by Lisa Outhwaite There’s a lot of talk on how women are particularly gullible when it comes to abandoning their tribe or being vulnerable to psychological attack by subversive movements etc. and I’ve got to say that, whilst I understand the emotional need in intellectually forcing women into submission, the arguments themselves are quite skewed. How many wars have men been propagandised into fighting on behalf of their enemies? Even as far back as 1900, members of the British Parliament were bemoaning the extent to which the British army was being utilised to serve Jewish interests: —‘“Wherever we examine, there is a financial Jew operating, directing and inspiring the agonies that have led to this war…the British army which used to be used for all good causes…has become the janissary of the Jews” – John Burns, before a full House of Commons. Jews have frequently manipulated the Nordic man’s love of heroism and noble warfare, using him as a war-mutt to expand their power base. (CD: as well as neoconservatism in the usa) It was an all male government, high on universal values and weakened by civilised living, that first granted Jews the right to stand as MPs. Freely handing the reins of power and protection for their tribe over to an openly hostile out-group. Naturally, they made short work of that error by securing 16 further Jewish MPs and a Jewish Prime Minister, who openly advocated for Jewish racial supremacy, in just a few short decades. That natural nobility in European men and a propensity to seek justice is counterbalanced by an idealism bordering on naive. (CD: the down side of heroism) I’m happy and willing to discuss where women have dropped the ball but that analysis needs some balance now. If for no other reason than that a continual shifting of blame only serves to further weaken true masculine strength. (CD: Argument has been made many times that expansionary Christianity, Commerce, and Moralism are just excuses for exercising Aryanism)
Source: Original Site Post
-
Sure But How Have Men Dropped the Ball?
by Lisa Outhwaite There’s a lot of talk on how women are particularly gullible when it comes to abandoning their tribe or being vulnerable to psychological attack by subversive movements etc. and I’ve got to say that, whilst I understand the emotional need in intellectually forcing women into submission, the arguments themselves are quite skewed. How many wars have men been propagandised into fighting on behalf of their enemies? Even as far back as 1900, members of the British Parliament were bemoaning the extent to which the British army was being utilised to serve Jewish interests: —‘“Wherever we examine, there is a financial Jew operating, directing and inspiring the agonies that have led to this war…the British army which used to be used for all good causes…has become the janissary of the Jews” – John Burns, before a full House of Commons. Jews have frequently manipulated the Nordic man’s love of heroism and noble warfare, using him as a war-mutt to expand their power base. (CD: as well as neoconservatism in the usa) It was an all male government, high on universal values and weakened by civilised living, that first granted Jews the right to stand as MPs. Freely handing the reins of power and protection for their tribe over to an openly hostile out-group. Naturally, they made short work of that error by securing 16 further Jewish MPs and a Jewish Prime Minister, who openly advocated for Jewish racial supremacy, in just a few short decades. That natural nobility in European men and a propensity to seek justice is counterbalanced by an idealism bordering on naive. (CD: the down side of heroism) I’m happy and willing to discuss where women have dropped the ball but that analysis needs some balance now. If for no other reason than that a continual shifting of blame only serves to further weaken true masculine strength. (CD: Argument has been made many times that expansionary Christianity, Commerce, and Moralism are just excuses for exercising Aryanism)
-
Rand is a Young Adult level of thinker
Rand is a Young Adult level of thinker, and merely spreading the middle class ashkenazi separatist group strategy, rather than the militialism that made the excellences of the west – but for most young men (and some women) she provides a literary and non-technical method of opening the door to philosophical thought via an incentive that is important and intuitive to young aspirants. She’s a high school teacher. But she’s a damned good high school teacher.
-
Rand is a Young Adult level of thinker
Rand is a Young Adult level of thinker, and merely spreading the middle class ashkenazi separatist group strategy, rather than the militialism that made the excellences of the west – but for most young men (and some women) she provides a literary and non-technical method of opening the door to philosophical thought via an incentive that is important and intuitive to young aspirants. She’s a high school teacher. But she’s a damned good high school teacher.
-
“If you want to know the correct opinion on anything relating to the internet –
—“If you want to know the correct opinion on anything relating to the internet – censorship, privacy, net neutrality, bluecheck privilege – it’s the opposite of what the NIGARFAGTs want: Netflix, Instagram, Gofundme, Amazon, Reddit, Facebook, Apple, Google, and Twitter.”—Michael Andrade
-
“If you want to know the correct opinion on anything relating to the internet –
—“If you want to know the correct opinion on anything relating to the internet – censorship, privacy, net neutrality, bluecheck privilege – it’s the opposite of what the NIGARFAGTs want: Netflix, Instagram, Gofundme, Amazon, Reddit, Facebook, Apple, Google, and Twitter.”—Michael Andrade
-
The Ideal Government? Depends upon The People
by Daniel Gurpide Voltaire‘s political outlook, for instance, was emphatically practical and flexible, embedded in and addressed to the specific circumstances of various European nations. He supported a mixed constitutional government in England, a more popular republic in Geneva and Holland, a strong monarchy in France, and an even stronger and more centralized one in Frederick‘s Prussia and Catherine‘s Russia. While he generally had kinder things to say about England and Geneva than France, Prussia, or Russia, he did not think that any of these regimes was simply the ‚best‘. On the contrary, he insisted that such judgments cannot properly be made in the abstract, that they can only be based on contextually sensitive empirical analysis.
-
The Ideal Government? Depends upon The People
by Daniel Gurpide Voltaire‘s political outlook, for instance, was emphatically practical and flexible, embedded in and addressed to the specific circumstances of various European nations. He supported a mixed constitutional government in England, a more popular republic in Geneva and Holland, a strong monarchy in France, and an even stronger and more centralized one in Frederick‘s Prussia and Catherine‘s Russia. While he generally had kinder things to say about England and Geneva than France, Prussia, or Russia, he did not think that any of these regimes was simply the ‚best‘. On the contrary, he insisted that such judgments cannot properly be made in the abstract, that they can only be based on contextually sensitive empirical analysis.
-
—“So… fk off with your empty box”—
by Alex Macleod
—“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” — For that to be a true statement, those ‘more things’ must be knowable unknowns, known to the speaker but not to Horatio. Likewise with the electromagnetic spectrum, it was a knowable unknown, but could not be claimed to exist before knowledge of it. It’s not possible to refer to an unknowable unknown. No one can make a valid (true) claim to the existence of unknowable unknowns, such as ‘god’ or ‘a spiritual experience’ or ‘self-realisation’, unknowable unknowns cannot have any bearing on existence, as they cannot be experienced, testified to or referred to. They cannot exist. It’s an empty box, so fuck off with your empty box. A philanthropist might take the time to point out that what people claim to be ‘spiritual’ must be emotion, thought or sensation, and either diseased emotion, thought or sensation, or beautiful emotion, thought and sensation, that the person has been persuaded to have hijacked by someone else’s psychic disease, and flown to the destination ‘I felt god speak to me’ etc
-
—“So… fk off with your empty box”—
by Alex Macleod
—“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy” — For that to be a true statement, those ‘more things’ must be knowable unknowns, known to the speaker but not to Horatio. Likewise with the electromagnetic spectrum, it was a knowable unknown, but could not be claimed to exist before knowledge of it. It’s not possible to refer to an unknowable unknown. No one can make a valid (true) claim to the existence of unknowable unknowns, such as ‘god’ or ‘a spiritual experience’ or ‘self-realisation’, unknowable unknowns cannot have any bearing on existence, as they cannot be experienced, testified to or referred to. They cannot exist. It’s an empty box, so fuck off with your empty box. A philanthropist might take the time to point out that what people claim to be ‘spiritual’ must be emotion, thought or sensation, and either diseased emotion, thought or sensation, or beautiful emotion, thought and sensation, that the person has been persuaded to have hijacked by someone else’s psychic disease, and flown to the destination ‘I felt god speak to me’ etc