So your argument is that violent leftist groups are sufficiently deterred?
Has there ever been a politically motivated assassination of a young pretty white woman in the US?
They might not have been celebrities but were nevertheless fairly well-known, at least in certain social circles.
The main factor here is that it happened before Oct 7th.
On a different note I’d argue that this was probably not politically motivated on grounds that people generally comprehend that women, especially young and pretty ones, make very poor targets of publicized political assassinations from a PR perspective.
I assume this may have something to do with Reddit being generally more optimized for use on desktops instead of smartphones and tablets, because people are increasingly accessing online content on the latter.
Whatever we're slipping into will definitely be worse than the Days of Rage. The great majority of leftist terrorist acts in that period were nonlethal and symbolic bombings and abductions; this will definitely not be the case this time. Also the Days of Rage took place in a country that was much more homogenous ethnically and religiously, where civic nationalism was a much bigger social factor than today.
Her name was Ella Cook, just to add.
So I'm assuming your theory is basically that whoever organized the hit was aware that their son is a deranged methhead and is thus easy to frame.
I'd argue that no, it's actually not pretty clear, and I also don't believe that the material condition of the average young man factually improved in the past couple of decades.
I think you know that surveys don't mean a thing in this context, at least not in the way you imagine. The current feminized world is all that 20-25 year old men - or their fathers, for that matter - have ever known and most of them cannot imagine any other, they don't grok what it'd mean. Either way, you as a woman(?) are probably also affected by the apex fallacy, which is why you'd probably be surprised by many of the answers to that survey.
As is the overall delay of parenthood.
The "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" narrative is of civic nationalist, conservative / Red Tribe origin and presupposes a society that is at least neutral but definitely not hostile towards white men on an identitarian basis, is based on meritocracy and promotes masculine virtues. I guess this is what the OP is referring to.
a lot of movies are produced outside of LA and California
Isn't that just a simple case of corporate outsourcing?
It seems likely.
From Wikipedia:
Hawley studied history at Stanford University, where his mother was an alumna. He graduated in 2002 with a Bachelor of Arts degree with highest honors and Phi Beta Kappa membership.
From the viewpoint of white liberals, I guess this means he was evidently supposed to become one of them.
It should be mentioned here that, for one, the Galician minority in Ukraine is culturally closer to the Poles than to the Russians.
Except that GWB wasn't campaigning as an interventionist and a neocon in 2000, he was doing the opposite.
At a societal level, though, this sort of discrimination is both counterproductive and wrong.
This article reinforces one of the theses I encountered on Red Pill sites. Namely: if you elevate the relative social status of young hetero single men, it’ll incentivize them to pair-bond, marry and have children. Thus the marriage rate and the birthrate will grow, the average age of both men and women at first marriage will drop, and men will become more economically productive on average. This is what happened in the US after WW2, for example. If you do the opposite, you’ll get the opposite of all of this, which is what we’ve been seeing throughout the West for decades.
“What troubles me is that a lot of thriving white millennial men have had to follow the Josh Hawley path, where you have to leave liberal America,” an old friend, the father of two biracial children, told me. “I don't want to do that. Liberal America is my home. But if everyone says, this is not the place for you, what are you supposed to do?”
Can anyone clarify this part please? I don't know who that Hawley guy is, and according to Wikipedia, he was never a liberal.
Whatever arguments you want to make about the improvement in material conditions for young men over the past couple decades
Which are mostly BS anyway, if we want to be honest.
"I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon."
They always said that they "wanted to start a national conversation about diversity."
This is a completely BS term just like the one about needing to start a "conversation about race [i.e. blackness]". What is promoted is not conversation but exhortation and secular evangelisation.
Indeed. He claims that them merely making use of new opportunities available to them is their only role in this whole thing, which is clearly not the case.
- Prev
- Next

Ongoing political radicalization in echo chambers, I suppose?
More options
Context Copy link