Yeah, and I honestly feel bad for some of them. Look at the physiognomy of this man. He didn't choose to be a leftgroid; his genetics chose it for him.
Thanks to your contribution today, democracy become even stronger
Yep, doing it again. Once again you guys making it clear that you despise male equality.
Everyone is gonna argue against women and I understand why, I think they're enjoying themselves in all of their misandry and virtual signaling. But no one will acknowledge what I'm saying right now out of sheer petulance.
It is frustrating.
I'm not left but i love the idea of socialism getting a taste from the money of them Rich fuckers while im at home
with the way the right looks down on mental illness it's no surprise the mentally ill move toward far left communities in droves tbh. both sides are totally fucked atm.
what
Indeed, I am rather upset that someone on a forum about incels is unironically arguing in favour of gender equality. Foaming at the mouth, punching holes in my drywall, however you want to visualize it. What about it?
I fail to visualize how a system that in any way gives women the option to choose will in any way help incels finding partners? Even if you strip down wealth and status as a factor it will just become a question of attractiveness. If anything it means incels can't statusmaxx anymore
Correct, it was always like that, but at a certain point in time men had women locked down and their opinion didn't matter at all. And exactly because it was always like this is why it wouldn't change in a libertine anarchist system either.
I thought it was common knowledge on the forum.
More young men are becoming NEETs than women—not in employment, education, or training
One in five male Gen Z grads is both unemployed and not actively looking for work.
Young women are out-earning young men in several U.S. cities
The gender wage gap is narrower among younger workers nationally, and the gap varies across geographical areas.
www.pewresearch.org
I would consider myself pretty leftist, despite what you said against nazbols, despite my volkisch and blood and soil viewpoints.
In a ideal world there would be no hierarchies because everyone would be the same, in all races. But the fact that different races have different performance in different fields, thus, hierarchy is a must.
Relative equality/equity can only be maintained in a society where people are relatively similar, and similarly high trust/civilized. (There will be a rich boss, but at least the boss won't kill you for missing the deadline by a minute)
For example rights for disabled people, which I support, would not exist in a place like Afghanistan.
Are people in Somalia, a land of anarchy, equal? No. Here is where the most savage, brutal, charismatic, chaddiest men rules. Even though they may be homogenous, their racial characteristics are of the jungle, of hierarchy in its most interfering form.
After all, the world is a constant warfare for existence. Metal rusts and food is rotten by insects/bacteria as being daily examples.
Last edited:
I meant this nigga:I thought it was common knowledge on the forum.
More young men are becoming NEETs than women—not in employment, education, or training
One in five male Gen Z grads is both unemployed and not actively looking for work.fortune.com
Young women are out-earning young men in several U.S. cities
The gender wage gap is narrower among younger workers nationally, and the gap varies across geographical areas.
HOLY SMOKES! COOL IT WITH THE RACISM!
I literally said at the beginning of the post that It's not about woke/I'm not woke.
Somalia is not an "actual" anarchy. Anarchy is "no rulers"
Somalia has rulers biggo.
In an anarchist society no one would have rule over no one.
And this is precisely why anarchism, the final goal of Marxist communism, does not work. The weak (the ones who does not fight) will always be beaten by the strong (those who fight).
A charismatic and brutal ruler with his Toyota pickup would easily convince people to his cause, and rule from there.
We see that from Haiti, also. A failed state, which led to multiple gangs fighting and eventually one taking power
Edit: the strong doesn't necessarily have to be brutal, he could be merciful, but that is only possible in high trust societies. The strong in low trust societies tend to be brutal.
Last edited:
Coming of Age in Samoa - Wikipedia
Very true. Right wing is about "spirit" (what can't be directly measured), such as emotions, sense of nation, sense of community etc
Left is based around materialism, which is what can be immediately observed, by hard data.
That doesn't mean left doesn't use "spirit" or right doesn't use "materialism", but you get my point.
In a way, the alternative right (non globohomo types like Elon) are all about muh feelingz.
I am against profit driven ownership.
(Lucrative ownership)
(Lucrative ownership)
Not soon. Just recently we have begun uncovering the truth about capitalism and general inequality. While there is not much support for mentally ill men and weak men, I have the belief that things will get better. But not if people just take it all back and destroy all that's already been done so far. I have the same shit here in my country, Brazil, and these type of social situations always develop from the presence of capitalism. If you tried to get away from society under current capitalism as well, lived off bounds, the feds are coming after your ass just like that.
Yeah tell that to me being gaslighted about my mental illness by my conservative parents LMAO. Also right-wingers, like I said, have more unity due to being united by the connection from status quo, similar background and lack of diversity. It's tribalism. Pure tribalism.
I feel u.
Currently, what leftists call state capitalism (although, de facto everyone are obedient to the state) seems to be the best system.
And like I said again, inequality is a natural thing. Life is constant warfare. But warfare don't have to be chopping off heads.
Only in a homogeneous/high trust society, people can be given relative equality/equity.
Left's idea of equality is one of savagery. The strong will always prevail over the weak. I will give you an example.
Islamists (high birth rate, aggressive, imperialist) will win over leftists, because leftists just accept them to do their thing.
This is called the paradox of tolerance.
Racially speaking, "equality" will allow for race mixing and diversity within a society, which decline the overall trust of a nation, leading to more brutality.
And the most brutal a nation is, the less relative equity there is. Like I said, there are no disabled rights in Afghanistan.
And how would you enforce that? You'd need some sort of system in place to make sure nobody gets too much power.... oh wait now you've just created a government
Somalia for all practical purposes is a lawless hellhole. Yes it has a 'government' but they really only control mogadishu and can't even do that correctly without relying on UN peacekeepers. The rest of the country is splintered into various clans, tribes, de-facto countries and terrorist organizations, and they all hate each other
even in post collapse somalia when there technically was no goverment there still were a bunch of warlords and clan based militias roaming around
When did I say I was against government? The political machine and state should be distributed to EVERY SINGLE PERSON! EVERYONE! That's when the anarchy happens!
Various different rulers. Not anarchy.
How do you intend to do that without it immediately collapsing
Through the government, obviously? Ensure that everyone gets their amount of participation in political decisions like everyone else. Regulation. Democratic laws.
Anarchy in my opinion is just the pure state of democracy (direct democracy) where each person's voice matters. It's not "Oh I can do whatever I want and no one's gonna stop me!"
Anarchy is socialism.
Hahaha, look, I'm from Brazil you know? Over here, classes are OBVIOUSLY separated by skin tone (with more whites among the richer classes and less whites among the poorer). The miscigenation was done in an attempt from the same whites to whiten our society as it was becoming too niggerish. Safe to say, favela organizations and factions are aided by corrupt political interests, which serve in favor of the rule of corp (big national industries that hold a monopoly on the country. Richfags).
This is the opposite of equality, y'know. And we are pretty race-mixed and diverse.
I'd say this forum is biased against those with "RW" views tbh
Leftoidcels seem to get butthurt about the amount of RW viewpoints on this site, especially if it comes from a White user
Not to mention, literally all platforms are left-wing & deny our views; RWers deserve one space
I hate all of them, and if you actually were blackpilled you would know that they all depend on each other
Excuse me? Leftism (most specifically socialism, communism and anarchism) are still a fringe point of view. Most people are politically centrist (liberal, neoliberal, apolitical), and a lot of them are also right-wing. Just not alt-right like you guys are.
This isn't even right-wing, fuck. I see you guys complaining about right-wingers day and night. It's just the extreme of right-wing views. Which, like I said, I understand. But I don't agree with it. In my brain, it is all revenge fantasy and basing your whole ideology over dominating those who have slighted you.
Incorrect. Anarchy is stateless. It is more like end stage Marxist communism.
Also "democracy" at this scale would be logistically difficult to account every person.
Democratic centralism - Wikipedia
My country has different approach to "democracy". Rather than being able to vote for the president (some local voting is allowed), "democracy" is when the government meets the needs of the people.
Whole-process people's democracy - Wikipedia
I’m an anarchist, I wouldn’t call myself left wing or right wing though
It's why in anarchism, local politics are more important. There would be separate communities, and if you don't like the community you're in that much you can just migrate. It makes it logistically easier.
I would only be a leftist if they started advocating legalization of prostitution.
Ah well, as long as you understand the sentiment of anarchy then It's all good. I really hate hierarchies. I don't care much about the whole left and right stuff. Both seem to have ideologies that are anti freedom (revisionism in the left, core tenet of the right).
Prostitution is all good for actual leftists. It's woke liberals who hate it.
Bodily autonomy and all.
Hm, your system would be like in the fallout games. Stateless wasteland, but has some towns with civilization and different cultures/trades.
Judging by the gameplay and lore, anywhere outside of the towns would be hellscape.
Although, in the game, powerful groups like NCR and Caesar legion still claim legitimacy and take over small villages.
Pro-goverment yet still advocating for anarchy?
In Fallout New Vegas you could side with Yes Man drive both the NCR and Caesar legion off New Vegas, I guess. That's basically the anarchy ending.
Stateless society doesn't mean no government. Stateless society means that everyone has political rights. In anarchy everyone should have political rights with no one stopping them from using or exercising them. It's direct democracy, power to everyone.
Liberal lefties are the ones who advocate for prostitution actually. Easter Bloc countries criminalized it and Marx was against it etc
Ah well, I'm kind of getting tired of this shit already. Obvously I didn't mention them because I often forget of communism and the problems that I have with the forms of it that have been tried so far in real life. But I thought what he was saying was that "leftists" don't legalize prostitution because it harms women or smth like that.
Yeah sure ok whatever. I'm getting tired of this shit. Wish someone could take my place.
No worries, I wasn't making a rebuttal or something. Just doing some ackchyullay moment. I would be tired of debating niggers on this nigger forum the entire day too, ur a tough guy
My political are basically a Cold War liberal, people like Harry Truman, LBJ, and Hubert Humphrey. I’m in the Clinton/Obama/Biden and Harris wing of the party instead of the Bernie/Warren wing.
I support free market capitalism and free trade, but with a strong safety net. I wish this place wasn’t so far to the right as well.
I disagree with plenty of the woke stuff too, but I’m fine with women in the workplace, I work with plenty of them. I’ve voted for women multiple times, but culturally over the last decade at least, the left has gone too far. People like Tate are just the photo negative of the SJW people, both really bad and nothing I want to do with.
I support free market capitalism and free trade, but with a strong safety net. I wish this place wasn’t so far to the right as well.
I disagree with plenty of the woke stuff too, but I’m fine with women in the workplace, I work with plenty of them. I’ve voted for women multiple times, but culturally over the last decade at least, the left has gone too far. People like Tate are just the photo negative of the SJW people, both really bad and nothing I want to do with.
Agreed.
ideally I want everyone to live with equal opportunities and no race or gender being privileged over another (including mine). you decide if that makes me left wing or not
Yea it does
Free market isn't necessarily a bad concept. Certainly better than the heavily regulated economy under fascism and corporate interest with their lobbyism.
Reformists (social democrats, social liberals) are fine in my book ig. They help make room for the revolution to happen. It's just neoliberalism that I feel takes it too far.
Obviously by that I mean due to them combating radical right-wingers and the like.
i deleted my comment because I read it again and realized I disagree with everything he wrote
I see.
Similar threads
Toxic Femininity
Woman SEETHES at pornstar who "wants to stop incels by fucking them"
- Misogynist Vegeta
- Inceldom Discussion
SickWeakCoward
Users who are viewing this thread
