Post: #1

... and calls them by their real name - cultural Marxists:

Quote:Feel no shame: Social justice relies on shaming tactics, usually by slandering an opponent with a label that does not really apply to him, in order to control his arguments and behavior. If you don’t care about being called a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, a homophobe, etc., then there is not really much that they can do to you.

Do not self-censor: This does not mean you should go out of your way to be antagonistic or act like an ass, but the thought police have power only if you give power to them. Say what you want to say when you want to say it, and do it with a smile. Let the PC police froth and scream until they have an aneurism. Cultural Marxists are generally weaklings. They avoid physical confrontation like they avoid logic, so why fear them?

Realize there is no such thing as white privilege or male privilege: In reality, there is only institutionalized “privilege” for victim-status groups. There is no privilege for whites, males, white males or straight white males. When confronted with such claims, demand to see proof of such privilege. Invariably, you will get a long list of first world problems and complaints backed by nothing but easily debunked talking points and misrepresented statistics. People should not feel guilty for being born the way they are, and this includes us “white male devils.”

Demand facts to back claims: Cultural Marxists tend to argue on the basis of opinion rather than fact. Present facts to counter their claims, and demand facts and evidence in return. Opinions are irrelevant if the person is not willing to present supporting facts when asked.

Do not play the game of "unconscious bias": If social justice cultists can't counter your position with facts or logic, they will invariably turn to the old standby that you are limited in your insight because you have not lived in the shoes of a - (insert victim group here). I agree. In fact, I would point out that this reality of limited perception also applies to THEM as well. They have not lived in my shoes, therefore they are in no position to claim I enjoy "privilege" while they do not. This is why facts and evidence are so important, and why anecdotal evidence and personal feelings are irrelevant where cultural Marxism is concerned.

Let cultural Marxists know their fears and feelings do not matter: No one is entitled to have teir feelings addressed by others. And, a person’s fears are ultimately unimportant. Whether the issue is the nonexistent “rape culture” or the contempt cultural Marxists feel over private gun ownership, their irrational fears are not our concern. Why should any individual relinquish his liberties in the name of placating frightened nobodies?

Demand that society respect your inherent individual rights: Collectivism’s ultimate propaganda message is that there is no such thing as inherent rights or liberties and that all rights are arbitrary and subject to the whims of the group or the state. This is false. I have written extensively in the past on inherent rights, inborn psychological contents and natural law, referencing diverse luminaries, scientists and thinkers, including Thomas Aquinas, Carl Gustave Jung, Steven Pinker, etc., and I welcome readers to study my many articles on individualism. Freedom is an inborn conception with universally understood aspects. Period. No group or collective is more important than individual liberty. No artificial society has preeminence over the individuals within that society. As long as a person is not directly impeding the life, liberty, prosperity and privacy of another person, he should be left alone.

Maintain your rights; they do not hurt other people: PC cultists will invariably argue that every person, whether he knows it or not, is indirectly harming others with his attitude, his beliefs, his refusal to associate, even his very breathing. "We live in a society", they say, "and everything we do affects everyone else...". Don’t take such accusations seriously; these people do not understand how freedom works.

Say, for instance, hypothetically, that I refuse to bake a gay wedding cake for a couple and I am accused of violating their rights in the name of preserving my own. I would immediately point out that no one is entitled to a gay wedding cake, baked by me or anyone else and I have every right to choose my associations based on whatever criteria I see fit. Now, a corrupt government entity may claim I do not have that right. But the fact is I do, and no one — not even government — can force me to bake a cake if I don’t want to. Also, I would point out that the gay couple in question has every right in a free society to bake their OWN damn cake or open their own cake shop to compete with mine. This is how freedom works. It is not based on collective entitlement; it is based on personal responsibility.

Refuse to deny the scientific fact of biological gender: Gender is first and foremost a genetic imperative. Society does not determine gender roles; nature does. A man who chops up his body and takes hormone pills to look like a woman is not and will never be a woman. A woman who tapes down her breasts and gets a short haircut will never be a man. There is no such thing as “transgendered” people. No amount of social justice or wishful thinking will ever allow them to reverse their genetic proclivities. Their psychological and sexual leanings do not change their inborn biological reality.

By extension, we should refuse to play along with this nonsense. I will never refer to a man in a wig and dress as a “woman.” I will never refer to a woman with identity issues as “transgendered.” They are what nature made them, and we should not police our pronouns just to falsely reassure them that they can deny nature.

Deny the illusion of Utopian equality: There is no such thing as pure equality. Society is not a homogeneous entity, it is an abstraction built around a group of unique individuals. Individuals can be naturally gifted, or naturally challenged. But there will always be some people who are more apt towards success than others.

I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of equality of opportunity, which is exactly what we have in this country (except in the world of elitist finance which is purely driven by nepotism). I do have a problem with the lie of universal equality through engineered means.

Standards of success should not be lowered in order to accommodate the least skilled people to facilitate artificial parity. For example, I constantly hear the argument that more people with victim group status should be given greater representation in positions of influence and regard within our culture, from science and engineering, to media, to business CEO's, to politics, etc. The key word here is "given", rather than "earned". There is nothing wrong with one group of people excelling in a field more than another group, and there is nothing wrong with inequality when it comes to individual achievement. We must begin refusing to reward people for mediocrity and punishing success simply because the winners are not part of a designated victim group.

If you are a man, embrace your role: I am a man and cannot claim to know what specific solutions women should take to counter cultural Marxism. I would love to read an article written on the subject by a woman in the Liberty Movement. I will say that men in particular have a considerable task ahead in terms of their personal endeavors if they hope to repair the destruction of social justice.

For thousands of years, men have been the primary industrial force behind human progress. Today, they are relegated to cubicles and customer service, to video games and Web fantasies, to drug addictions and a lack of responsibility. If we have any chance of undoing the damage of cultural Marxism, modern men must take on their original roles as producers, inventors, entrepreneurs, protectors, builders and warriors once again. They should do this for their own benefit, and not for the validation of others.

You don’t have to prove to anyone you do "manly things", just go out and do them. Most importantly, become dangerous. Men are meant to be dangerous beings. That does not mean we are meant to be indiscriminately violent (just as women aren’t meant to be indiscriminately violent), but we are supposed to be threatening to those who would threaten us. Modern society has NOT removed the need for masculinity and I believe people will begin realizing this the more our culture sinks into economic despair. Train in martial arts, learn tactical firearms handling, go hunting and don’t take lip from people. In my opinion, every man should know how to kill things, even if he never plans on using those abilities.

Home-school your children: It’s simple, if you don’t want your kids propagandized, if you truly want them to be free from collectivist conditioning, then you will make the sacrifice and extract them from public schooling. With the introduction of Common Core into U.S. schools in particular, there is no other recourse but home schooling to prevent the brainwashing of cultural Marxism. If you do not do this, you are relying on the hope that your children will escape with their critical thinking abilities intact. Some do, and some don’t. Others turn into mindless social justice zombies. You can give them an advantage by removing them from a poisonous environment, and that is what matters.

Many of us have learned these same truths in this community. The above snippet is from the full post that one of the Tylers wrote.

Post: #2

Quote:Men are meant to be dangerous beings. 

If there was one thing to get from your post, that is what caught my eye as an undeniable truth.

Post: #3

While disagree with the leftists, I can understand what they call "privileged" which is basically individual biases and prejudices played out at the societal level (there have been studies done on this). Bias and prejudice is a form of injustice, which is morally wrong.

The leftists are probably half-right but as usual go about fighting it the wrong way. Asking for government help and pointing a gun at violators or public shaming campaigns.

Capitalism usually fixes this by making racists look stupid or backward (via the market mechanism in hiring, lending, even dating). But the markets are over-regulated and stunted in today's society. Fact of life. And so the leftist rage cycle continues...

Post: #4

Interesting... ZeroHedge writes about SJWism nowadays.

I completely forgot about ZH; back when I read them consistently (by candlelight, via carrier pigeons delivering the latest post from printing press), the site only wrote about finance and economics.

Straight white men form one of the largest blocs in this country (along with straight white women), so a lot of this racial and gender (sexual) egalitarianism, and kow-towing to the gay/trans whim of the day, would go away overnight if enough straight white males said, "You know what? Fuck that."

There is no encompassing cabal (ha) of straight white men to unify and coordinate their efforts/thoughts--well, maybe there is and they just hide it from me, because that's just how evil and conniving straight white men are--so unfortunately, currently, there's a game theoretic aspect to it.

If a bunch of straight white men objected in concert, SJWism would get shut down over night. However, we see that isolated instances of straight white men sticking their necks out, even slightly (e.g. Richwine, Summers), result in the out-stuck nail getting hammered down, to mix my metaphors.

So we get the status quo, with straight white men largely biting their lips.

That being said, the internet age fills me with optimism on this front.

Straight white men can see that there are many more others that have "Red Pill" thoughts, and be increasingly aware of the havoc that SJWism wreaks.

MSM outlets are one by one shutting down their comments sections, because they're increasingly filled with un-PC comments.

We have men of all ages reading ZeroHedge, Roosh, Heartiste, HumanVarities, etc.

If you prod them a little bit, most straight white men are reasonably open to "Red Pill" thoughts, or even harbor them already.

Post: #5

Quote:Straight white men form one of the largest blocs in this country (along with straight white women), so a lot of this racial and gender (sexual) egalitarianism, and kow-towing to the gay/trans whim of the day, would go away overnight if enough straight white males said, "You know what? Fuck that."

Meaning, in practice, you'd be replacing the whims of the SJWs with the whims of straight white males (SWMs). Either way it's mob rule. Un-american in my book.

Post: #6

It is encouraging to see that people who oppose the chaos of the usurious casino capitalist system are also seeing the SJW as a related movement. The SJW movement comes from Trotsky and after his political force got kicked out of the Soviet Union along with the anarchists for being 'rootless cosmopolitans', it was so obsessed with revenge that it joined with the CIA and American international capitalism against the USSR in the 60s which formed the New Left which is now the established social force in the West (Soros - liberal international capitalist - and Pussy Riot - nihilist, anarchist, international SJWs - are the latest incantations of this force against Russian conservatism in the post-Soviet era).

I think this is what the international élite fears most. Up to now, the political centre of gravity in the West has been LIBERAL capitalism and LIBERAL social mores. They go together, however these two butt cheeks of the same ass have been artificially divided and apportioned to the two accredited forces of the two-party system (Right v Left/ Conservative* [sic] v Liberal) which means that whatever you for vote (or more accurately whatever you vote against, a liberal party (from the Whig movement whose philosophies caused the Irish Famine) will always be in power).

*cuckservative

Post: #7

Quote:If a bunch of straight white men objected in concert, SJWism would get shut down over night. However, we see that isolated instances of straight white men sticking their necks out, even slightly (e.g. Richwine, Summers), result in the out-stuck nail getting hammered down, to mix my metaphors.

The way they dealt with Richwine shows you that cuckservatives are probably a worse enemy than the marxists simply because they masquarade as your allies - and they proceed to stab you in the back.

Quote:MSM outlets are one by one shutting down their comments sections, because they're increasingly filled with un-PC comments.

This is clear proof that they are afraid of any sort of freedom. Because they know that actual freedom of speech and association will completely tarnish all their ideas about 'we are all equal', 'we can and must all integrate", "we must change our traditions, etc.

Freedom of speech and freedom of association do not exist in Europe any more. They exist in the States to a larger extent but will be slowly destroyed in the comming decades if the leftists and their enablers do not receive a giant 'FUCK YOU' to their plans.

Quote:Capitalism usually fixes this by making racists look stupid or backward (via the market mechanism in hiring, lending, even dating).

What's your evidence that it is economically and evolutionary unadaptive to be racist?
I'm agnostic on the economic part but evolutionary speaking being tribal is clearly an advantage in the current environment.

Post: #8

(11-08-2015 02:48 AM)johnfortunebg Wrote:  I'm agnostic on the economic part but evolutionary speaking being tribal is clearly an advantage in the current environment.

It's not evolutionarily adaptive to close yourself off from trade opportunities, limit your trade partners to just close kin and family, and isolate and estrange oneself from others who simply don't look like you. This leads to poverty and backwardness. Both economically and genetically (i.e. localized genetic disorders, lack of genetic diversity etc).

Humans have been trading and exchanging genes for our entire history on this planet. While understandable and you have a right to be tribal, strong tribalism in 2015 is silly at best.

While I don't agree with allowing large numbers of certain groups of people (i.e. muslims, low IQ, unskilled) to immigrate to western countries already overloaded and overburdened with people on low end, the free flow of people is generally a net positive.

Post: #9

Strong tribalism, and the lack thereof, is the reason why western nations are being invaded by backwards barbarians in the first place.

Post: #10

Quote:It's not evolutionarily adaptive to close yourself off from trade opportunities

Trade options do not automatically mean evolutionary success. If you plot current fertility rates throughout the world against % of foreign trade from the countres' GDP, you might get some interesting results.

Quote:This leads to poverty and backwardness.

Poverty and 'backwardness' (whatever that means, sounds like a SJW buzzword) are not necessarily an evolutionary disadvantage. Currently, they appear to be rather a big advantage, to be honest.

Quote:and isolate and estrange oneself from others who simply don't look like you.

Nice strawman. We all know that ethnic differences concern a lot more than just 'looks'.

Quote:Both economically and genetically (i.e. localized genetic disorders, lack of genetic diversity etc).

The bolded part is simply false. There is a simple way to prevent increasing the percentage of newborns with genetic disorders. It's "Don't marry your first counsins". Greg Cochran wrote about this. The optimal level of exogamy for preventing genetic defects is pretty low.
Genetic diversity is a meaningless non-term devoid of any substance. It's not valueable of itself at all. I'd rather stay clear of "genetically diverse" low iq, high time preference people, thank you very much.

Quote:the free flow of people is generally a net positive.

Not from an evolutionary perspective.
What will be the percentage of the genes of their current inhabitants in the gene pool of all Western countries in 2100 if the 'free flow' of people continues?

The only benefit of immigration (and not the immigration of the current variety but a highly selective one) is an increased standard of living for the current population - at the expense of their demographic displacement. So, essentially a hedonistic one. No society that embraced hedonism in the history of this planet managed to survive. This will not change.

Saying that 'strong tribalism in 2015 is silly at best' in the current circumstances is itself worse than silly - it is suicidal.
(Accidentally, the most historically tribal group of people in the USA seem to be doing quite well for themselves financially currently. I wonder why that is.)

Post: #11

(11-08-2015 12:28 AM)BossOfBosses Wrote:  While disagree with the leftists, I can understand what they call "privileged" which is basically individual biases and prejudices played out at the societal level (there have been studies done on this). Bias and prejudice is a form of injustice, which is morally wrong.
...
The leftists are probably half-right but as usual go about fighting it the wrong way. Asking for government help and pointing a gun at violators or public shaming campaigns.
...
While I don't agree with allowing large numbers of certain groups of people (i.e. muslims, low IQ, unskilled) to immigrate to western countries already overloaded and overburdened with people on low end, the free flow of people is generally a net positive. [LATER POST]

^ This poster is an SJW in disguise. They use tactics similar to this. Notice how they always try to lend a lie some credibility, like "I don't agree at all, but I do think that ..." or "This idea is right, it's being fought wrong though." They also come into threads like this immediately and start arguing with members because they need to defend SJWs, so they defend some of the SJW idea, hoping to get partial buy-in - this is why they're naturally attracted to threads like this. Threads on SJWs will almost guarantee that you find who is one and who is not because it's like a venus fly trap for flies.

From Glenn's post, the two tactics they use is Deny and Disrupt: flat out denial, especially on a forum like this, won't work, so the most effective denial is partial. "I agree, but" works best to try to manipulate the narrative; when you see these posts, note the topic - people arguing about gaming a girl or arguing about which sports' car is best doesn't matter because these aren't political topics. SJWs want to find political topics, especially threads like this where a user posts solutions to dealing with these trolls. They don't want that at all, so like Dalrock discusses about feminists trying to "rebuild the mound" (this is a very important post on propaganda techniques of feminists), SJWs begin denying and disrupting.

On RooshVForum, because it attracts men, we'll see partial denial then arguing - which are nothing short of the Deny and Disrupt techniques. Make no mistake: I want members to understand these propaganda techniques so that you don't fall for them. If you think they're using them a lot now, just wait; and we must all be on guard to those who try to limit our thinking to their politically correct and marxist horse shit.

Yes, RooshVForum has some SJWs on it as well, they just try to disguise their posts similar to the NSA creating fake comments and posts to control the narrative. Be on guard anytime someone posts to an SJW thread, especially if they even give the slightest credibility to any of their ideas.

Post: #12

This might also be a good time to bring up what I call "The Uber Alpha Username Theory"

Take a poster making comments like this:

Quote:strong tribalism in 2015 is silly at best

Yet he decided to name himself "BossofBosses"

If that's not a try hard username, I don't know what is.

A lot of the more respected members will have usernames that represent humour, a masculine character, a variation on their name/interests/background, etc.

I've found with a lot of newer members, a good rule of thumb for when you see a try hard username, is just to reverse it in terms of the quality/content of posts.

Another example, say someone has the word "Truth" in their username? They most likely don't post much real talk.

Do you see the word "Guru" in their username? Most likely their posts aren't that enlightening.

Obviously this doesn't apply in all circumstances, but it keeps coming up enough that myself and others have noticed a trend.

Post: #13

(11-08-2015 01:20 PM)LeBeau Wrote:  This might also be a good time to bring up what I call "The Uber Alpha Username Theory"

Take a poster making comments like this:

Quote:strong tribalism in 2015 is silly at best

Yet he decided to name himself "BossofBosses"

If that's not a try hard username, I don't know what is.

A lot of the more respected members will have usernames that represent humour, a masculine character, a variation on their name/interests/background, etc.

I've found with a lot of newer members, a good rule of thumb for when you see a try hard username, is just to reverse it in terms of the quality/content of posts.

Another example, say someone has the word "Truth" in their username? They most likely don't post much real talk.

Do you see the word "Guru" in their username? Most likely their posts aren't that enlightening.

Obviously this doesn't apply in all circumstances, but it keeps coming up enough that myself and others have noticed a trend.

Quick, somone snag the BossofTruthGurus username.

Post: #14

(11-08-2015 06:32 AM)SunW Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 12:28 AM)BossOfBosses Wrote:  While disagree with the leftists, I can understand what they call "privileged" which is basically individual biases and prejudices played out at the societal level (there have been studies done on this). Bias and prejudice is a form of injustice, which is morally wrong.
...
The leftists are probably half-right but as usual go about fighting it the wrong way. Asking for government help and pointing a gun at violators or public shaming campaigns.
...
While I don't agree with allowing large numbers of certain groups of people (i.e. muslims, low IQ, unskilled) to immigrate to western countries already overloaded and overburdened with people on low end, the free flow of people is generally a net positive. [LATER POST]

^ This poster is an SJW in disguise. They use tactics similar to this. Notice how they always try to lend a lie some credibility, like "I don't agree at all, but I do think that ..." or "This idea is right, it's being fought wrong though." They also come into threads like this immediately and start arguing with members because they need to defend SJWs, so they defend some of the SJW idea, hoping to get partial buy-in - this is why they're naturally attracted to threads like this. Threads on SJWs will almost guarantee that you find who is one and who is not because it's like a venus fly trap for flies.

From Glenn's post, the two tactics they use is Deny and Disrupt: flat out denial, especially on a forum like this, won't work, so the most effective denial is partial. "I agree, but" works best to try to manipulate the narrative; when you see these posts, note the topic - people arguing about gaming a girl or arguing about which sports' car is best doesn't matter because these aren't political topics. SJWs want to find political topics, especially threads like this where a user posts solutions to dealing with these trolls. They don't want that at all, so like Dalrock discusses about feminists trying to "rebuild the mound" (this is a very important post on propaganda techniques of feminists), SJWs begin denying and disrupting.

On RooshVForum, because it attracts men, we'll see partial denial then arguing - which are nothing short of the Deny and Disrupt techniques. Make no mistake: I want members to understand these propaganda techniques so that you don't fall for them. If you think they're using them a lot now, just wait; and we must all be on guard to those who try to limit our thinking to their politically correct and marxist horse shit.

Yes, RooshVForum has some SJWs on it as well, they just try to disguise their posts similar to the NSA creating fake comments and posts to control the narrative. Be on guard anytime someone posts to an SJW thread, especially if they even give the slightest credibility to any of their ideas.

You've come up with some kind elaborate, dastardly explanation where there is none. You're wasting your time.

That's because I am the furthest from an SJW as you can probably imagine (I have Objectivist/libertarian leanings). That means I value individualism, justice and free trade. There no sinister plan. But I do disagree with all forms of collectivism on anti-reason grounds.

P.S. And the root idea/real name of the SJWs/leftists is egalitarian. A false philosophy espoused and promoted by a prominent (dead) Harvard philosopher named John Dewey, who picked it up from Marx. I am not in any way shape or form, an egalitarian. It's not how the world works.

Post: #15

(11-08-2015 05:05 AM)johnfortunebg Wrote:  Trade options do not automatically mean evolutionary success. If you plot current fertility rates throughout the world against % of foreign trade from the countres' GDP, you might get some interesting results.

From another perspective, it sounds like your arguing against trade.

Fact: Every successful country in the history of the planet shamelessly practices foreign trade (including xenophobic societies like Japan). I dare you to find a single one that doesn't pursue trade in a high percentage of GDP with foreign countries.

Quote:Poverty and 'backwardness' (whatever that mans, sounds like a SJW buzzword) are not necessarily an evolutionary disadvantage. Currently, they appear to be rather a big advantage, to be honest.

Backwardness is exactly what it sounds like (i.e. stagnation). I say what I mean.

Survival comes first, "replication" comes second. Evolution is just passing on your pro-survival genes. Our job is survive first, in economic terms, that means trade.

Quote:Nice strawman. We all know that ethnic differences concern a lot more than just 'looks'.

Strawman no. Oversimplification? Maybe. Look I don't care what you do in your country. I live in America. America is a mostly pro-immigrant country so we see things differently. America is also the 3rd largest country by landmass. We need a constant flow of people to keep things running on all cylinders. Lets just leave it at that.

Quote:I'd rather stay clear of "genetically diverse" low iq, high time preference people, thank you very much.

You have a right do that. Absolutely.

Quote:the free flow of people is generally a net positive.
Not from an evolutionary perspective.
What will be the percentage of the genes of their current inhabitants in the gene pool of all Western countries in 2100 if the 'free flow' of people continues?

Why do you care about the "evolutionary perspective"? I guess I'm an individualist. I only care about my life and living it. I only care about my family, my children and the well being of those around me. I could care less about what could happen in 2100.

Quote:Saying that 'strong tribalism in 2015 is silly at best' in the current circumstances is itself worse than silly - it is suicidal.
(Accidentally, the most historically tribal group of people in the USA seem to be doing quite well for themselves financially currently. I wonder why that is.)

The "most historically tribal" group in the USA are called the Amish. And yeah, they live basically in the 18th century.

No society that cuts off contacts with the rest of the world prospers. To argue for that is silly.

Post: #16

(11-08-2015 02:26 PM)BossOfBosses Wrote:  I live in America. America is a mostly pro-immigrant country so we see things differently. We need a constant flow of people to keep things running on all cylinders. Lets just leave it at that.

I take it you've never heard of Donald Trump?

Post: #17

delete

Post: #18

(11-08-2015 04:00 PM)kleyau Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 02:26 PM)BossOfBosses Wrote:  I live in America. America is a mostly pro-immigrant country so we see things differently. We need a constant flow of people to keep things running on all cylinders. Lets just leave it at that.

I take it you've never heard of Donald Trump?

I take it as he has never seen the millions of excess workers in the United States but sure lets have more men coming into the country doing jobs people supposedly do not like.

Post: #19

I can't help thinking we've hit peak SJW.

I'm not suggesting the leftist movement is declining (it is only one aspect of modern leftism), simply that ridicule of SJWs seems to be growing all the time. For instance, there's the entire latest season of South Park dedicated to ridiculing them, that's pretty mainstream.

Post: #20

(11-08-2015 03:37 AM)Hannibal Wrote:  Strong tribalism, and the lack thereof, is the reason why western nations are being invaded by backwards barbarians in the first place.

No.

Nationalism and the lack national pride is why Western Europe is being invaded by Hijrah.

The Left tells them (and us) that diversity is wonderful, and multi-cult is the apex of reasonableness, since your own national identity is evil and immoral.

Therefore, shed you native state identity, and be absorbed by the Borg of collective, helping IDpol. You feel guilty because you are wealthy - so expiate that guilt, says Progda.

The transnational plan is now proceeding apace!

Post: #21

(11-08-2015 01:20 PM)LeBeau Wrote:  I've found with a lot of newer members, a good rule of thumb for when you see a try hard username, is just to reverse it in terms of the quality/content of posts.

You might be on to something here. For example, my username is 'Tactician,' but I'm dumb as a rock.

Post: #22

Hes right. My name is Hades, god of the underworld, and I live on the third floor.

Post: #23

Same here. I'm TigerMandingo, but I'm actually hung like a Chinese rice farmer.

Lebeau, you Sherlock Holmes, you!

Post: #24

(11-08-2015 06:01 PM)Surreyman Wrote:  I can't help thinking we've hit peak SJW.

I'm not suggesting the leftist movement is declining (it is only one aspect of modern leftism), simply that ridicule of SJWs seems to be growing all the time. For instance, there's the entire latest season of South Park dedicated to ridiculing them, that's pretty mainstream.

As other posters have pointed out here, read Martin Armstrong's work into economics. It will help you put a lot of the pieces together.


We're not at the peak of SJW's....where at the peak in GOVERNMENT economically, and from this point confidence in the public sector will begin to decline rapidly. They're also going to start facing massive fiscal problems. Both of these are extremely important because, if you've read the deep forum, you know that the government(in particular Obama) has been actively pushing SJWism: they are pushing for zero-defect laws, stymie any efforts to reform family courts, are stirring up racial tension, are "coincidentally" meeting with corporate executives immediately before those companies announce SJW pushes, and have been unbelievably aggressive in pushing the Tranny agenda.

The last point is particularly important. Obama has been massive pressure to bear against any country that goes against the homosexual agenda, and behind the curtain right now they are aggressively threatening those African countries that refuse to go along with making "gay rights" their #1 priority. It's also a big part of why Obama has been stirring up tensions with Russia.


Cut off government funding and you've done the equivalent of taking the fuel tank out of a car.

Post: #25

(11-08-2015 12:28 AM)BossOfBosses Wrote:  While disagree with the leftists, I can understand what they call "privileged" which is basically individual biases and prejudices played out at the societal level (there have been studies done on this). Bias and prejudice is a form of injustice, which is morally wrong.

The leftists are probably half-right but as usual go about fighting it the wrong way. Asking for government help and pointing a gun at violators or public shaming campaigns.

Capitalism usually fixes this by making racists look stupid or backward (via the market mechanism in hiring, lending, even dating). But the markets are over-regulated and stunted in today's society. Fact of life. And so the leftist rage cycle continues...

Those viewpoints are strangely a mix between libertarianism - completely free markets up until the liberty to sell your kids - and social justice memes.

I agree with some that this is some kind of attempt of clever masking of intentions.

The invisible hand of the free dating market will sort things out for sure.

No - it won't. The US was highly restrictive, tariffs up until the 1960s/70s were very high, markets were highly restricted, wages were high and unions were very strong. All this illusionary idea that unfettered markets and open borders will produce a super-utopia have never been confirmed in reality - all despite the fact that there have been libartarian economic models in place in history.