crushedoranges
No bio...
User ID: 111
Women laying with popular men is the feminine form of the 'nice guy' who orbits, hoping to transform a sexual relationship into an emotional one. Some of them do understand, eventually, that the sexual appeal is the stronger card they have to play (which is why they suddenly become frigid after a girlhood of being a slag) but a lifetime of using their strongest card has inflated their sense of self worth, and neglecting the other aspects of their personal lives hits home all at once.
I am constantly reminded day after day that although the right has a very good understanding of what the left wants and thinks, the opposite is not true.
Suppose I told you that Democrats want to make abortions of unrestricted term legal on the federal level. Then, you would say, that is not true: that only certain extreme activists would say so, that they are a minority within a minority: that democrats in general absolutely do not celebrate abortions or attempt to sacralize it as some sort of female right of passage.
But yet, knowing this, you apply the broad brush to Republicans without the nuances or the understanding. All of the logic and reason of the previous paragraph falls out of the back of your head, and you say: "Republicans want to ban abortion federally."
Be honest with yourself. Are you being generous with your political enemies, or are you close-minded and prejudiced?
(After writing this out, I realize you could be referring 'they' as evangelicals, but the basic observation still is the same. Which ones?)
You can't fight against a man who has the Mandate of Heaven: history bends to his whim, success manifests in his chamberpot. All that the hero king touches turns to gold before his manifest destiny.
the Ayatollah is hiding in some Persian bunker, wondering if the Americans or the Israelis will give him the martyrdom he's being hoping for.
Bibi is on Fox News, talking about his friend Trump.
I think Israel is winning.
I'd rewrite it to... 'that black hole of tastelessness, of which the very fabric of space-time screams in silent surrender to the singularity of vulgarity.'
They're stupid by the standard of Supreme Court justices. The late RGB, although I ideologically disagreed with her, could actually argue the case for a living, prescriptive constitution. Sotomayor and Ketanji are unashamed diversity-hires whose dissents are so embarrassing that I'd credit them to their clerks to save face.
The Antipopulist is literally the nerd emoji who goes around saying, 'if we replace all the MAY with SHALL, that TOTALLY restores the legitimacy of the system. This won't be worked around by motivated reasoning! The open-borders advocates will take their ball and go home and the government will enforce the laws as intended!'
I refuse to accept it, on this face, to believe that someone could be stupid enough to argue this. Or that he would believe us stupid enough to believe it. It is totally pedantic, almost surreal. This will not happen. It has never happened. No one has given up on a cause because of the wording of a law. And all of it is a moot point, because, and let me shout it loud so that the people in the back can hear...
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW WELL A LAW IS WRITTEN IF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF ENFORCING IT DECLINE TO DO SO.
OBVIOUSLY.
The hostility is deserved.
If we decided immigration policy based on what aesthetically looked good to liberals, we'd have open borders.
I'm reminded of the meme of 'Top Twelve Images That Will Make You Go Fuck Having Borders And Laws', roughly paraphrased, with a picture of a crying brown crudely drawn in fake news article. If you give into emotional blackmail, then every illegal will cry and sob as they're yanked to the border. No one ever goes 'it's a fair cop, guv' and gamely goes back to South America with a cheeky, roguish grin. We're not playing cops and robbers. This is real life.
What you are getting now is the compromise between open borders and putting up guards on the Berlin Wall and ordering them to shoot to kill.
The American economy is not dependent on imports from China, and neither does it rely on exports to it. All it needs to do to blockade China is block the straits of Malacca and Tiran.
Assume that you are a democrat and you have progressive inclinations, and you live in a community of similarly minded individuals.
What if I told you I was going to import a lot MAGA Republicans, and not the standard Republicans, but ones who compete amongst themselves to buy Trump-labeled kitsch. Who immediately demand that the public library be replaced with a church, and the lesbian cafes with titty bars. That the buses should be sold for scrap as they take too much space on the street for their hummers to pass. And not only are they so numerous as to immediately change the demography of the town, they also vote, so that your well-meaning local representative is replaced by a used car salesman who loots the public treasury at every opportunity.
This would approximate the reaction that many people have to having the city's least desirable renting underclass moved into their neighborhood.
Melkor and Sauron were already immortal spirits with immense power amongst the Valar and Maiar. So in this sense, they were already beyond Fang Yuan's desperation. But this was not enough, never enough. Melkor was arguably the most powerful amongst the ranks of the Valar, in his capacity to create dissonances, but he was not Eru Iluvatar: and he could never usurp or replace him. Similarly, Sauron was great amongst the Maiar, but aspired higher. Even in Lord of the Rings all he does is attempt to take the place of his absent master, rather than attempt to free him.
Our poor MC would have loved to been Sauron, to have an immortal span of life, but quickly the prize would seem poisoned, as there are immortals of higher station still, and inevitably he will scheme and plot until he runs into the face of God, for that is the only logical end, other than defeat and destruction.
I don't know how you could manage to turn political murder into something fake and gay but the Zizians managed to do so. It's not the principles that are important, it's actually being able to do shit. If I could radicalize the people inside of an Applebees at 7pm they'd be able to do much more damage and cause a nation-wide lockdown.
A younger version of me might say, 'tits or gtfo'. I know better now.
Oh, how I know.
The whole premise of that particular idiosyncratic statement is that once the woman shows her tits, it is a fundamental humiliation: that she acknowledges she has nothing to contribute to the conversation but the aesthetic value of her body. If she feels objectified, good. That is the point.
Once that Rubicon is crossed, there is no going back. There is only the diminishing value of rapidly vanishing youth. Once the tits are shown, they cannot be unshown. You will never be taken seriously again, because to do so would be unfair to the literally countless other women who must compete for men's intellect without the benefit of gratitious nudity.
Aella is a woman of loose morals, literally (and with the intent of accuracy) one of negotiable affection. Her intellect shall always have qualifications because there is no end to men desperate for a crumb of pussy to validate her every musing and whim.
You can't make a ho a housewife. She cashed in respectability to ride the cock carousel. If she really cared about the opinions of others, she wouldn't have fucked thousands of men to begin with. She feels shame because she should feel shame. She gave up something meaningful for nororiety, fleeting and ephemeral. And that's really the end of the story. Hos mad. Hos sad. Life goes on.
Because taking on sovereign debt is borrowing from your children and incurring a obligation upon generations yet unborn for your personal benefit.
If great men are those who plant trees who will shade those long after they are gone, then the weak man consumes those fruits, and leaves the future to the harsh light of the unforgiving sun.
Goya: Saturn Devours His Son
I live in Canada.
There's no amount of propaganda that can make land or housing an unattractive investment. If people want to live somewhere badly enough, it increases the subjective value. It is fundamentally a doomed proposition unless you adapt a communist system where the government decides where and how you live. Land is such a powerful store of wealth that the primary goal of wars - not just in human societies, but in apes, and all sorts of creatures who fight over territory - is its acquisition.
Even if you say: 'all land is no longer an speculative investment vehicle' - it will not change the essence of the fact that people will start exchanging property rights with bullets instead of dollars. Because that was the status quo, before the market.
Land is perhaps the ur-investment, the one thing guaranteed that God (and perhaps the Dutch) aren't making more of. Even in societies where the government owns all the land, like in China, and merely hands out leases you have crazy real estate bubbles.
There is fundamentally no way to uncouple housing from investment because houses are expensive and take a lot of time and effort to build. There will always be fewer houses then there are people willing to buy them.
It's an objective truth that people have gotten fatter, not just women.
It's an subjective one that women's fashions have trended to the blue-haired and side-cutted. Androgynous, maybe. I would say 'less aesthetically feminine'.
Although on average, people are having less sex, the ones who are having it are having a lot more of it.
"I want to start a family with a woman I find attractive and young and who isn't the town bike" isn't the end of the world.
Newt Gingrich was exceptionally vile even by today's standards because he left his wife as she was dying of cancer. Trump is not the best husband (he may have beaten one of his wives) but so as far as I know his ex-wives all live comfortably.
It becomes inevitable, at the start of the new dynasty: to throw all the old scholars and burn them with their books. There is approximately a snowball's chance in hell that anyone in Harvard will cooperate, Politics is the question of the posssible. It is impossible to do politics with the left. Best to cut the gordiian knot.
If someone calls you Hitler, believe them as an honest expression of non-cooperation.
People who use power = bad Powerlessness = virtue.
It really is that simple. Progressivism is a massive navel-gazing operation in which people extol the virtues of powerlessness. Using power is something Icky Fascists do, and might hurt someone's feelings, so it has to be avoided at all costs. You see, if we take power away from the powerful, money from the wealthy, and beauty from the masses, and grant it all to the marginalized, everything will be better.
Like how taking away the farms from the whites worked in Zimbabwe, it's not that the new owners knew how to use the things they were given, but that it corrected a long-standing score, and that's what matters. Not the actually farming part. They want all the power but they don't want to govern. They want to control politics without participating in it. Very childish, very stupid. Very Theater Kid.
It's the 'many chiefs, one indian' problem in that they all want to be courageous thought leaders and someone else will do the work for them (namely, the state.) That's why the left wants to grant more power to the state, so that it has the power to enact their utopian experiments on their behalf. Heaven forbid they do any actual work!
That's not the definition of anarcho-tyranny at all.
A state of anarcho tyranny can exist even if the government has absolute control. They can allow crimes to happen to you (that's the anarchy) but if you try and defend yourself, you get arrested (that's tyranny). Special classes of people get to commit crimes with impunity while the law-abiding are punished with the full force of law.
I'm not going to go into the semantics game of gender. It is a trap that has consumed too much time for ultimately no purpose.
Sex is far more important: and indelible in which the exceptions make the rule in nature. The male anglerfish is a male anglerfish. Evolution has shaped him to end his life as a vestigal set of gonads, his face permanently melded into his mate's flesh. It is a horrible fate, but that is what nature dictates his life and function to be. A transgender human is more capable, for human beings in general are more capable, but all humans are animals and must obey what nature has endowed them with.
A MtF lacks the qualia of female-ness... womanhood is not acquired, but innate. As a 4chan shitpost brilliantly in my memory states: the state of being is inachievable by any level of becoming. They may claim to have been born a woman and assigned male, but they have the sex organs of a male: the body of a male. Their conception of what a woman is no different than their conception of what a transcendent posthuman intelligence would be. Or what an anglerfish imagines a man to be: fundamentally limited by the limitations of their bodies.
In other words: women don't have to think about passing, and neither do men, because by nature they are effortlessly what their birth sex is as their gender, to the point where the two terms are identical. It is only the trans perspective that insists on a duality!
Even if the technology were perfect: if it were a machine that turned XY to XX, they would still not be a woman. They would be a man who has become a woman through scientific miracle. The transgender demand is not 'I can do what a woman can do' but 'I was always, in essence, woman in nature, in defiance of my biology'. That is the contentious part. In the modern day, the best they can do is 'you are a man who is trying to become a woman, and failing'. And, in spite of that failure, demanding the special privileges of those who are women anyway.
To contrast, human flight has obvious and inevitable consequence for those who do not respect the natural law: that we lack a righting instinct to pull out of death spirals, that we are susceptible to horizon illusions that kill many pilots, etc... it is not comparable. That is the price we pay for heavier than air flight. Transness would be to insist to the universe that you be treated like a swan.
Let me talk about Gramsci for a moment.
Gramsci came to the (right) conclusion that Italy was not ready for socialism. Socialism in Italy was about as popular as Christian Nationalism is now. Any creation of a socialist regime in Italy would inevitably have to come top-down from a Leninist vanguard party. He was intellectually honest and realized that taking power for the people against the people's wishes was so contradictory as to be unjustifiable.
For similar reasons, America is not amiable to being a Christian nationalist homeland. But nevertheless, he believed it was possible: because he bought into, at some level, Marxist dialectical materialism. Christian nationalists believe they will succeed because God is on their side. You may not accept these reasons as being valid, but they are very real and compelling reasons to them.
By definition, they seek to transform and revolutionize society, but from such a marginal position, all they can do is encourage the development of a civil society that wants to be socialism/christian, etc. The strategy is sound. The reason that it's not done by everyone is that it's hard and requires patience. Only people on the margins of society without any other recourse to more potent levers would try this because success isn't certain in the least.
You're asking for novel and unique tactics from fringe ideologies: but the truth is that there really isn't any. Hitler sums it up in Mein Kampf better than anyone else, in my opinion: parasitizing off an existing movement and repurposing its infrastructure for your own ends. Street violence as self promotion: shows of strength in enemy strongholds. Attract the convincible and use them as leverage to force the establishment to make concessions. Then, when the time is right, seize power. This is virtually identical to Leninist vanguardism in every respect. Culture war is just to shape the intellectual landscape to prime the masses to accept the process of overthrow of bourgoise democracy as natural and necessary.
"Dad, I want to get married to a husband who takes marriage seriously and wants to start a family with me."
"Noooooo, my daughter, you need to ride the cock carousel from fifteen to thirty and waste your time with cads and fuckboys! How else are you going to become a bitter wine aunt? The world needs more girlbosses. Focus on your career and I'll pay for your IVF in your late forties with the finest Oxford sperm!"
More options
Context Copy link