaborate mindset that they apparently all share on one single issue is exceedingly unrealistic.

In reality, the strawman started with you. Wanna take about progress? When your problem has no basis in reality, what type of progress do you believe you'll have?

If you really wanted to properly talk about this topic, you should've opened the topic without including /pol/ as a counterpoint. The topic is broad enough to stand on its own. In other words, what /pol/ thinks and what you think /pol/ thinks is irrelevant and distracts from discussion.

>>252

I believe the term you're looking for is epigenetics and it's a vast interesting subject with equally interesting implications that many are already trying to utilize as a political tool.

>>257

>your problem has no basis in reality

It's been clear to me since this argument started that everyone replying (negatively) to my statements is under the control of the very problem I've described. You lack the ability to see yourself from the outside.

It's the exact same pattern (only the contents differ) as when talking to a feminist. The points and arguments brought up are all rehersed before and the mechanisms manifesting all follow set rules. I could probably map this whole thing and write it down if I cared and had the time for it. I choose to label this body of theories, arguments and standardized ways of handling criticism as /pol/ mentality.

As I see no sign of self awareness in any of the replies, I will not continue this. The different angles I used to attack this pretty much covers all useful approaches, so there is no point in trying any more.

It has not been a waste, I once again learned something. Bye for now.

>>258

>Everyone who challenges my ideas is a feminist by another name

Lad…

You seem like a nice guy. But this isn't how you should handle criticism. If you continue down this road, everyone will seem like a "feminist." Understand?

Food for thought, if you truly believe you understand the intent behind the replies you were getting you would see that apart from the nastyness in some replies that people are legitimately trying to constructively-criticize your view on this or even what you deem this "/pol/ mentality." You yourself admitted that you were already set in your views before you even outlined them. Is it too difficult to admit you were holding onto them a bit too hard? Sometimes we confuse self-awareness with our own convictions. So how do you really know you're the only one who's remained self-aware throughout this kerfuffle if you deemed right from the start that your view was the right one?

I'm not even telling you that you're right or wrong, or /pol/ was right and you were wrong, I'm at the very least saying to keep that question in mind as you go forward.

>>251

>You need to focus on a strong "extended family" or conflicts will stay between the parents and escalate in this small sphere until possibly divorce.

I thought the nuclear family was the building block of the extended family. That the extended family is basically a collection of nuclear families.

>This is the role of the extended family, and ignoring this is the reason why the nuclear family has been destroyed.

You're saying that conflicts contained merely within a nuclear family will destroy that family whereas conflicts contained within an extended family will in a sense be "sponged up", yes? What are these conflicts though? I think, with the upheaval of Feminism, the nuclear family will be just fine. I've read accounts of people living in extended families that were shielded from Feminism dogma, yes but ultimately, wouldn't those families be constrictive as everyone can only work in their local area?

>Again the welfare state is to be blamed for this, when the government agencies take the role of your extended family you stop relying on them, and normal human relations break down.

How does welfare take the place of the extended family? Extended family members provide support, provide masculine and feminine role models, etc. I can understand how welfare ruined the nuclear family in that it made women no longer reliant on men for financial support (thus rendering the majority of men obsolete in women's eyes and incentivising divorce). however I don't understand how welfare replaced the extended family. Unlike the nuclear family where money is what makes the man vital, I don't think that applies to the men in an extended family. I don't even think there is a core provider in an extended family.

>Then because of democracy, the state is adapted to the new situation and in turn reinforces it, leaving only the nuclear family alone in the open.

I don't understand you at all here. Democracy is essentially mob rule so when you say "the state", do you really mean the people? What do you mean when you say the state is "adapted to the new situation"? It sounds like you're either saying that the government is changed to the new situation or the people are socially engineered into the new situation. I'm going to need further explanation here including explanation on the meaning behind the terms you're using.

>>252

>I have to say I consider the published articles of this kind, trying to rush people into having children early, to be affected by a political agenda.

I've never seen any propaganda that pushes people to have children early. I've only seen propaganda that pushes people to have children later.

>You may not want to take this seriously because it touches on controversial topics

No, I may not take it seriously because pushing the members of the white race to reproduce early would be good for them as they would produce strong, healthy children with a good genetic base. Supporting those children would be a different matter. Historically, the ideal has always been of a older man in his late 20s being wed to a younger woman in her early teens. Both are being wed at a point where they are both about to reach their peak so you have healthy children that are being supported by a man that can support them.

>There was a line of research in the sovjet union working by the hypothesis that learned traits can be inherited. They had their reasons for believing this, but that doesn't automatically invalidate the research.

I believe in this. There was some kind of mouse experiment. You had two groups of mice in separate cages. None of the members of either group interact with a member of the other group. One of the groups were in a cage with an electrified floor. Very early on, the mice with the electrified floor quickly learnt that in order to avoid pain, the mice should avoid the electrified center of the floor. The mice's children were then separated from birth completely from their parents and placed in new, normal cages. The mice who's parents had lived in the cage with the electrified square of floor in the center of their cage– these mice always avoided the center despite never being in that cage or exposed to mice that had.

What's the political agenda behind this research?

>This means, younger parents with less experience, get dumber children.

I don't think that at all. I think that intelligence is highly due to genetic factors. In fact, I think I remember reading somewhere that genetics was such a strong factor in a child's intelligence that even when the gifted child was placed in inferior environments, they still succeeded whereas black children raised in suburban environments still performed (albeit better than normal) less well than white children raised in such environments. Another piece of evidence I saw regarding this is how African-Americans have an IQ of 85 whereas Africans in Africa have an IQ of 70. African-Americans are not normal Africans, DNA tests show that they have a white admixture of about 20%.

>If this is repeated generation after generation, with young women having children right after leaving school, the inherited skills for the female side does not include working or being self supporting, at all.

Well, when I think about it, if you have the scenario of young couples that are having children as soon as possible, those children still have to be supported and so the parents will get their jobs to support the children, amassing experience that none of the children themselves inherit. They too, blank with regards to experience will also produce children whilst they go on to work, amassing experiences which their children won't inherit and so forth. So basically, the children don't degenerate over time, it's just that their progress is locked in place.

>this gives the male side a small advantage because his little professional experience is passed on to his children.

I don't think it works in that literal sense as a person literally being talented at drawing because their parents were good at drawing. But nonetheless, I believe that the mental traits such as concentration and self-discipline and self-awareness and emotional intelligence are all inherited, yes.

>and the next generation has to start over

Well, I'm personally a believer of reincarnation but whatever. Then again, I suppose if the goal is to raise the collective consciousness of the race then I suppose this would be an issue.

>On the contrary, if men had waited for as long as possible with having children, maybe working in a profession for 30 years, then this will be passed on to the next generation via the genes.

I think this whole thing about inheriting learned traits is about epigenetics. I don't think the influence of epigenetics is that intense.

>selling the idea of public schooling to change people into something they traditionally have never been.

Modern society is something wholly unnatural and so there does need to be some specialised time dedicated to preparing children to that transition.

>>247

>>253

What's wrong with modelling /pol/ as one person? What's wrong with trying to gauge the general opinion of a community or assuming you know the general opinion of a community and using your "knowledge" in an argument?

>>266

>You're saying that conflicts contained merely within a nuclear family will destroy that family whereas conflicts contained within an extended family will in a sense be "sponged up", yes?

When your marriage is supported by your extended family there are more reasons to stay together than just "love", if there is a problem - could be anything - so big you consider divorce, your extended family will support you and function as a reminder of why you got married. After the conflict blows over you are still together and stronger bonded.

How long does a marriage last on average today? 2 years? You can basically meet someone, get married, have a kid and then divorce again in that time without anyone in your extended family even getting to know the other part, that's how it is today. This is what so many children are forced to endure.

>How does welfare take the place of the extended family?

If you need help with money or housing (or a job), if you are in a personal crises, you would find help from your exended family. But today with the welfare state (at least in europe) your extended family will not help you, they will act like strangers to you and tell you to go apply for welfare. This attitude of not even helping your relatives has ruined the national unity completely, noone will stand up for anyone else any more.

> What do you mean when you say the state is "adapted to the new situation"?

When most people are married for life, legislation will be based on this situation, and those seeking divorce will not be very much helped by it. In a democracy the majority decides, so when many people now have children out of wedlock, live as singles, get divorces, or even as gay couples, they will request legislation and welfare services suitable for their lifestyle. This will in turn make it easier to have children if you are alone, gay etc, and there will be no motivation for people to maintain a traditional healthy marriage. Every new generation will then degenerate further and demand new services from the government. Today for example you can get "sexual correction surgery" for free if you think you have the wrong gender. In the past you would be classified mentally ill and given correct treatment for this. But not today. This is how democracy keeps reinforcing the things people want, in a negative way. It's not even that the majority wants this stuff, but lobbyists tend to be the ones you see and hear, so it's always the extremists who get attention and effect how things are changed. All it takes is some vague talk of "tolerance" and a majority who doesn't object.

>>266

>I've never seen any propaganda that pushes people to have children early. I've only seen propaganda that pushes people to have children later

All I've seen since I started caring about reading news (15+ years ago) is warnings not to wait with having children. It doesn't matter if it's a conservative or liberal news outlet. They all talk about how women giving birth for the first time are getting older and older, and how this is a problem. This is the general climate of the discussion I'm seeing. The arguments brought up around here (these boards) about later parenthood causing autism isn't something I've seen mentioned tho. The focus has always been on the problems experiended during the birth itself, and fertility related issues.

I was surprised when 2 weeks ago I saw an article talking carefully(like testing grounds for the idea) about how during the 1800s having kids after 40 was a lot more common than it is today. There was some mention of the lack of contraceptives but the tone of the article was generally positive of late parenthood. This is the only time I've seen someone write positively about it, hence my surprise.

I suppose we see different things.

>What's the political agenda behind this research?

I thought it was obvious but ok. The communists wanted to transform humans into something else, a "new human", free of all traditional culture. It pretty easy to see why they wanted this theory of inheriting learned traits to be true. If you can get people to follow rules and obey the party culture, and it's inherited, next generation will have it hardwired in their brains - they will be communists from birth.

If you on the contrary believe in free will and (religious) schooling, you'd want it to be a false theory, so the west didn't accept this research at the time. If you go by the conventional view that children are a blank sheet (tabula rasa) and you can teach them anything, then only schooling matters. This is the view applied by the non-communist liberals and socialists in the west today. With this view they want to educate the working class to make them become academicals within one generation, and they entertain this idea that someone from a working class family can reach anywhere. This is (kinda) what americans seem to believe in, called "the american dream".

If you look at it from the perspective of the european nobility, traditionally they have always followed the "inherited" view even if unknowlingly. I've read a book by a count (now dead since a few years) who presented the theory that a family should always stay within the professional field and class they were in during past history. He presents some example of nobel families who were declassified, and some working class families who got up and became nobility in history, and they all were extinguished within 2 generations. This is ironically based on the same theory as the communists used, but the conclusions are opposite.

I could go on and on about the implications of this research, who could possibly want to use it and for what, but you should be able to imagine this yourself from the examples given. It's very complex.

>So basically, the children don't degenerate over time, it's just that their progress is locked in place.

I can agree that for people in a bad environment it may be better to have children early, if you expect them to degenerate with age. But I was talking generally, looking at it from the perspective of 100s of years, if you want a population to evolve. The outset in which having children early is positive is in an extreme setting, it's assuming things were always like they are today. Which they haven't been for long, ever. Things degenerated in the last days of ancient Greece as well, with gays and pedos walking in the open, and democracy treated as the best form of rule. Socrates was executed for speaking against democracy, and Plato labeled it as the worst form of goverment, he had to escape for his life because of this. It's funny how this part of the story isn't mentioned when people today talk about democracy as something tolerant and good we picked up from ancient Greece. The tendencies from back them still remains, being "undemocratic" is the worst label someone could get politically, they'll have to resign if they can't wash it off.

> I'm personally a believer of reincarnation but whatever.

Me too. But that doesn't mean the tools given when incarnated (your body including it's genes) has no impact on your life.

>Then again, I suppose if the goal is to raise the collective consciousness of the race then I suppose this would be an issue.

This has to do with something I've discovered, but this is a serious /fringe/ area. In short, some people use a method to always reincarnate within the same race, class and some even family line. They keep strengthening the traits that make them the elite of the world, and other people have really no chance against them. Imagine how well adapted they are to the setting of rulers, after keeping this up for how long, 1000 years? 2000? If you want to ever break this, it's time to start spreading these ideas.

>>272

>When your marriage is supported by your extended family there are more reasons to stay together than just "love"

It sounds to me then that your issue with the nuclear family is that the only reason why the husband and wife are married is because of "love" rather than a sense of duty. I believe the solution then isn't necessarily the extended family but rather, living in a society where family values are the focus of the culture. The nuclear family isn't the issue, the culture around it is.

>But today with the welfare state (at least in europe) your extended family will not help you, they will act like strangers to you and tell you to go apply for welfare. This attitude of not even helping your relatives has ruined the national unity completely, noone will stand up for anyone else any more.

I don't think welfare is the sole cause of this. I think what you're describing here is really the atomisation of individuals within society. The shift of focus away from family values and towards the individual. I think the sole cause of this was actually Feminism rather than welfare then. Your extended family members are going to either be the siblings of one of your direct ancestors or the children of these ancestors. In either case, at some stage in the family tree, there must've been a nuclear family with a mother, father and their children. If that family was broken then it's only natural that your extended family don't care about you.

Consider the following family: You have an absent father, serving time in prison, an alcoholic mother and three children. The three children are not very close to one another due to the dysfunctional nature of the family. They all go on to have their own children. Why would the descendants of the original three children care about each other when the original three didn't? At some point, there was a nuclear family. The destruction of the extended family is rooted in the destruction of the nuclear.

Feminism quite simply destroyed families and used social programs such as welfare to keep the now fundamentally dysfunctional society afloat. Pic very related.

>In a democracy the majority decides, so when many people now have children out of wedlock, live as singles, get divorces, or even as gay couples, they will request legislation and welfare services suitable for their lifestyle. This will in turn make it easier to have children if you are alone, gay etc, and there will be no motivation for people to maintain a traditional healthy marriage. Every new generation will then degenerate further and demand new services from the government.

I see. Again, the atomisation of society. The individual over the family. Please read pic related.

>>272

>All I've seen since I started caring about reading news (15+ years ago) is warnings not to wait with having children. It doesn't matter if it's a conservative or liberal news outlet. They all talk about how women giving birth for the first time are getting older and older, and how this is a problem. This is the general climate of the discussion I'm seeing

I see. It's not that you see propaganda pushing people to have children earlier so much as it is that you see propaganda that discourages people from having children later. I think you're right. There is a lot of stuff regarding the dangers of having children later. At the same time, there's also that weird "cougar" thing (older women pursuing younger men) so it's all a bit odd. Perhaps it's all just to discourage reproduction amongst the white race in general?

>If you on the contrary believe in free will and (religious) schooling, you'd want it to be a false theory, so the west didn't accept this research at the time.

Not necessarily. From my understanding, the learned traits simply alter your inclination. It's not that you'd be a communist from birth but rather, you'd be more inclined to be a communist.

>If you look at it from the perspective of the european nobility, traditionally they have always followed the "inherited" view even if unknowlingly. I've read a book by a count (now dead since a few years) who presented the theory that a family should always stay within the professional field and class they were in during past history. He presents some example of nobel families who were declassified, and some working class families who got up and became nobility in history, and they all were extinguished within 2 generations. This is ironically based on the same theory as the communists used, but the conclusions are opposite.

This is very interesting. What book is this?

>This has to do with something I've discovered

How did you discover it? What was the process?

Oops. Forgot pic.

>>274

> the sole cause of this was actually Feminism rather than welfare then

I don't see this. It could have gone either way, if people had demanded different things. But it's in the nature of democracy to degenerate toward the lowest common denominator, because of the one man, one vote system. If only the family head had the right to vote, or each family had one vote to agree on, you'd get different results. But all of this is only slowing down the degeneration process, neither method will solve anything in the long run. It all comes down to the idea of demanding things from the government/state instead of doing it yourself. At this point it may seem like you have to, they take so many % of your pay in taxes you'd expect them to provide certain services. I suppose all you can do is demand the right things, and lower taxes, for now. Still, if you had a functional leadership, why do you need to get involved? Democracy is only needed when the rulers don't do their job properly, it's in itself a sympton of a problem.

I'm just reasoning freely here so don't take that last part too seriously.

> The three children are not very close to one another due to the dysfunctional nature of the family. They all go on to have their own children. Why would the descendants of the original three children care about each other when the original three didn't?

But this is where you would have had godfathers and godmothers. If the father is in prison, the responsibility of the children's upbringing falls on someone in your extended family. It's all pre-arranged so there is nothing to argue about. Today however these are treated as mere formal titles, it doesn't have any real meaning.

>What book is this?

See pic. I don't think you can find it as PDF, he printed and sold them himself so there's probably a limited number of copies around on used book stores.

>How did you discover it?

There is no specific way of talking about the process of realizing something in this field imo. I noticed some things, reasoned about it and tested it. Some things proved functional and some not. This way I came to certain conclusions about the function of the world, and some answers gave themselves to me, because logically there was only one explanation.

If you have awareness and can look at things energetically you should be able to sense these things in the world. I don't know who these people are physically, the images "over there" don't correspond to things in here in any logical way (as far as I know of).

>>277

>But it's in the nature of democracy to degenerate toward the lowest common denominator, because of the one man, one vote system. If only the family head had the right to vote, or each family had one vote to agree on, you'd get different results.

Yes, and if you read the picture I posted, you'd see that the one-man one-vote system actually started with feminism, not democracy. Feminism's first victory was getting women the right to vote. This is where the shift occurred from men (who were ordinarily family men) voting for their family to people voting for themselves. This is where politicians shifted from family-friendly values to individual-friendly values in order to secure victory. It also became possible for gender wars to take place, pitting father against mother within households.

>But all of this is only slowing down the degeneration process, neither method will solve anything in the long run. It all comes down to the idea of demanding things from the government/state instead of doing it yourself.

So you're some kind of anarcho-x? The fact is, you can't do everything by yourself and if you do find a way to do everything yourself, you're going to find that you're spending so much time doing maintenance on the things you depend on for survival that you'll never actually have the free time necessary to develop yourself in any meaningful, lasting way. Also, what of the duty one has to their own people? Society is a good thing I think however I also think that in order for a society to function, at some point, at some level, each and every person has to be comfortable thinking "I don't know what that guy is doing but nonetheless, he works in society so he can be trusted".

>But this is where you would have had godfathers and godmothers. If the father is in prison, the responsibility of the children's upbringing falls on someone in your extended family. It's all pre-arranged so there is nothing to argue about. Today however these are treated as mere formal titles, it doesn't have any real meaning.

But how would a person in the hypothetical scenario I suggested even have godparents, real caring godparents if the father and mother were they themselves so dysfunctional? When I said that the father was in prison, I meant it with the implication of illegal activities such as reckless driving, drug possession, etc. The nuclear family must precede the extended.

>>278

>Yes, and if you read the picture I posted, you'd see that the one-man one-vote system actually started with feminism, not democracy.

It depends.. (I'll get back to you about the pic after I have time to read all of it), the way I was taught this was that "one man, one vote" was demanded way back in the 1500s or so, because at the time the 3 classes of society, workers, farmer and nobility, each had one vote in the parliament. Their representatives would discuss until they reached an agreement and give their collective vote. But the the workers never got their way because the farmers always voted with the noblemen. The workers however knew that they would have more power with the one man, one vote system because of their numbers, so they argued for changing the system to what we have today. That's a leftist thing at the bottom of it, not feminist, wanting to give the uneducated workers more power.

>So you're some kind of anarcho-x? The fact is, you can't do everything by yourself

I've stopped putting labels on my views, there's aways some aspects of an ideology I can't accept.

I'll just use the most common argument against libertarianism, the "how would you build roads if the government didn't?"

The answer is simple, exactly like most roads are built and maintained today - privately.

This is always something that people bring up out of ignorance, thinking roads are built with public funds. I live in a country often viewed as very socialist in the eyes of the international community, and still most roads are privately owned.

You may wonder how this works then. A road community with all land owners for a certain road will handle it. My family owns a few 100 meters of road. When the community agrees any work on the road is necessary, we pay for the part of the road we own. Someone is then hired to do the work on the full stretch of the road with the collective funds.

It's not strange or very difficult. Road commuity meetings are even quite popular because they turn into social gatherings where you get to meet new people who recently moved here and neightbours you rarely see.

So what about tolls or fees? For normal usage you don't pay anything. By this means driving your car somewhere, or a farmer driving his tractor. If you want to use the road for business use, for example if you want to start directing heavy traffic, you have to pay for maintenance, or you may simply be denied use because the wear on the road is too much.

If you don't like how things are done, you're free to build your own new road. This is not uncommon either, and is done by forming a new road community.

>>275

>pic

While I'm not against the points brought up here specifically, I consider this whole argument to be a little short sighted. It seems to deal with only the last 90 - 100 years.

Go back a bit into the 1800s to 1700s and the idea of women not working was non-existent. In the country side, everyone worked. Farmers would advertize for married couples, with one position for each of them. The man may be a driver and the wife was given care of livestock. Unmarried women all had to get jobs as maids or other simple jobs. Salaries payed in cash were basically nothing way into the 1940s in some places (same for men and women), they got food and housing, and weekly pocket money.

If you want to look at it from a city perspective in the last 100 years, it may be true to some degree. But you'd have to consider with industrialization a lot of farmworkers went to the cities instead, and these women were used to working. This has nothing to do with feminism, it's just countryside culture meeting city culture. They may have been picked up by feminism, but it's likely these women would have made the same demands anyway, even without it.

In my view your pic only tells half the story and draws conclusions a bit too far.

>>279

>That's a leftist thing at the bottom of it, not feminist, wanting to give the uneducated workers more power.

Feminism is a tentacle of the leftist octopus. While leftism creates an oppressor/oppressed dynamic with workers and the wealthy, feminism creates an oppressor/oppressed dynamic with women and men. This issue is leftism but regarding the specific issue of society's atomisation, I'd say feminism is what specifically dealt the blow. When the gender relations became distorted, people stopped having healthy relationships with one another. It's like, you're blaming war for what was done to Hiroshima while I say it was the nuke.

>A road community with all land owners for a certain road will handle it. My family owns a few 100 meters of road. When the community agrees any work on the road is necessary, we pay for the part of the road we own. Someone is then hired to do the work on the full stretch of the road with the collective funds.

What's the difference between you paying someone to do the roads and the government doing it? You're still paying someone else to manage those roads. Even if you "own" the road, ultimately, the only reason that property is really your property is because the government is willing to send its police/soldiers and fight to protect it.

>>281

>Go back a bit into the 1800s to 1700s and the idea of women not working was non-existent.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a woman working. It's just the effect that it has in our modern society. The emotional stunting of children not being able to spend time with their parents is still an issue however this was typically remedied by homeschooling. It was common in those days for homeschooled children in local neighbourhoods to go out and play with one another. Today, with our paedophilia-panic in the media, with housing projects moving ghetto-adapted blacks into nice neighbourhoods, there's no sense of trust amongst people anymore. Everybody fears exploitation and has thus retreated.

>But you'd have to consider with industrialization a lot of farmworkers went to the cities instead, and these women were used to working. This has nothing to do with feminism, it's just countryside culture meeting city culture.

You have a point however you can't argue that feminism didn't exacerbate this. Feminists have actively shamed women for wanting to stay at home and be a mother, framing it as enslavement to a man. What exactly is the future of a woman living on the countryside and how would she be incentivised to see this future in the face of such propaganda? Especially when she compares it to a "lucrative career" in the cities?

>but it's likely these women would have made the same demands anyway, even without it.

I'd argue the exact opposite. Women are known for being very impressionable. I think the ideal of femininity is one of matter, taking the shape of its container. Once one woman gets a divorce, she tries to rationalise what she's done by talking about how great it is to be single to her other married friends. Eventually, the others get divorces too.

It's also known that when a man, out of disgust for the modern state of the western woman, opts to bring in a woman from another country (e.g. Brazil, Russia, etc.) that she too, after enough time being exposed to western culture will also adopt the same entitled, narcissistic attitudes and ultimately, treat the man the same way the western woman would've.

>>282

>What's the difference between you paying someone to do the roads and the government doing it?

It gets done. And effectively with no conflicts. If applying to the government about a new road, this project will compete with other posts in the budget. Arguments will be made that the money should be better used somewhere else because of reasons not benefitting the locals who needs the road. When the government does things they always cause conflicts because of not understanding the problems common people have. In the case of the road, it's likely someone living in the area will be the one building it if done by the road community. Knowing what problems need to be solved from personal experience of living there, they will understand how to do this in a way that's best for all locals.

Your argument is in my view similar to all liberal/leftist arguments about not needing to make your own decisions, but to let an external entity control your life. You may as well institute a caliphate, because you can't argue against giving up control to them with this line of thought.

>Even if you "own" the road, ultimately, the only reason that property is really your property is because the government is willing to send its police/soldiers and fight to protect it.

Who are those soldiers? They are made up of the same people living here. We don't need the government for this. Armed forces has always existed, they don't need to be organized by a national government. Private property is "owned" because people can defend it. I consider the argumentation you bring up to be a thought fallacy; Thinking that you only have things because the government let's you have it. This is what all rights movements are about, confusing what people can do with what an external entity tells them that they can do. The government does not have ultimate power.

I'm going to try keeping this discussion at a level away from arguments based on local situations as much as possible, because things are different in different parts of the world.

So, I'll just take a situation from reality that should be possible to relate to today. Some people from the poor parts of Europe are now using the free mobility of the EU to visit wealthier contries and beg for money. It's come to the point where you can't go shopping without seeing immigrant beggars outside shops. They've set up illegal camps on private properties, like old (now unused) industrial grounds and woodlands. While this is illegal by law, the government does nothing to remove the beggars, even when they've set up camps on property owned by the government. If you call the police to have them removed, you have to pay for it, as if the police were a private company offering a service. The local governments don't want to do this either so the beggars are left alone, basically intruding and breaking the law. Same thing goes for the oh-so-popular torching of cars, noone does anything about it despite it happening every weekend. The police doesn't even investigate it.

This can serve as an example of how powerless governments really are in defending private property:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_riots

At the bottom you will find links to riots in other european contries, all showing how ineffective the government's protective abilities are.

>Feminists have actively shamed women for wanting to stay at home and be a mother, framing it as enslavement to a man. What exactly is the future of a woman living on the countryside and how would she be incentivised to see this future in the face of such propaganda?

The mothershaming is real today, but the idea of women not wanting the countryside life of a mother, I have to argue against out of personal knowledge. A relative couldn't stand the loneliness of city life as a mother with a small child while her husband was working. There was no sense of community at all, spending most of the day at home with noone to even talk to. They moved back to the countryside to their grandparents.

I think the thing I'm trying to say here is, the city housewife is a false ideal. It only existed for a short time during the 1950-60s after WW2 and formed some kind of ideal image in people's minds, before the problems of this lifestyle became appearant.

I also have to admit I do not have a certain answer how to solve this. Modern city life sucks if you stay at home, it's that simple, I don't think a lot of people will ever be happy living that way.

Part of the problem I believe lies in the architecture; modern apartments are built with singles or the nuclear family in mind, you're not supposed to interact with people outside of this sphere. You can see again I'm getting at the isolation of the smaller unit as a problem here, same as with the exclusion of the extended family, caused by the removal of traditions.

>>275

This brings us back to something I meant to comment on here, but didn't get to in the other post.

>the smallest possible unit of a society

I was thinking about this and I'm neither liberal or conservative in this. I don't think the individual nor the nuclear family are good enough as the smallest unit of a society. Actually the only conclusion I can arrive at is that the nation is the smallest unit of a functional society.

I'd say if even one person upholds the idea of a nation, it still exists, and this person is the king or queen. This concept includes all the smaller units of society and it can't function with anything less than the whole. When you have the concept right all you have to do is add the people and the land, this ends all of the confusion.

>>284

>If applying to the government about a new road, this project will compete with other posts in the budget. Arguments will be made that the money should be better used somewhere else because of reasons not benefitting the locals who needs the road. When the government does things they always cause conflicts because of not understanding the problems common people have.

To me, this sounds like your problem is with governments as they are today. I think you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater by disregarding the necessity of government.

>Your argument is in my view similar to all liberal/leftist arguments about not needing to make your own decisions, but to let an external entity control your life. You may as well institute a caliphate, because you can't argue against giving up control to them with this line of thought.

I have no issue with surrendering control. I believe a government is good. I believe in authoritarianism, it's just that I believe that the government should serve the people. That it should have the people's best interests at heart. I believe a strong leader is a necessity to a successful society basically. My reasons for disapproving of a caliphate is quite simply because they do not hold the people's best interests at heart (even if they claim to).

>If you call the police to have them removed, you have to pay for it, as if the police were a private company offering a service. The local governments don't want to do this either so the beggars are left alone, basically intruding and breaking the law. Same thing goes for the oh-so-popular torching of cars, noone does anything about it despite it happening every weekend. The police doesn't even investigate it.

>This can serve as an example of how powerless governments really are in defending private property:

Powerless? Are you saying that there isn't some kind of agenda to flood the EU with immigrants and displace whites? Or at the very least, start a civil war? Personally, I strongly disagree with the notion that the behaviour we're witnessing is in any way authentic and not puppeteered by yet-unseen higher-ups. The Clinton-leaks have revealed a lot with regards to this.

>Part of the problem I believe lies in the architecture; modern apartments are built with singles or the nuclear family in mind, you're not supposed to interact with people outside of this sphere.

What alternatives do you have in mind?

>I'd say if even one person upholds the idea of a nation, it still exists

I don't think merely upholding the idea is enough. I think the nation needs real, solid, physical roots. In my eyes, it must be the race of the people and the land they're living on.

>>285

>the necessity of government

>I have no issue with surrendering control

We will never agree here. A government is not a person, it's a mere institution. It can't function like a person, it doesn't have the ability to make decisions like a person, because it consists of many individuals.

I can accept the idea of a single leader using his influence, because this is a person who can do things from his subjective view, and can be reasoned with. Then you may say "I do not agree with the ruler on this, but I understand how he thinks". A government on the other hand doesn't have a line of thought, only a number of conflicting agendas all being pushed by different interests through representatives of different areas. Noone really makes any decisions, it's all about constant fighting to uphold your own position, trying to make this the position of the government while stepping on everyone else. When a decision was made, everyone will analize the strenghts of different groups to see the factors behind it. It will not be accepted by the opposition and they will at once make plans to change the decision. A government makes for constant instability and stress by never being able to make any firm decisions which can be relied upon for any lenght of time. By its very existence, a government creates a society filled with unrest and uncertainty, where no values can be trusted in.

> Are you saying that there isn't some kind of agenda to flood the EU with immigrants

It doesn't matter if there is or not, the governmental systems of the EU have proven extremely weak and defenseless. They can't even collect their thoughts to openly ask the question "Is someone doing this to us? If so, who and why?" All they do is repeat some vague talk about "war on terror", which just happens to be an idea brought forward by a charismatic leader. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that what was said by someone you can relate to as a person, will remain in your mind.

You can see how those leaders called dictators all react when things like this happen to their country. They start blaming named countries and groups as organizers behind it. They treat it as an attack and are able to react correctly. This supports what I wrote above, about the weakness of governments.

>What alternatives do you have in mind?

The problem lies in what is known as "urban sprawl", I suggest you make a google image search and you will see exactly what this means.

This is the most important aspect so I'll quote it and let you read the rest yourself:

>Single-use development

>This refers to a situation where commercial, residential, institutional and industrial areas are separated from one another. Consequently, large tracts of land are devoted to a single use and are segregated from one another by open space, infrastructure, or other barriers. As a result, the places where people live, work, shop, and recreate are far from one another, usually to the extent that walking, transit use and bicycling are impractical, so all these activities generally require an automobile. The degree to which different land uses are mixed together is often used as an indicator of sprawl in studies of the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl

This is where the problem seems to come from, the seperation of different functions of a society to outside of walking distance.

Go just 90- 150 years back and most people lived in the same place as they worked. Children may easily visit their parent's workplace and help out, learning basic skills naturally. Grandparents lived in the second floor of the same house and would care for the children while their parents worked. This way there was no generation gap, traditions were naturally upheld and women could also work without this having any negative impact on family bonds.

> it must be the race of the people and the land they're living on

If this is what you base the idea of your nation on, you are free to have this view. Another nation may be based on different values.

>>287

>A government on the other hand doesn't have a line of thought, only a number of conflicting agendas all being pushed by different interests through representatives of different areas. Noone really makes any decisions, it's all about constant fighting to uphold your own position, trying to make this the position of the government while stepping on everyone else. When a decision was made, everyone will analize the strenghts of different groups to see the factors behind it. It will not be accepted by the opposition and they will at once make plans to change the decision. A government makes for constant instability and stress by never being able to make any firm decisions which can be relied upon for any lenght of time. By its very existence, a government creates a society filled with unrest and uncertainty, where no values can be trusted in.

I guess I'm uninformed on the topic because that wasn't my idea of a government at all. That's my idea of a government in democracy. I assumed that under the authoritarian rule of a leader that the government would now function differently. It too, under the leader, would serve the people and so rather than have the chaos of conflicting interests, you instead have the unified flow of the singular interest of serving the people. I may need to study these things a bit more closely.

>It doesn't matter if there is or not, the governmental systems of the EU have proven extremely weak and defenseless.

It does matter because it means that their weakness is artificial and has been imposed upon them through some unknown, external force.

>If this is what you base the idea of your nation on, you are free to have this view. Another nation may be based on different values.

I think it's the best system but okay.

>>288

Most of what we see today is a leader labeled a dictator but there is still a government with parties and opposition. You can see for yourself how this doesn't work in Syria. Libya under Gaddaffi didn't have any government agencies, his family and allied tribes did everything themselves. This is seen as horrible by democracies because you have to go by the leader in everything and if he says "no" to a deal you can't get around it. In countries with a democratic parliament any outside scheming can be carried out by playing out different groups against each other. The government starts having a life of its own, looking after its own interests rather than the interests of the people or the president's orders.

I don't know of a word for it with government agencies overall, but I guess it's the same as the problem with the "military industrial complex".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex

I honestly think government agencies are not needed. What they do would be better done by loose organizations formed or disbanded by local citizens as need arises.

>It does matter because it means that their weakness is artificial and has been imposed upon them through some unknown, external force.

If something collapses when put under pressure - that's exactly what "weakness" means.

>>289

>If something collapses when put under pressure - that's exactly what "weakness" means.

My understanding of reality is that the bankers control everything. When I see that the government has been weakened, I mean that it's intentionally weak. Rather than assume that the government is trying to help but simply cannot due to ineptitude, I'm saying that it's been crippled by higher-ups and is therefore not representative of the government that I've idealised. I mean, of course, you've corrected my understanding of government by now but nonetheless, if it's been artificially weakened, it's not representative of a government's ability to serve its people and therefore cannot be a reason to discard of government (or rather, what I thought government was).

>>290

> I'm saying that it's been crippled by higher-ups

Interesting. So by this you mean the government is actually not an independent entity, but part of a larger structure binding governments in different countries.

Even if I can see your view here, treating it as some kind of shadow organization on a level above national governments, I can't help thinking being controlled by this is still a sign of weakness. If it is an actual organization or just a culture may be up for debate. But the fact remains, if the national government has "higher ups", wether real in an hierarchical manner or just influential people controlling them by leading the political discourse in a certain direction, it still is a weakness. They then lack awareness of what is controlling them or they are thinking more of personal benefits in the short run than what is good for the nation in the long run.

>>291

I should probably add I don't agree with this view. I think the failing EU governments are just incompetent, crippling themselves with internal struggles.

>>291

>So by this you mean the government is actually not an independent entity, but part of a larger structure binding governments in different countries.

Well, yes. We're on /fringe/, I think there should be some amount of conspiracy theory here. You somehow seem baffled by what I'm saying. It's a bit confusing and a bit funny. This possibility that even amongst the "mad", I'm still crazy.

>I can't help thinking being controlled by this is still a sign of weakness

>They then lack awareness of what is controlling them or they are thinking more of personal benefits in the short run than what is good for the nation in the long run.

So even though you acknowledge that it comes down to either stupid or malicious people, you still see the issue as being with the existence of government itself and not individuals?

>>292

>I should probably add I don't agree with this view. I think the failing EU governments are just incompetent, crippling themselves with internal struggles.

It's an hour long but if you get the time, I'd like it if you could watch this documentary and give me your thoughts on it.

>>293

> You somehow seem baffled by what I'm saying.

I'm aware of conspiracy theories like this but I can't take them seriously. It's a bit of a jump from what we were talking about. I know it may seem dull but I prefer using well known and commonly accepted examples in my arguments to remove the possibility of the argument being discredited for being based on unreliable sources.

Blaming bankers as some secret organization controlling the world is something on par with talk of reptilian shapeshifters and 9/11 truthers imo. It's a completely different world and bringing it in will ruin any discussion of politics.

(not to say "reptilians" don't exist but not in that way, I believe most of this is misunderstanding spiritual things for being of physical nature)

Let me put it this way:

Wikipedia is known for being generaly leftist. If there existed any credible evidence of bankers actually controlling the world in conspiracy theory manners, there would be articles about it. It would be part of the general discussion, because leftists hate bankers, and they hate jews.

But I haven't so far seen a trace of any serious non-conspiracy information about this anywhere. That should be a sign.

> there should be some amount of conspiracy theory here

A conspiracy may exist, just not like in the "crazy talk" online. I'm thinking of how history has been told, the false interpretation of events caused by the winner of wars telling the story. Some of the seemingly crazy stuff I know is real, because I've experienced it personally, but none of this involves the explicit conspiracy stuff. It's the slow, invisible and sinister plans that are the real deal.

Like, how come we ended up with "urban sprawl" in the first place? Who's driving this trend?

> if you could watch this documentary

I'll get to it, if it seems ok.

>>290

> Rather than assume that the government is trying to help but simply cannot due to ineptitude, I'm saying that it's been crippled by higher-ups and is therefore not representative of the government that I've idealised.

The only thing that comes to mind regarding this is the influence of think tanks. Some politicians have been exposed as using lines of text written by certain think tanks without even altering the wording.

But I wouldn't call this a conspiracy, it's still done pretty much in the open, they're not hidden organizations.

The control of media is a different thing, they can be controlled easily. But the influence media has on the government is not the same as controlling it with a string around its neck.

>>293

>vid

Watched about 45 min but I honestly can't go on, I feel the anger building up inside and have no need for this.

This vid just shows again how national leaders are making a deal with the devil. Intentionally and in detail making plans to destroy our national cultures, the EU is pure evil.

>>294

If you think that tracking the money to find ho is in charge, is crazy, you are a fucking idiot.

>>297

Or maybe you can read the thread and what I actually wrote.

>Whaa whaa women won't touch my weewee!!

Who the fuck cares? Caring this much about women only means that you're a blue pilled mundane. I don't hate women, because I couldn't possibly care any less about them. Stop wasting energy on this bullshit and use it to improve yourself instead. Although I have to add that there's zero excuses to be a race mixing degenerate. Funny that someone like you thinks he has the right to judge other people.

>>299

This. "red pill" everywhere in this chan.

>>299

>>300

This thread is about criticising whiteknighting among /pol/lacks, you obviously didn't even read the OP.

>>300

>taking the redpill meme seriously.

You do realize that the comics and their chart counterparts of are meant for fun and aren't meant to be taken seriously, right? The characters from the charts are to be used for the punchline in the comics they came from. For example, the punchline with the redpill guy is what he takes issue with is being controlled by things only greenpill sees and that redpill himself is being influenced by those things. The comics and those characters were made by the ironpill comic author who moved to 8chan /pol/. He's been inactive but concluded his series before going on hiatus, if I remember correctly.

Ironically and in reality even /pol/, where they still believe in using terms such as bluepilled and redpilled, are aware of /fringe/-related (greenpilled) things. For instance, they actively discuss the jews worshipping moloch and doing his bidding, such as sacrificing live beings to him. If you're that afraid of this "red pill" as you see everywhere on this chan be warned that it's going to upset you. As you delve further into the primitive mysteries and discover the answers, you'll realize that even in the mundane world there is a form of esotericism and it's explored by /pol/ daily.

>>301

>This thread is about criticising whiteknighting among /pol/lacks, you obviously didn't even read the OP.

The thread used to be about that but it veered away into something more general. I think it's good because the presumption it was based off of inherently fallacious.

>>302

>The thread used to be about that but it veered away into something more general. I think it's good because the presumption it was based off of inherently fallacious.

Pic related, screen grabs from a /pol/ thread discussing this topic, with the same perspective as the OP of this thread.

>>244

>>303

>halfchan/pol/

You might as well have said reddit.

>>305

>reddit cucks doesn't defend slut culture

What?

>>309

4chan has been reddit - by culture and by containment - by another name since at least 2011, if not 2010. They're more reddit as time goes on. This includes but especially applies to /pol/ for two reasons.

1. /pol/ as an imageboard provides a platform that makes it harder to both form and crack consensus. Manpower is required as well as framing to overcome that.

2. /pol/ and the reputation 4chan garnered became the de facto containment for politically incorrect thinking. Containment is not just a thing you create to isolate wrongthink but something you utilize so you can convert those contained within the vaccuum.

In other words, 4chan/pol/ is its own type of controlled opposition. Throughout the last 6 years (and its predecessors before that), 4chan/pol/ was contained from the rest of the site and also used as its own strawman. This is why you get comments like the one featured in the cobbled and stitched together screencap seen here: >>303

Examples of similar comments and how they arise:

>post comment or post outside of /pol/ that is wrongthink

>response: go back to /pol/

This means that any comment or post in the vein of what was mentioned is now /pol/. This creates an unwritten rule for what topics or what type of thinking is now /pol/ or must belong on /pol/. The unaware lurker now makes those associations and will disregard something in that vein as /pol/ - as seen in how this thread came about.

>/pol/ is leaking

>go back to your containment board >>>/pol/

>repost screencap of some anonymous poster comparing /pol/ to something

>/pol/ is one person ad nauseum

Again, look at the screencap that >>303 posted. It's filled with tons and tons of /pol/ is one person, but the most pertinent sign of controlled opposition is that these "self-strawman comments" so-to-speak are posted within its own board. Never mind if the OP is retarded or not, correct or not, it's still ascribing OP or any other poster as /pol/ - as the board itself. This tactic is utilized for several reasons but I'll give a few examples:

1. Strawman the board so that no matter what you see, hard-to-swallow truths or retardation, you do not take the board seriously at all.

2. Frame the board as part of a shaming tactic. Basically #1 again, but it's a repression tactic. It's supposed to make posters adopt the mindset of self-flagellation and self-degradation. Better yet, cause posters who frequent there to not want to associate with /pol/ under any means.

>Wow anon said /pol/ is like X. I frequent /pol/ a lot so I better join in the bashing so no one suspects I'm like that.

This also acts as a primer so that when hard truths are posted, it causes you do doubt what you see. Also put simply, anyone can use framing by shopping together a screencap and filling it with what comments you want to be shown. The part that no one thinks about when that happens is, what is the person who made that screencap trying to hide and what are they wanting you to believe? If you take a step back from this issue in general, it's incredibly absurd that /pol/ has garnered such a reputation that it has to be on one hand demonized and on the other ridiculed just like anything else the (((media))) dislikes. Rhetorically speaking, which is it; is /pol/ so ridiculous and so absurd that it should not be taken seriously or is it so evil and so hateful that it must be despised? Can it be both, and how? Either way halfchan/pol/ is exceedingly inundated with trash although some serious posters still post there. If you want something better there's 8chan/pol/ but just like halfchan they're both datamine territory. Also it's election season so shilling and forum spies are more active than ever. For whatever it's worth, 4chan/pol/ mustered on until the exodus to fullchan. Some people were just so tired of the noise that they never went back.

>>311

The screencap includes comments on /pol/ pointing at the same thing as the OP of this thread. Stitching is needed because 1) /pol/ is full of shitposts and 2) the point was to show that there are people on /pol/ who agree with the statements made in the OP; that /pol/ culture has a feminist grounding, and the bashing of females that still exists amounts to nothing but the futile rants of powerless males.

Everyone knows they themselves are the "cucks" and the only way to become less of a cuck is to project it on someone else.

Maybe it does in some way support

>4chan has been reddit - by culture and by containment - by another name since at least 2011, if not 2010. They're more reddit as time goes on.

Some of the more mainstream boards are painfully SJW, take /tv/ for example, it's unbearable to even lurk.

>post comment or post outside of /pol/ that is wrongthink

>response: go back to /pol/

It's quite obvious where someone comes from when you see their streamlined posts made in mainstream forums like youtube comment fields. The same can be said about the extreme feminists/SJWs. I personally know someone like this, and when talking about something, they suddenly "flip the switch" and start talking some rehearsed SJW speak filled with certain bits of information like some bot.

It's way too obvious that this is coming from certain feminist websites and blogs, and they haven't formed the opinions themselves. There's nothing to argue about once someone starts that, because they don't understand what they are saying. It's all pre-made arguments and replies. Pretty elaborate but still dead stupid.

It's really the duckspeak of 1984.

Sadly, /fringe/ as a community is deep in their own version of it, just not as deep yet. If it ever had more of an impact on the mainstream it would probably go by the same route.

What causes people to hate OC so much? /x/ usually requests it, but only in very narrow field. Stray one millimeter and you get the RP/copypasta thrown at you

>go roleplay over at /quest/ instead

Porn boards usually tolerate OC better but you still get the people complaining about how it was made/dude your dick is too small/etc even when they got something new for free.

>>311

> It's filled with tons and tons of /pol/ is one person, but the most pertinent sign of controlled opposition is that these "self-strawman comments" so-to-speak are posted within its own board. Never mind if the OP is retarded or not, correct or not, it's still ascribing OP or any other poster as /pol/ - as the board itself. This tactic is utilized for several reasons but I'll give a few examples:

>

>1. Strawman the board so that no matter what you see, hard-to-swallow truths or retardation, you do not take the board seriously at all.

>

>2. Frame the board as part of a shaming tactic. Basically #1 again, but it's a repression tactic. It's supposed to make posters adopt the mindset of self-flagellation and self-degradation. Better yet, cause posters who frequent there to not want to associate with /pol/ under any means.

I've never seen /pol/ as one person and I still get this thrown at me… It's a bit funny to call it a "fallacy" when it's only in the mind of the reader.

Imagine if someone wrote some analysis of what views the social democrats have, and others replied with

>social democrats is one person

It's never implied that they are, reacting like that is ridiculous. It would make any political commentary impossible. So why does it happen only here, with /pol/? Are people so retarded they can't grasp the concept of a political entity?

What about the

>What does /fringechan/ think?

posted now and then on here? By the "/pol/ is one person" logic the reply to this question should be

>implying /fringechan/ is one person

It's obvious to everyone that the social democrats in the example above refers to the political body, what alignment do they have, what stance do they take on certain issues and so on.

>but /pol/ is not a political entity

It can be recognized easily when views within the /pol/ spectrum are expressed, it's well defined. /pol/ is a political entity, and the views and culture of this entity is what we are talking about in this thread.

If you want to take it in the other direction, it's possible to say that /pol/ indeed is a person. A business entity is a person and it's still a person made up of many individuals. "Person" is just conceptual. If you don't want to see it that way

>that's like, your opinion, maaaaan

Furthermore

>This means that any comment or post in the vein of what was mentioned is now /pol/. This creates an unwritten rule for what topics or what type of thinking is now /pol/ or must belong on /pol/. The unaware lurker now makes those associations and will disregard something in that vein as /pol/ - as seen in how this thread came about.

>

>>/pol/ is leaking

>

>>go back to your containment board >>>/pol/

Have you never experienced it yourself? You're discussing something and someone comes in trying to hijack the thread with stupid preaching without even trying to follow along with what was discussed.

This is not exclusively /pol/, we have the islamic shitposting right on this website, and it now got a containment thread. You could take any of the more narrow fields and it's the same. Would you want /mlp/ spam everywhere? Camwhores advertizing themselves posting low res pussy pics everywhere? Lolicons ruining worksafe boards with pics that are actually illegal in many countries?

An online community couldn't function if you can't create seperate safe areas for respective topics.

>>313

>Have you never experienced it yourself? You're discussing something and someone comes in trying to hijack the thread with stupid preaching without even trying to follow along with what was discussed. This is not exclusively /pol/, we have the islamic shitposting right on this website, and it now got a containment thread. You could take any of the more narrow fields and it's the same. Would you want /mlp/ spam everywhere? Camwhores advertizing themselves posting low res pussy pics everywhere? Lolicons ruining worksafe boards with pics that are actually illegal in many countries?

>An online community couldn't function if you can't create seperate safe areas for respective topics.

It's inherently exclusive to (4chan)/pol/ because the inherent nature of politics and its effect on daily lives. Topics do veer off into reality even on boards that are far removed from that. We're also living in a time of greater social upheaval because redpills have made it into the daily lives of the mundane. As for other boards it's not uncommon for a topic on say a board like /v/ where a problem being discussed is rooted in a problem with social-political connections. When the root of the problem is being discussed the topic naturally veers closer to the supposed realm of politics and people who don't like that, whether they be shills or not, are quick to tell people directly addressing political topics that they should go back to /pol/ and whatnot. The nature of shitposting also invites that but it's also used as a method to shutitdown, so to speak. A crafty shill can utilize that because bluepilled posters are more likely to welcome the "shitposter" than the supposed mean& nasty neo-nazi-racist-conspiracy-theorist-shitlord and almost feel like they have a moral obligation to resist anything that person says.

In other words, for the same reason that the cultural-marxist will create safespaces and change "free speech" codes to suit their line of thinking, so will the bluepilled poster on 4chan welcome the "shitposter" who's mysteriously and adamantly opposed to anything remotely /pol/-related. Then it becomes clear that anything shitposters do is okay but having a relatively grounded topic with an exchange of facts isn't. To be clear, shitposting isn't the problem but shills are notorious for using it as a fracture point and are more than ready to blanket threads and boards with trash rather than letting sensitive information be easy to view. I think the worst problem to come from this is that unaware posters who may be redpilled to some degree somehow believe that that abnormal shitposting is somehow warranted and they're so used to seeing that noise that they can't imagine a thread being any different. You can become aware of shitposting but there are a tremendous amount of people who believe that it's somehow necessary for a politics board to function. They cannot separate shitposting that's meant to be humorous from shitposting that's meant to slide. One is condoning good posting behavior and in line with the culture of the board while the other is just exploiting the perceived nature of imageboards. This is why anons so used to 4chan are treated with contempt when they go to other imageboards because they actually do not know how to behave in line with imageboards and are swiftly banned.

YO YO YO WATUP HOMIES

IT'S ME, THE GNOSTIC MASTER

Like my homeboy Jesus I'm recycling my own urine like a straight up hermeticist. Sealed tight like a bottle of dat drank. I'm 'bout to go grab my bitch Mary Magdeline and get my face all up in the snatch, that marriage supper NAW MEAN. Remember, like any wise Taoist sage will tell you, women (when they cooperate) are objects for cultivation only. And most the time the juice ain't even worth the squeeze! HOLLA!