How our society is being brainwashed.

[virgin4life]

I remember one time a German politician publically demanded that the government should have the right to shoot anyone who looks like a terrorist without trial. The public was shocked about this request. So then he said: "Well ok maybe I've gone to far but we could at least put cameras in public places."

However, this is the only thing he really ever wanted. He only asked for rights to shoot people "looking like terrorists" because he knew that if he demanded something crazy then people would give in to his "cameras in public" idea.

I think this is very similar to feminism today. Feminists are asking for men to be locked up on the basis of a mere claim from a woman. When a woman says she got raped then lock the guy up without asking questions. But maybe this is not even what they really want. They are asking for more than they want so that they can sell what they actually want as a compromise.

Back in the day a man had the right to beat his wife. He decided if she could drive a car or do a job. She could not vote.

What if the reality of "back in the day" is the morally right reality because it was a reality ever since the beginning of mankind. For 100.000 years humans considered women as the property of men. Only recently things changed. Now if I demanded that we go back to this reality you would say I am someone from inceltears trying to pull a trick or something. But why is it that everybody coniders this as such an unreasonable demand when it was a reality for 100.000 years?????

Because we have been brainwashed to consider something that is totally normal as morally wrong!

 

[Varys]

Fuck the west!

 

[Angus13]

I remember one time a German politician publically demanded that the government should have the right to shoot anyone who looks like a terrorist without trial. The public was shocked about this request. So then he said: "Well ok maybe I've gone to far but we could at least put cameras in public places."

However, this is the only thing he really ever wanted. He only asked for rights to shoot people "looking like terrorists" because he knew that if he demanded something crazy then people would give in to his "cameras in public" idea.

I think this is very similar to feminism today. Feminists are asking for men to be locked up on the basis of a mere claim from a woman. When a woman says she got raped then lock the guy up without asking questions. But maybe this is not even what they really want. They are asking for more than they want so that they can sell what they actually want as a compromise.

Back in the day a man had the right to beat his wife. He decided if she could drive a car or do a job. She could not vote.

What if the reality of "back in the day" is the morally right reality because it was a reality ever since the beginning of mankind. For 100.000 years humans considered women as the property of men. Only recently things changed. Now if I demanded that we go back to this reality you would say I am someone from inceltears trying to pull a trick or something. But why is it that everybody coniders this as such an unreasonable demand when it was a reality for 100.000 years?????

Because we have been brainwashed to consider something that is totally normal as morally wrong!

I think part of the problem here is when (even us who support patriarchy, or even other incels) we refer to it in terms of being anti-female rather than pro-male. In a soft patriarchy, women are not oppressed, just because they can't vote or they can't work outside the home when married, does not make them oppressed, as they have other advantages a man does not have, the privilege to be protected and play safe, the privilege to choose a man (within reasonable bounds, traditions in place to keep her in her league) who will dedicate his life to taking care of her. In THAT sense, he's her servant.

It's equal but different, as opposed to equal but the same. Men and woman are simply different, there is no way around this. The current agenda is to do away with gender identity via attacking masculinity (hence what the LGTB movement is being used for), it's a step into genetically enslaving society. But I'm getting away from my discussion here.

Nobody ever says it's oppressive for men to be expected to fight and die off to protect their community, for their voice, but when women aren't given the vote just for having a vagina, it's "miss soggy knees".

Hard patriarchies could be argued to be oppressive to women, but they are equally as oppressive (if not more so) to the common man, to basically everyone except the most giga-alpha super-chad guy on the block. What I promote here and what works (especially for us incel men) are soft patriarchies.

 

[Unzöl]

High IQ

 

[Frankenstein's M.]

I remember one time a German politician publically demanded that the government should have the right to shoot anyone who looks like a terrorist without trial. The public was shocked about this request. So then he said: "Well ok maybe I've gone to far but we could at least put cameras in public places."

However, this is the only thing he really ever wanted. He only asked for rights to shoot people "looking like terrorists" because he knew that if he demanded something crazy then people would give in to his "cameras in public" idea.

I think this is very similar to feminism today. Feminists are asking for men to be locked up on the basis of a mere claim from a woman. When a woman says she got raped then lock the guy up without asking questions. But maybe this is not even what they really want. They are asking for more than they want so that they can sell what they actually want as a compromise.

Back in the day a man had the right to beat his wife. He decided if she could drive a car or do a job. She could not vote.

What if the reality of "back in the day" is the morally right reality because it was a reality ever since the beginning of mankind. For 100.000 years humans considered women as the property of men. Only recently things changed. Now if I demanded that we go back to this reality you would say I am someone from inceltears trying to pull a trick or something. But why is it that everybody coniders this as such an unreasonable demand when it was a reality for 100.000 years?????

Because we have been brainwashed to consider something that is totally normal as morally wrong!

Same tactic I use on people to get favors

 

[Angus13]

point blank, if women were property, men are expected to potentially lay down their lives and die, or dedicate their lives to taking care of that property, and financially supporting it. Which in a way makes him lower than that property. This is partially why women didn't vote, or hold any kind of formal authority. We need to stop speaking of patriarchy in terms of it being anti-woman, and more in terms of it being pro-male. Moderate, soft patriarchies are not oppressive to women. They just simply don't get the best of both worlds, they can't have male and female privileges without any of the responsibilities, so to western cucks today that = "oppression."

We need to begin describing patriarchy in more pro-male than anti-female terms, maybe it will gain more traction that way. I mean I know society is as anti-male as they are worshiping foids, but I figure it's at least worth a shot....

 

[NoMoreSlaving]

Women don't have any kind of long term strategy. They're not capable of that kind of thought.

 

[Angus13]

Women don't have any kind of long term strategy. They're not capable of that kind of thought.

Correct, women are pawns of the government, as they are like children it is easier to sell propaganda to them, and since they control sex/reproduction, the governments know the best way to control the men is by controlling the women (because otherwise, men are more likely to be resistant to authoritarianism). This is why I am half anarchist, also have (soft) patriarchist. Or as I call it, anarcho-patriarchy.

I think we'd catch more flies with honey than vinegar, we need to start describing patriarchy is pro-male terms rather than anti-female terms. I think that could make a lot of difference, hypothetically.

 

[NoMoreSlaving]

Correct, women are pawns of the government, as they are like children it is easier to sell propaganda to them, and since they control sex/reproduction, the governments know the best way to control the men is by controlling the women (because otherwise, men are more likely to be resistant to authoritarianism). This is why I am half anarchist, also have (soft) patriarchist. Or as I call it, anarcho-patriarchy.

I think we'd catch more flies with honey than vinegar, we need to start describing patriarchy is pro-male terms rather than anti-female terms. I think that could make a lot of difference, hypothetically.

Maybe it would help, but we don't have any influence

 

[uninstall]

Correct, women are pawns of the government, as they are like children it is easier to sell propaganda to them, and since they control sex/reproduction, the governments know the best way to control the men is by controlling the women (because otherwise, men are more likely to be resistant to authoritarianism). This is why I am half anarchist, also have (soft) patriarchist. Or as I call it, anarcho-patriarchy.

I think we'd catch more flies with honey than vinegar, we need to start describing patriarchy is pro-male terms rather than anti-female terms. I think that could make a lot of difference, hypothetically.

Very true - control the women to control the men

 

[randomloli]

High IQ post

 

[Angus13]

Maybe it would help, but we don't have any influence

we have no influence but the biggest lie that needs to be stopped from breeding is that patriarchy is inherently anti-female, people are already biologically gynocentric by nature (womb theory), softer patriarchies just put traditions in place to curb this so people can be more civil and maintain a civil society.

 

[ChronicPaincel]

Correct, women are pawns of the government, as they are like children it is easier to sell propaganda to them, and since they control sex/reproduction, the governments know the best way to control the men is by controlling the women (because otherwise, men are more likely to be resistant to authoritarianism). This is why I am half anarchist, also have (soft) patriarchist. Or as I call it, anarcho-patriarchy.

I think we'd catch more flies with honey than vinegar, we need to start describing patriarchy is pro-male terms rather than anti-female terms. I think that could make a lot of difference, hypothetically.

High IQ

 

[Johny.speiz]

Another very important problem is Cyberspace which slowly becomes the "true reality of mankind". Mostly, because on the Web, one can find more freedom, than in the normal life. Of course, only if a person is wary of the facts. Such facts, like the fact, that Facebook is a huge brainwasher, unlike Youtube which is still, very open to the "alternative realities". I won't even speak about Tinder, as any Incel on this site knows the facts. I've never had an account on any of social network and I am not going to have one. At least, not a one, where my photo are binded with my true name and surname. I've been using Internet, for the last 20 years or so. And I see, how destructible it became, in recent years.

Cyberspace cannot be linked with any political ideology, it must be open for the whole spectrum of views and news. If people, related to "political extreme" are being excluded from the Web, it means, that Web is a World Wide Prison, not a World Wide Web. Facebook is an ideal example, not only, because it is related to Jewish people (like Zuckerberg himself), but it is ideologically based. Facebook promotes Globalist, Liberal-Marxist Agenda and everyone sees that. Just like the rest of Big Business, starting from Amazon, ending on Coca-Cola company.

For Capitalists, it is Globalism, not Nationalism which is the natural environment. So, if you despise Capitalism, you are obeyed to fight such parasites, like Facebook, Amazon, and others.

 

[Deleted member 5861]

another high IQ post from virgin4life.