Political containment thread

fkiblaze said:

Pretty much, there is no rational reason why women should be able to vote. If they must vote because it would be too hard to sell getting rid of the vote, then at least their vote should be segregated so it only effects them.

I don't want to play angry feminist because it would require me to lie or pretend reality is different that it is.
I was just wondering why women vote left? I consider myself centre right and I had ( relatively short ) left phase long before I could even vote.

From my observations of both myself and other women it seems to be flaw of empathy, or rather miss directed empathy, they hear all stories about how black are "discriminated" and eat them up without context. And with media that share informations reinforcing left wing point of view ( compare how much Floyd death was in news to any case of white person begin murdered by balck one. ) they end up believing in woke nonsense.

Of course there are some emotional men but statistical men are ones who tend to be more rational and less likely to vote for open borders because they saw "totally not propaganda" article about sad Mexican kids or something.

Still let's be honest male normies aren't much better, how many of them is trained to hate anything even remotely racist?

I doubt if we even should have democracy at all tbh

Poesix69 said:

I don't want to play angry feminist because it would require me to lie or pretend reality is different that it is.
I was just wondering why women vote left? I consider myself centre right and I had ( relatively short ) left phase long before I could even vote.

From my observations of both myself and other women it seems to be flaw of empathy, or rather miss directed empathy, they hear all stories about how black are "discriminated" and eat them up without context. And with media that share informations reinforcing left wing point of view ( compare how much Floyd death was in news to any case of white person begin murdered by balck one. ) they end up believing in woke nonsense.

Of course there are some emotional men but statistical men are ones who tend to be more rational and less likely to vote for open borders because they saw "totally not propaganda" article about sad Mexican kids or something.

Still let's be honest male normies aren't much better, how many of them is trained to hate anything even remotely racist?

I doubt if we even should have democracy at all tbh

realistically most men shouldn't be voting either, it's just that men are able to have a rational debate with one another about various topics. Women's politics boils down to her immediate self interest, especially as she ages: protection/security, provision/supply. the first sect grows a bloated police state and legal system, which ensures preferential treatment for women, and second part is literally just "welfare for all but especially me". This is why it's often called "Daddy Government"

When the Roman Republic was founded, it was the "patricians" (Roman noblemen) who handled everything political and were the only ones who voted. Overtime this was expanded to the plebian men and especially those who served in the legions, and then Rome became an Empire and all that shit went out the window. In America when the founding fathers created the Constitutional Republic, the vote was initially restricted to "landed gentry" (American noblemen), and very shortly after has been expanded slowly but surely to not only the common man but also different ethnicities and worst of all women (even the late stage Rome wasn't that stupid) but basically the intention for Republics is that only those men of which have land (which they had to upkeep), paid the most in taxes and/or were ready to or have served militarily should be granted the privilege to vote. Land was a lot more expensive back then, but basically it was a way to show that you had a stake in the outcome of your Republic.

The issue now is the 19th amendment (and women voting everywhere), but if we're being serious the real cause of this prime issue was the 14th amendment which guaranteed citizenship (and thus eligibility for voting rights) for all (white) men born or naturalized in the USA. And also inheritance for female relatives becoming big in the middle ages, meaning that men of low station and high station would literally vie for the affections and love of women (who inherited lots from their dead dad) causing all kinds of strife in the lands all so that they could secure their position as new nobility through conquest/war.

A system that solves these issues is a system that actually treats everyone fairly, funnily enough. In a Republic, create strict standards with which the privilege can be revoked or granted based on a variety of criteria, such as paying net taxes, owning and upkeeping land, serving in the military. You can even add some for flavor if you wish like religious based requirements to keep a nation more religiously homogenous, denying the vote based on dual allegiance (goodbye AIPAC and Jewish interests), etc.

AryanSuperSoldier said:

realistically most men shouldn't be voting either, it's just that men are able to have a rational debate with one another about various topics. Women's politics boils down to her immediate self interest, especially as she ages: protection/security, provision/supply. the first sect grows a bloated police state and legal system, which ensures preferential treatment for women, and second part is literally just "welfare for all but especially me". This is why it's often called "Daddy Government"

When the Roman Republic was founded, it was the "patricians" (Roman noblemen) who handled everything political and were the only ones who voted. Overtime this was expanded to the plebian men and especially those who served in the legions, and then Rome became an Empire and all that shit went out the window. In America when the founding fathers created the Constitutional Republic, the vote was initially restricted to "landed gentry" (American noblemen), and very shortly after has been expanded slowly but surely to not only the common man but also different ethnicities and worst of all women (even the late stage Rome wasn't that stupid) but basically the intention for Republics is that only those men of which have land (which they had to upkeep), paid the most in taxes and/or were ready to or have served militarily should be granted the privilege to vote. Land was a lot more expensive back then, but basically it was a way to show that you had a stake in the outcome of your Republic.

The issue now is the 19th amendment (and women voting everywhere), but if we're being serious the real cause of this prime issue was the 14th amendment which guaranteed citizenship (and thus eligibility for voting rights) for all (white) men born or naturalized in the USA. And also inheritance for female relatives becoming big in the middle ages, meaning that men of low station and high station would literally vie for the affections and love of women (who inherited lots from their dead dad) causing all kinds of strife in the lands all so that they could secure their position as new nobility through conquest/war.

A system that solves these issues is a system that actually treats everyone fairly, funnily enough. In a Republic, create strict standards with which the privilege can be revoked or granted based on a variety of criteria, such as paying net taxes, owning and upkeeping land, serving in the military. You can even add some for flavor if you wish like religious based requirements to keep a nation more religiously homogenous, denying the vote based on dual allegiance (goodbye AIPAC and Jewish interests), etc.

Yea, you pretty much just want a system where only the landed gentry vote, and essentially just vote for a king. The way you have the benefits of monarchy and democracy with none of the downsides of either.

Just watch "Europe The Last Battle"

Daz271 said:

Just watch "Europe The Last Battle"

Im going to quickly explain how the soviet union was jewish, despite the fact that later "stalin did this x thing that was anti-semetic." cause somehow it confuses some people. The early Bolshevik government was founded and created by jews, trotsky, lenin, and many others as well was communist itself, marx, hess, etc. america and the west were also pro soviet this time, and we obviously eventually allied with the soviets. Lenin died and eventually Stalin took power (a non jew although one of his wives was jewish) originally stalin continued the pro-jewish soviet union so he was seen as a good guy, but eventually, as everyone knows he did his purges against the Bolsheviks this essentially purged everyone to his left and a lot of these jews. they then fled to the west and became the neo-cons and hence the shift from soviets being a good guy to soviets being the cold war enemy. Stalin made the soviet union less jewish and more nationalist so he then became the enemy, that doesnt mean it wasnt founded by and a jewish system early on, it just eventually got taken over by a non jew and changed. Putin continued this trend, by "purging the oligarchs" a bunch of jewish billionaires and thus russia became even more of an enemy to the ZoG west, what they are today.

this thread makes me so happy tbh-
ill post one of my own :olitical takes here: trump is one of the best presidents weve had in a long ass time, i mean sleepy joe did nothing but let illegals and nigers run wild, and dont get me started on that fucking monkey obama, but ill admit trump hasnt handled the economy well with the terrifs and elon musk has to be one of the only white guys i wouldnt smash, but socially? hes done more good than any of those other dem losers.

Traitor_Coon said:

this thread makes me so happy tbh-
ill post one of my own :olitical takes here: trump is one of the best presidents weve had in a long ass time, i mean sleepy joe did nothing but let illegals and nigers run wild, and dont get me started on that fucking monkey obama, but ill admit trump hasnt handled the economy well with the terrifs and elon musk has to be one of the only white guys i wouldnt smash, but socially? hes done more good than any of those other dem losers.

preach

Traitor_Coon said:

this thread makes me so happy tbh-
ill post one of my own :olitical takes here: trump is one of the best presidents weve had in a long ass time, i mean sleepy joe did nothing but let illegals and nigers run wild, and dont get me started on that fucking monkey obama, but ill admit trump hasnt handled the economy well with the terrifs and elon musk has to be one of the only white guys i wouldnt smash, but socially? hes done more good than any of those other dem losers.

The tariffs thing was overblown propaganda. The stock market going down to literally just what it was at a year ago is more than worth it to make the working and middle class more well off by bringing back jobs. The rich have had decades of massive stock growth while the poor and middle class suffer, they can take a hit to their stocks for a year or two to bring back jobs.

Who here wants to legalize polygamy irl?

user_22931 said:

Who here wants to legalize polygamy irl?

It allready is. Nothing stops you from being with multiple women.

fkiblaze said:

It allready is. Nothing stops you from being with multiple women.

Correct, it's just social stygma

Honestly, we should encourage polygamy, because it'd actually mean less housing costs, mean more theortical income for a given family, say one husband 2+ wives, kids ensured a watchful parent, and would mean less likely for the woke mind virus to infect the younger generation.

SKK_Bleacher said:

Correct, it's just social stygma

Honestly, we should encourage polygamy, because it'd actually mean less housing costs, mean more theortical income for a given family, say one husband 2+ wives, kids ensured a watchful parent, and would mean less likely for the woke mind virus to infect the younger generation.

I mean you can achieve the same thing in those multigeneration households where ppl live with parents and grandparents. That said if you can get more than 1 girl, still go for it.

Here is a problem for you:

If you were a religious person, how much chance would you have to convert a science-based academy to the teachings of your god?

The answer is simple: if the academy follows laws and rules based on science, your chance would be almost zero. The only people they might convince there are weak-minded or those who already reject scientific ideas.

Where would you have a better chance to spread your religion, which is based on stories and fairy tales? In small, isolated villages where superstition and myths are normal.

See? People who try to put fairy tales into your mind look for places with low education, where frustration or mental weakness exist. Mental weakness is not always a fault; sometimes people are weak because they are going through hard times. How many people have turned to religion after very difficult moments in their lives?

But I don’t want to talk about the victims—the people who are targets of religious propaganda. I want to talk about the shitty trolls who go around trying to make converts by digging into and exploiting human weaknesses.

If you want, imagine that I am one of these trolls: after all, I’m trying to help people into rational thinking, this make me the first target for rational thinking. The goal of a troll is to isolate you as much as possible. If you think I am a troll, it means you naturally suspect anyone who tries to fool you—and that’s a good thing, right? Just don't stop on me and consider what others say: use your critical thinking on them too!

Now, let’s look at trolls who come to a forum for wankers and start spreading their Nazi propaganda. Their main target are the narcissists. If someone praises a narcissist, what do we think about that person? If a troll praises Nazism to a wannabe Nazi, what do we learn about that troll?

Remember the first idea? Let’s send that troll praising Nazism to science academies around the world—European, American, Asian, African, any academy based on science. What would happen to that troll?

In the same way, we see trolls praising trash like Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, and Hamas. All these trolls have a good life on forums for wanking, but how well would they do in any science-based academy, without political or religious influence suppressing science? These trolls avoid places where people think freely and choose you because it’s easier for them.

Aakord said:

Here is a problem for you:

If you were a religious person, how much chance would you have to convert a science-based academy to the teachings of your god?

The answer is simple: if the academy follows laws and rules based on science, your chance would be almost zero. The only people they might convince there are weak-minded or those who already reject scientific ideas.

Actually this isn't a hypothetical, we have the actual real world history, and the academy would be the first place you go. 1: practically every university academy was created by religious leaders. (Harvard was literally created by a puritan cleric) 2: the academy is where the modern religion of woke was spread and used to indoctrinate people with.

Why a troll would want to create distrust about reliable institutions and share misleading information?

If a troll were to enter these institutions, they would crush down by science to the point they couldn't walk for weeks. Instead, trolls stay away from places of research and reason. They prefer online forums for wankers, thinking: "people here are all morons and no one will mind all the BS I say."

Well, we need to decide whether this forum is for jerking off to a legitimate fetish, or for trolls who work their mouth to suck on oligarch's tiny dicks.

It's a good move to have a contained thread for politics, so people can come there and check the shit they are full of (again, you can suspect I am troll also, that's how rationality works: you're suposed to look for best and reliable info out of the discussion)

Aakord said:

Here is a problem for you:

If you were a religious person, how much chance would you have to convert a science-based academy to the teachings of your god?

The answer is simple: if the academy follows laws and rules based on science, your chance would be almost zero. The only people they might convince there are weak-minded or those who already reject scientific ideas.

Where would you have a better chance to spread your religion, which is based on stories and fairy tales? In small, isolated villages where superstition and myths are normal.

See? People who try to put fairy tales into your mind look for places with low education, where frustration or mental weakness exist. Mental weakness is not always a fault; sometimes people are weak because they are going through hard times. How many people have turned to religion after very difficult moments in their lives?

But I don’t want to talk about the victims—the people who are targets of religious propaganda. I want to talk about the shitty trolls who go around trying to make converts by digging into and exploiting human weaknesses.

If you want, imagine that I am one of these trolls: after all, I’m trying to help people into rational thinking, this make me the first target for rational thinking. The goal of a troll is to isolate you as much as possible. If you think I am a troll, it means you naturally suspect anyone who tries to fool you—and that’s a good thing, right? Just don't stop on me and consider what others say: use your critical thinking on them too!

Now, let’s look at trolls who come to a forum for wankers and start spreading their Nazi propaganda. Their main target are the narcissists. If someone praises a narcissist, what do we think about that person? If a troll praises Nazism to a wannabe Nazi, what do we learn about that troll?

Remember the first idea? Let’s send that troll praising Nazism to science academies around the world—European, American, Asian, African, any academy based on science. What would happen to that troll?

In the same way, we see trolls praising trash like Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, and Hamas. All these trolls have a good life on forums for wanking, but how well would they do in any science-based academy, without political or religious influence suppressing science? These trolls avoid places where people think freely and choose you because it’s easier for them.

Retard alert‼️🗣️

The great majority of scientific and technological advancements came under a theocratic world order. Think of the Renaissance for example. "Mental weakness" as you say is in an all time high due to people living meaningless purposeless lives lacking spirituality. "Just do what feels good bro, live and let live bro" is a recipe for disaster and the people that believe in this liberal mantra show that they are morally weak and have zero principles. The experts class have shown themselves to be an absolute farce, especially after Covid, transgenderism and climate change. They are nothing but state actors pushing for antihumanism.

Why not feed the troll? Why do people say that you should never feed the troll? If you argue with a troll you find that he dictates the topic. If a troll resorts to insulting you, it is not because he is passionate about the topic, but because he wants you to insult him back.

So. do I have to respond to insults? I will choose my target. If a troll throws an insult, and there are people who think the insult is a sufficient argument, it means that my audience is a kind of Bevis and Butthead: what kind of arguments could I make with this kind of audience?

But that is not my topic, if I address rational readers it is because I do not think they are idiots. The troll who hopes to make you giggle with insults, what does he think of you?

EDIT: I won't babysit what the trolls say here, so expect no replies from me until their activity don't give me a good argument to present to ya.

Aakord said:

If a troll were to enter these institutions, they would crush down by science to the point they couldn't walk for weeks. Instead, trolls stay away from places of research and reason.

Once again this isnt true. The "scientific institutions" are filled with many people who believe crazy ideologies and bias. "Science man" isnt a different species. He is just as effected by propaganda and indoctrination as most humans.

fkiblaze said:

Once again this isnt true. The "scientific institutions" are filled with many people who believe crazy ideologies and bias. "Science man" isnt a different species. He is just as effected by propaganda and indoctrination as most humans.

Nah you’re just a troll, trust the soyence™