Post: #1

Apologies if there has been a similar topic.

We are all aware that there is a relatively obvious socio-political push to get people to stop settling down and having babies. Women are heavily programmed with the idea that raising children "gets in the way" of a "more fulfilling life" of college education, careerism, and fun/adventure and being a "lowly mother/housewife" is an actively shamed lifestyle. Alternative lifestyles are promoted in the media as being hip and somehow superior. If you are straight then you are made to feel inherently guilty. Homosexuals are "proud" and celebrated. Transgender and other types of gender dismorphia or also praised and celebrated instead of being diagnosed as clinical mental disorders or at least dismissed away as people looking for attention. Divorce is encouraged especially so for women, and in the event where people do have children, single parenthood is also heavily praised (and subsidized).

The traditional household of a mother and a father with children is the least cool thing around these days.

My question is, what is the endgame? While we can all agree there is some sort of agenda, what is it supposed to lead to? Population control? To get more people consuming and working? While keeping everyone in the work force and spending money on material shit may be good for the economy at this time, it is unsustainable and the powers that be are surely aware of that. Many of you have read about Japan and Germany having such low birthrates that their economies won't be able to sustain themselves within the next generation or two. Are all these "progressive" Western nations with anti-family trends going to import Middle-Eastern refugees to balance it out?

This may call together a bigger picture. Do great nations need to have population growth or are there measures being put in place to sustain and grow GDP while also thinning the herd? Is this a global counter-measure for natural resource management?

Interested to hear what some of your theories are.

Post: #2

There is no endgame -- it's short term destruction, as that is the goal of narcissistic rage.

Post: #3

Nation destabilization. The endgame of the "elites" or the powers that be is to have total control over our mind, body & essentially our destiny shifting our reality to whatever they see fit, be it mindless consumers feeding their bank accounts or whatever they deem necessary. This was started a long time ago and has thus turned into it's own living, breathing entity that we see today, defending itself by whatever social means necessary, i.e tearing anyone down who thinks these core traditional values should be upheld until they fall into line. The push for mass immigration, destruction of the family unit & the moral decay we see happening is to destroy the nation & nationalist pride until there is no nation to fight for. I believe that Donald Trump isn't here by any accident. I think he's in essence, life's reaction to the spread of this cancerous idea, or maybe someone who embodies our collective thoughts that we're not going to submit. I'm not turning the man into anything he isn't but the timing for him to run couldn't have been any better. That's the conclusion I've reached, although I've been wrong before.

Also, here's Yuri Bezmenov speaking at length about nation destablization, it's extremely interesting for those that haven't heard of him.

Post: #4

"Some men just want to see the whole world burn".

It's tempting to think in constructive terms. What do they want to do? What is their plan? What is the goal? Etc. All of those are a mischaracterisation of what leftism is. Leftism is not generative -- it is not something in progress. It is degenerative.

The analogy is a fire. A fire doesn't have a target or end-point -- it just keeps burning so long as their is something to burn.

Post: #5

Saw this status on Faceborg the other day where guy asks a question and my friend gives an answer.

Guy: Another serious question to you, my friends:
I have witnessed my Caucasian friends, when in thè presence of individuals of another race, they proceed to, unprompted, to demean Caucasians in general. Now I have my theories, but what do you think?

Friend: They hate themselves and think by degrading themselves they'll ingratiate themselves with whatever minority.

Aka "Virtue Signalling"

Guy: Fascinating analysis, [Friend]. I must research this Virtue Signalling you refer to. The simplicity of answer is also on point.

Friend: Prepare yourself.

The rabbit hole is deep, my friend.


*a few hours later*


Friend: To avoid having 1,000+ notifications, I'll reply to something you said here:

Quote:"I agree. I've had this debate many times and the best argument I have been able to construct is that crimes are committed by all races/ethnicities and to claim otherwise is ill-advised at best. But I do believe that the majority of people (in this case Caucasians) are easy targets for the worlds' problems."

No one race can throw the first stone. No government can throw the first stone. We're all flawed and come from imperfect origins.

America can't throw the first stone. We killed off the Native Americans. Turkey can't throw the first stone, they committed genocide of Armenians. The Germans can't throw the first stone, they have the holocaust the answer for. The Jews can't throw the first stone, for they killed off the Philistines. The Hutsis and Tutsis in Africa genocided each other. Russians had pogroms against Jews, and under Stalin, the Russian government wiped out a good 7 million of it's own people in the space of ONE year 1932-1933 in the Holodomor. The Asian peoples have been killing each other since time memorial, whether Japanese on Korean, Chinese on Korean, or infighting amongst themselves. England subjugated many peoples in overseas foreign colonies and killed off a shit ton of the Irish. Arabs conquered many previously Christian kingdoms in the middle East and trafficked in slaves, especially white ones. The word slave comes from "slav" (Slavic peoples = white) after all. Hell, there may even be evidence that there were peoples before the Native Americans that inhabited the US before they were all wiped out. Notice how in history books, vague references were made about how native Americans and the Indians in South American thought the white men had come back.

In today's world - White Christians are an acceptable group to make fun of. Notice how no one cries racist when you do. Notice how none of those people call for your head or the death of your family if you fun of them.

Make fun of women? Sexist.

Make fun jews? Anti-semite.

Make fun of blacks? Racist.

Make fun of gays? Homophobic.

Make fun of trans? Transphobic.

And so forth and so on.

My final question - is if race is but a social construct, then why are we not all identifying as the American race? Did Lincoln not fight to keep the United States united? Did he not say, "A house divided cannot stand?". Sounds like another way of saying, "United we stand, divided we fall."

Used to be in you made fun of the US or anything US valued - it'd be unpatriotic at worst or bad taste at best. Now people can't go a minute without letting everyone know what special snowflake they are.

"I'm a democrat/republican"

"I'm gay/trans/demi/sapio/etc"

"I'm white/black/asian"

Never - "I'm American."[To avoid having 1,000+ notifications, I'll reply to something you said here:

"I agree. I've had this debate many times and the best argument I have been able to construct is that crimes are committed by all races/ethnicities and to claim otherwise is ill-advised at best. But I do believe that the majority of people (in this case Caucasians) are easy targets for the worlds' problems."

No one race can throw the first stone. No government can throw the first stone. We're all flawed and come from imperfect origins.

America can't throw the first stone. We killed off the Native Americans. Turkey can't throw the first stone, they committed genocide of Armenians. The Germans can't throw the first stone, they have the holocaust the answer for. The Jews can't throw the first stone, for they killed off the Philistines. The Hutsis and Tutsis in Africa genocided each other. Russians had pogroms against Jews, and under Stalin, the Russian government wiped out a good 7 million of it's own people in the space of ONE year 1932-1933 in the Holodomor. The Asian peoples have been killing each other since time memorial, whether Japanese on Korean, Chinese on Korean, or infighting amongst themselves. England subjugated many peoples in overseas foreign colonies and killed off a shit ton of the Irish. Arabs conquered many previously Christian kingdoms in the middle East and trafficked in slaves, especially white ones. The word slave comes from "slav" (Slavic peoples = white) after all. Hell, there may even be evidence that there were peoples before the Native Americans that inhabited the US before they were all wiped out. Notice how in history books, vague references were made about how native Americans and the Indians in South American thought the white men had come back.

In today's world - White Christians are an acceptable group to make fun of. Notice how no one cries racist when you do. Notice how none of those people call for your head or the death of your family if you fun of them.

Make fun of women? Sexist.

Make fun jews? Anti-semite.

Make fun of blacks? Racist.

Make fun of gays? Homophobic.

Make fun of trans? Transphobic.

And so forth and so on.

My final question - is if race is but a social construct, then why are we not all identifying as the American race? Did Lincoln not fight to keep the United States united? Did he not say, "A house divided cannot stand?". Sounds like another way of saying, "United we stand, divided we fall."

Used to be in you made fun of the US or anything US valued - it'd be unpatriotic at worst or bad taste at best. Now people can't go a minute without letting everyone know what special snowflake they are.

"I'm a democrat/republican"

"I'm gay/trans/demi/sapio/etc"

"I'm white/black/asian"

Never - "I'm American."
_____________________________________________________________________

Point is, we're officially known as the United States of American, but we're anything but united and getting worse each year. A populace that is divided amongst itself can't hope to stand up to the United Front of Tyranny.[/quote]

G

Post: #6

(05-26-2016 01:55 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  A populace that is divided amongst itself can't hope to stand up to the United Front of Tyranny.

This is the key piece. Keeping people polarized and in-fighting is the key to control. Pit the population against themselves and they have no choice but to look to big-daddy government to fix everything. People can't rise up if they can't agree on anything.

Post: #7

I'm not deeply religious, but one of my friend always told me that our society will keep on getting worse and worse in order for us to believe in everything but our creator. I'm far from being knowledgeable on religion, but he always told me the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled is making people believe that he never existed.

And I'm starting to wonder... does anyone who love the Human Race would insist on the Destruction of the Family Unit by promoting everything that's opposite in Beliefs. I don't know what the a Truth is... but we can all agree that something ain't right in our crazy times

Post: #8

I think this is a Western phenomenon and spreads to other countries from there (the West usually leads the way in most aspects).

The backlash against traditional family values in the sixties was simply rebellion against the status quo. They had decent causes then (blacks literally had inferior rights under the law) but I think it got off track after that. The left has been moving through increasingly ridiculous causes ever since in order to justify these radical social changes they are trying to inflict on everyone.

This has often happened in countries that had conservatism as status quo - eventually backlash goes very far left (Spain after Franco) but then they return to centre right (Hungary after Soviet Union). I think there will be a return to traditional values soon in the West.. Because it works better as the status quo! Already I can see the housewife stigma is disappearing - my wife is pregnant and leaving work never to return full time and her friends/colleagues consider her lucky to be able to do that. It's almost like a uncommon luxury now.

My point is it's a political cycle and will come back around (rise of Trump and others). I think on a personal level, progressive values are caused by cognitive dissonance - a subconscious drift towards ideas that reinforce ones own actions. Most promoters of abortion, non-traditional sexual behaviour, etc often hav done these things or want to. Makes sense as to why their arguments for these issues aren't usually rational. But as we often see choosing a life that involves these things does not end well so methinks change is afoot

Post: #9

Diversity and proximity = war

We are evolved to live in small tribes. We drive out and kill invaders of our small patch of jungle. Other tribes want to steal our resources. We are apes, with ape brains still.

Ever notice how when the tribe gets too big we find other ways to make a tribe? A religion, a football team, a town, a punk/emo/goth, anything to make a tribe.

Once you got different tribes next to each other, you got a war.

Post: #10

For starters it helps not to view the left as some sort of top to bottom hive mind. The bulk of the left from the well paid middle-management in government down to the BLM clowns on the street are what Stalin (the real Stalin) referred to as "useful idiots". They are people who have been tricked into serving a master while believing that they actually serve an ideal, the master being the globalist elites and the false ideal being "social justice". Psychologically speaking this is powerful juju. Few men will give their lives to make a stranger richer and more powerful, but many will fight tirelessly in service of a higher ideal.

Breaking down the family unit specifically? One of the more credible explanations dates a fair way back, and that's depopulation. This is no longer conspiracy theory. Many of the key players are quite open about the issue, if not the means by which they intend to achieve it. The usual question though is "why aren't they doing it in Africa or India etc etc.

I believe the reason for this is that the peoples of Western nations are the only ones really capable of resisting this move by the elites. That is to say (and not to put too fine a point on it) white western nations. Hence the shadow games to reduce our fertility rates and flood white nations with non-whites. This, of course, is one of the greatest heresies you can speak in this day and age, which ironically gives it a sort of credibility.

If you want to point a finger at something directly then a good place to start is with the lie that we are more prosperous than ever before. One job, a home and a car per family became two jobs, a landlord and two cars per family. The vast majority of that increased productivity (and decreased family time) simply went to the banks who created credit out of thin air, massively inflated the market for everything and enslaved an entire civilisation with (arguably unavoidable) debt.

Whites are their own worst enemy in many cases. We evolved under harsh winter/summer extremes and are conditioned not to have children that we cannot support. Tax us enough, use cheap debt to inflate the cost of a home high enough, and we simply stop having the children we cannot afford to feed.

Post: #11

The anti-family agenda is closely aligned with socialism. Patriarchy and elitism, the antitheses of feminism and socialism, go hand-in-hand. Capitalism and other forms of elitism involves hierarchies in which the mediocre live a semi-comfortable life carrying out the orders of those at the top.

Under patriarchy, the most powerful and successful men have harems of women. The women are uneducated because their patriarch wants them while they're young and beautiful, and doesn't need (or want) them to work outside the home, since he's trying to keep sexual polarity going through traditional sex roles. He provides their resources and they provide sex and babies. Women are a prize to be captured in war or purchased on the market.

Under feminism, women are highly educated. By the time they are available for childbearing, they have become less desirable, because they are older and less virginal. They're mostly suitable to be treated as disposable items during their prime by alphas, while betas get leftover scraps. Nobody ever truly owns women; they only get turns. (Just to level the playing field even further, age restrictions are established to keep older men out of the competition for younger girls; this gives adolescent men opportunities that their lack of maturity might otherwise bar them from.)

What does this lead to?

(1) Androgyny! The sexes will be interchangeable. Men will be feminized and women will be masculinized. Neither will be an authority figure over the other, because on paper, both will have the same credentials.

(2) Egalitarianism! In this brave new world, any young man who is willing to learn game can theoretically get young, hot, tight pussy. It used to be that you had to have money or status or something. You had to actually be a suitable provider. Those standards are now abolished; now the only requirement is that you be willing to approach women boldly and treat them like shit so that they think you're a man with lots of options.

(3) Monoculturalism! As the family breaks down, government takes on the responsibility of raising the young, and it imposes its monoculture on them. Families no longer establish their own unique microcultures.

What androgyny, egalitarianism, and monoculturalism have in common is that specialization and the division of labor break down. A woman can't live a comfortable life just by being feminine; she has to work. A beta can't live a comfortable life just by trading resources for sex; he has to learn game. Different cultures' unique strengths can't be leveraged to accommodate individual preferences. (For example, when we all speak the same language and have the same accent, you can't take advantage of being exotic to get laid in some foreign pussy paradise.) Etc.

We've seen that feminism causes fertility rates to drop below replacement levels. Thus, the end result is the extinction of humanity, if this is carried out globally. And there are indeed plans to carry it out globally. Organizations like the United Nations Population Fund are working on that, handing out foreign aid to impoverished countries for contraceptives that will get the fertility rate down so that they can afford to educate their women, which will reduce fertility even further. Regional organizations like the European Union and African Union, meanwhile, promulgate regulations and treaties to raise the marriage age, which also brings down fertility rates and makes it easier to educate women.

It's very similar to how communism results in economic collapse. The government says that it knows better, and imposes uniform standards, uniform schooling, etc. so as to ensure consistently high quality and give everyone an equal opportunity for success, theoretically. The ingenuity of the individual is stifled, because the only way in which the individual could be empowered would be to allow him to accumulate more resources than his peers, and act on his own judgment to take risks that could result in personal enrichment or personal failure, which would be contrary to socialism.

What it all boils down to is that people would rather destroy everything than exist in a prosperous society where they don't get to be the ones calling the shots and having superior status. They're unwilling to settle for being mediocre or inferior, even if the life of a commoner in a free society is not all that bad, if he would not let himself get consumed with envy.

Now that feminism has been acknowledged as a form of progress, though, if we advocate going back to patriarchy, people will say that we're reactionary. We would have to acknowledge a mistake, which could be deeply traumatic for this country. Notice, for example, how America never really got over the Vietnam War completely because it wasn't possible to spin the outcome as a victory.

Stuff like slavery seems easier to accept as part of our history, because it was there pretty much from the beginning. But to admit that it's actually possible for America to culturally retrogress rather than always progress? That would be a real blow to the national ego.

Post: #12

(05-26-2016 02:25 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:55 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  A populace that is divided amongst itself can't hope to stand up to the United Front of Tyranny.

This is the key piece. Keeping people polarized and in-fighting is the key to control. Pit the population against themselves and they have no choice but to look to big-daddy government to fix everything. People can't rise up if they can't agree on anything.

The very motto of the United States is meant to serve as a reminder of this. E pluribus, unum: "Out of many, one."

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #13

It also depends who you ask.

There seems to be some interest in creating people in genetically engineered castes aka Brave New World or the Mechwarrior clans, and a lot of the fathers of modern progressivism like Huxley and Crowley openly espoused that idea as a good thing.


I also have one acquaintance who wrote a fairly extensive esoteric "bible" of sorts. This guy has made numerous claims about human genetics, "hidden history", and political events that seemed crazy at the time. Now that many of his predictions have come to pass or seem likely I am not quite so dismissive. He claimed back in 2011 that there was a World War planned to start in 2024, in the Middle East, between Russia and the US that would come after a brief era of heightened awareness. We seem to be on track for exactly that. If you believe him the end goal is that America has already served its purpose of advancing technology and what is happening now is part of a controlled demolition of sorts that will culminate with the near complete elimination of human life from the American continent as operations shift to the Eastern hemisphere.

Post: #14

^ Operations shifting to the Eastern Hemisphere? Hmmm, meaning that oligarchs remain in the USA?

Post: #15

It's not an anti-family agenda.

It's an anti-quality family agenda.

The more low-quality people there are to want gimmedats from government and feel-goods from TV, and/or the fewer quality people there are, the more power the government (particularly Democrats) and the left-stream media can consolidate (coalition of the failures, after all).

I highly doubt it's some hush-hush conspiracy, just politicians and the leftstream media reacting to stimuli. Lab mice could figure it out.

Thus, they want to import more low-quality people and encourage more births from low-quality people who are already within the borders, and discourage births from quality people.

In fact, Democrats are pretty open about it. Hence their proclivity for gun-control (i.e. gun-confiscation), open borders for low-IQ migrants, and a bloated welfare state (to encourage births from low-quality natives, as well as newly arrived low-quality migrants).

Post: #16

(05-26-2016 05:24 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Diversity and proximity = war

We are evolved to live in small tribes. We drive out and kill invaders of our small patch of jungle. Other tribes want to steal our resources. We are apes, with ape brains still.

Ever notice how when the tribe gets too big we find other ways to make a tribe? A religion, a football team, a town, a punk/emo/goth, anything to make a tribe.

Once you got different tribes next to each other, you got a war.

Then kingdoms and the like were?
Society was only purely tribal so long as communications were limited and rules non-existent.

Post: #17

It's somewhere in between.

People have been trying to crack the code to widening what we accept as "tribe" for thousands of years. In the time of kings they had to resort to the concept that God himself had ordained the king and thereby to go against the king was to go against God. This principle got us from clans to kingdoms. Beyond that, you're correct in that communication played a vital role but race did also. The modern nation state was formed out of a racially homogeneous group that was lashed together with ongoing propaganda and was accepted because it appeared to lead to better outcomes for everyone involved, as long as you didn't lose any wars.

Now the globalists are not only destroying that racial homogeneity but they are attempting to destroy the very concept of borders. For this they require brute force and extreme levels of propaganda, and there's already evidence that even that is not enough. This is why the concept of tribe is being reorganised into those that comply/trumpet the new order and those that don't. Everyone needs someone to hate, and groups like ANTIFA are an example of that tribal ingrouping in action. Trump's election on the other hand is an example of a resistance to same by the people for whom nation is as far as they're willing to extend the concept of "us".

Hence he elites push the idea that "this is about progressives versus conservatives" because it allows them to draw a line through every nation in the world. Meanwhile the nationalists are wisely fighting for nationalists versus globalists, which is precisely what the one-world-order elites are trying to abolish.

Post: #18

Adding in extra perceptions that fit a narrative are easy to do. A more simple lenses is that people cling to and long for someone who is strong confident and can/will make decisions that benefit them.

Post: #19

Supposedly the idea behind modern divorce was to liquidate family assets. This way (((those))) who would become super rich but also cheat on their spouses and have numerous affairs / engage in orgies etc, they would just look past all of it to keep the assets to (((their))) children, knowing full well that the normal people could not be so emotionally detached and adulterous without guilty feelings, and be without reason to break off the relationship.

The reason why women are able to get 50% of a man's pension if she rapevorces him in court is because the dumb bitch sure as hell won't save that shit, she'll spend it on carouseling around for however long she wants to. Everything in modern finance is designed to prey on weak human mistakes.

There is no escape from this bullshit unless the system collapses (meaning world economy, at least for first world countries).

Post: #20

its world and national control.

the biggest threat to the world elites was a wealthy middle class in america. by destroying the family, you cut the wealth in half and reduce the birth rate.

wealth is being transferred to places like china, india, etc. some of the disparaties are evening out.

Post: #21

Post: #22

I think it will eventually become impossible for feminists to deny that equality between the sexes is unstable. As red pill truths increasingly become common knowledge, feminists will instead have to more openly seek female supremacy and matriarchy.

The reason is that every ship has to have a captain. The divorce rates prove that having two co-captains doesn't work.

Notice that marriage rates are falling, but feminists don't seem too troubled about it. Shouldn't they be? Doesn't marriage play an important role in female AF/BB strategy?

I don't think so. I think that it served a short-term purpose to subvert marriage in such a way as to allow women to betray their husbands and grab the kids and cash. But in the long run, feminists are not going to be able to keep up the charade that marriage is about a relationship between two people with equal power.

Therefore, the endgame is for women to explicitly be the heads of every household. In the future, men will have neither parental rights nor parental responsibilities. The mother will have the right to cut the father out of her kid's life entirely whenever she wants. Likewise, he will have the right to leave without paying alimony and child support.

We're already headed in this direction. As women earn more money, they're less likely to be entitled to alimony in the event of a divorce. So why bother with marriage to begin with? It creates unnecessary drama, since she has to blame the breakup on him in order to avoid looking like a loser. Increasingly, that won't work, as men learn to be skeptical about such tales of victimhood.

I would predict that in the future, bringing up the fertility rate enough to prevent depopulation will also require that the government provide massive subsidies for childbearing women, which will reduce the need for child support. That's going to further reduce the need for a beta husband. Women will instead want to indulge their preference to mate with an alpha and have kids by him.

In the future, young women will get their needs met by having men on call via smartphone apps. Oh, she's sick and needs someone to take care of her, or she needs help moving? She can just post to Craigslist, Tinder, Facebook, etc. and get some beta to assist her. As more men go red pill and stop being chumps, she may need to actually start putting out for these betas, but that's no worse than if she had a beta husband. As women get older, they'll probably still have their beta and omega sons hanging around to take care of them, since those men aren't going to be getting married or anything like that.

I think girls will no longer be brought up with the Disney fairy tale about marrying a handsome prince who will take care of her. They will be taught that they need to go to university to learn to take care of themselves. (That too is already happening.)

I think that as men and women become more androgynous, relations between the sexes will become more businesslike. There won't be so much talk of love. (Already, if you confess your love to a girl, it's considered beta.) They won't give their hearts to each other anymore, and open themselves up to being betrayed. It will just be acknowledged that, as with a friendship, the other person has the right to leave at any time.

I think the red pill will get the word out about feminine hypocrisy, to the point that men will no longer trust women's word anymore. So women will just have to drop their pretense of being anything that they're not.

Feminists will tolerate the red pill community's teaching game, because they need there to be a certain number of alphas out there in order to bang the college girls so that they'll want to stay in school. It suits feminists' purpose just fine if alphas refuse to settle down, or if they aren't even given the option to marry, because then they fulfill sluts' desire for high-quality casual sex. A truly dominant man isn't a suitable long-term partner for an empowered woman anyway. What women will seek instead is a man who is red pill enough to be able to get into character and play the clown by engaging in BDSM games that don't actually involve his owning her as a slave.

Feminists will NOT tolerate red pillers organizing openly, however, in any way that could create a risk that they would try to re-establish the patriarchy. We saw that with Robert Fisher.