Only person in this thread with half a brain
I know, I was thinking the same today while watching this political commentator explaining why America will not have another revolution again because of how the population can't create or imagine any new paradigm, thereby falling upon cliqued, stale and mass produced content. While he certainly makes a point, I did feel that he was beating the same ideas a bit much. I didn't agree with him entirely because even in current times, plenty of people in the West are hyper-creative. Look at the AI revolution! That's creativity dialed up to the moon. So I don't like these political commentators and influencers painting entire groups of people with broad strokes.
Yeah exactly. The West (Whites) have uplifted the human condition more than any other people. Their Promethean spirit saved masses of third worlders, allowing them to proliferate despite being subject to genocide at the hands of the same Whites earlier. So its a mixed bag, more positive than negative in my opinion. Also, people are allowed to go through good and bad times. Whites are still people, despite outperforming ethnics by leaps and bounds and getting close to godhood. Even in the animal kingdom you'll notice this too where populations go through cycles of expansion and contraction. For Whites, this is just a period of contraction, but that doesn't mean they can't come out of it. They came out of the Black Plague, so this is far easier to redeem by comparison. Already ethnics like curries and spics are self-deporting due to racism and pressure.
They are not based, just narcissistic. They are still puppets of the jews. Zelensky plans to replicate EU model of welfare, low industry, multiculturalism after the war. In my opinion, both sides should stop genociding each other and seek a diplomatic path. Europe should stop expanding, guarantee Ukraine's neutrality so that people can live in peace and have families again.
Yes exactly. I don't like painting entire groups with broad strokes. Plenty of normie Whites who are not low T, fat, and soy. Plenty of opportunity for them to come out of this; just needs some perspective and guidance and its already underway. People are embracing religion (albiet slowly), shaming and abandoning mass produced jewish soy content, and learning self-sufficiency. When natural selection pressures return, normalcy and performance returns. Whites suffer from too much success, that's why they deviated from normal towards behavioral sink, but nature always course corrects so there won't be problems.Strawman argument, and a shit one
@@wereq has criticized White soys, and admires the better traits of the White race- funny how you praise every other race yet never acknowledge what Whites did.
yeah ive seen his face hes white , hes not aryan or anything but he looks like the most average white guy ever lol
True. I am not denying that correlation can suggest that underlying current, but only if the relationship survives proper control for other variables. Here, one could argue non-white immigration and social progressivism rise together mainly because both increase with urbanization, education, and economic development, less because one directly causes the other; this alone already complicates a simple one-dimensional perspective. The same trend appears within Western nations themselves long before mass immigration.
I see those more as symptoms of social decay rather than the cause, but I do agree that many nonwhites are quite shitty if you lump them all under one big umbrella, and immigration is retarded; a lot of it has to do with the stupidity in trying to import people with extremely different cultural backgrounds and genetics, as well as the fact many of those communities always adopt this retarded mindset of hating white people and labeling them as oppressive while victimizing themselves (very common in black people) — this mindset is then used to justify their behavior and the parties they vote for, as those benefit them.
I decided to look into it a bit more, and you are correct — there's definitely been a high prevalence of cucked societies in Africa, although I wouldn't classify them as matriarchal but as matrilineal or matrifocal (though that depends on your definition, as patriarchy and matriarchy already have definitional problems). Maybe this is one of the reason they ended up far behind.No they weren't, as @@The Notorious SLAV at least is right on, matriarchies have always existed and in fact have been present in MENA, Africa, etc.
The point I was trying to make was that the roots of many of the progressive ideas are in Enlightenment liberalism and industrial-era class shifts. The modern form of it absolutely did originate from European framework, and I never denied that there was a disproportionate influence of Jewish women originating from Europe who pushed such ideas; I specifically mentioned it's multifactorial, hence I see it as erroneous to try to blame any specific cause when it's multicausal, let alone abstractions about who displayed more "matriarchal" structures first.Again, "muh europe caused all the issues"
And fyi, a lot of Feminism comes from Jews:
The Lesbian, Ugly Woman, And Jewish Origins Of Feminism - Chateau Heartiste Chateau Heartiste
Feminism And Its JEWISH Origins
Explore the deep connection between Feminism and Jewish heritage in this video, where we discuss how Jewish women have been pivotal in shaping feminist movements from the 19th century to today. Discovrumble.com
The Origins of American Jewish Feminism | My Jewish Learning
Origins of American Jewish Feminism. Modern Jewish Thought. Jewish History and Community.www.myjewishlearning.com
Judaism is matrilineal in descent (not including inheritance), not matriarchal at all. Religious and community leadership roles have historically been overwhelmingly male, and the head of the household is the father. I studied Judaism enough to know that, so I don't really know what are you talking about, as even the article you cited agrees with me but maybe I am missing something
Yet even in Greece and Rome, women owned property, ran businesses, and served as priestesses; the degree of restriction varied through time.
That's fair, and I can understand that.
Actually the link I posted specifically says that a "true matriarchy" (whatever that is supposed to be) has never existed, though there were societies where women were quite active economically and in the workings of their families, clans and so on. Those I'd guess were far more common than most people would guess.
YES!
This part nicely follows from what I've mentioned above. If Greece, or at least Athens, with its male-only inheritance system, restrictions on women being anything else than tradwives or priestesses (which, for the sake of argument, let's say is oppression rather than privilege) is anywhere near as patriarchal as Rome, which by default had a gender-egalitarian inheritance system if a Will hadn't been written, no known restrictions on women's occupations in the non-public sphere apart from an inability to be agents of banks, and divorces on demand by either spouse, are being described as similarly """patriarchal""", whatever that is even supposed to be at this point, then that just shows how meaningless that term is.
. According to social theorists, feminists and others, anything that is anywhere else than at some hypothetical far point of the "patriarchy" and "matriarchy" scale is just "patriarchy", no matter how mixed between the two extremes it is.
Idk where you are from but the "founder" of my country, France, is often considered to by Charlemagne, and he is the main reason why jews became so rich and powerful. He gave them a monoploy over finance, while ordering massacres of
Im not self-hating, I just think race is one factor among many other, and it doesn't solve all issue.
This part nicely follows from what I've mentioned above. If Greece, or at least Athens, with its male-only inheritance system, restrictions on women being anything else than tradwives or priestesses (which, for the sake of argument, let's say is oppression rather than privilege) is anywhere near as patriarchal as Rome, which by default had a gender-egalitarian inheritance system if a Will hadn't been written, no known restrictions on women's occupations in the non-public sphere apart from an inability to be agents of banks, and divorces on demand by either spouse, are being described as similarly """patriarchal""", whatever that is even supposed to be at this point, then that just shows how meaningless that term is.
You describe it as "the degree of restriction" within a single system, but I'd more so say that it's a bit of a semantic trap. Notice above when I mentioned the researchers saying that a "true matriarchy" has never existed. Well, has a "true patriarchy" ever existed? How would those two systems even be defined? Is anything else than some hypothetical "true patriarchy" a false one?
No, it isn't
that is reality buddy. excluding eastern europeans whites along with jews are disproportionately more soy and gay. people with less soy views like you are a minority among minorities. let me show you the scale of how soy the average white man is. you wanna know who invented the great replacement theory? a literal faggot that feared muslims would re-instate homophobia.
Yeah I shit on cucks who worship the most progressive societies on earth which would hate those cucks. Being a white nationalist is like getting excited while watching your wife fuck strangers. White societies overwhelmingly reject nationalism and hate autistic men and yet these weird autistic men worship the white societies.
This is so true basedbrocel.that is reality buddy. excluding eastern europeans whites along with jews are disproportionately more soy and gay. people with less soy views like you are a minority among minorities. let me show you the scale of how soy the average white man is. you wanna know who invented the great replacement theory? a literal faggot that feared muslims would re-instate homophobia.
Renaud Camus - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
you know who's behind alot of the anti-immigration sentiment? one of them is Geert Wilders, who is pro-LGBT and very pro-feminist.
Geert Wilders - Wikipedia
alot of other western European "far-right" parties are pro-LGBT, anti-immigration as well. they just hate muslims and non-whites BECAUSE they are conservative. crime rates are also a factor, but because the average white man is progressive they fear nonwhite's conservative culture is a threat to them.
you may say things like "meh, those parties are jewish and dont represent the average white man's views" when alot of statistics show how socially progressive western people are compared to third world nonwhite countries. LGBT acceptance is an accurate marker of progressive views so here's a map showing the difference:
View attachment 1568845
idk in what world you live in where whites are conservative, when they along with israel are the bastion of modern day neoliberalism KEK
not surprised. it's funny how white nats portray themselves as muscular knights when they're just terminally online cels that follow "liberal values" and think they're being rebellious kek
Yep. Nathan Goldstein was your typical British white nationalist. A bisexual Jewish furry who was upset that Muhammad and Tyrone don’t respect women and homosexuals, which are intrinsic white British values.
There is too many low-iq ethnics
And too many cucks or brainrotted idiots
There's too much negative energy concentrated in this place, even for a cel.
bullshit, pre christian pagan germanic tribes were very patriarchal , women were staying at home and honour killing was common
Based
i think wignats are already aware of that since normies just follow whatever the governement says, remember 99% of germany supported hitler lol
yep abrahamic religions are more soft on women than european paganism
I guess a correction is in order. The more Chad-centric and barbaric (read r-selective) the religion and culture, the greater the rights of women. For example Spartans and Vikings gave more rights and freedoms to their women compared to Athenians and Romans who were more high IQ and civilized (@DarkStar's ideal). So my point still stands: the more civilized and domesticated a culture is, the more patriarchal and restrictive towards women it is as well. Conversely, the more Chad-centric it is, the more egalitarian it is as well, and ethnics like MENAs, curries, and SEAs are the least chad-centric, disallowing mating competitions and female autonomy (k-selective).
Pagan Europe was more patriarchist than Christian Europe
Great and interesting.I guess a correction is in order. The more Chad-centric and barbaric (read r-selective) the religion and culture, the greater the rights of women. For example Spartans and Vikings gave more rights and freedoms to their women compared to Athenians and Romans who were more high IQ and civilized (@@DarkStar's ideal). So my point still stands: the more civilized and domesticated a culture is, the more patriarchal and restrictive towards women it is as well. Conversely, the more Chad-centric it is, the more egalitarian it is as well, and ethnics like MENAs, curries, and SEAs are the least chad-centric, disallowing mating competitions and female autonomy (k-selective).
this literally prove my point, germanic pagan women were only doing domestic tasks not sure how its more freedom than christian rule like googleAI claim lol
Rome was objectively much, much closer to Sparta than Athens in terms of how women there were treated, but because AIs just repeat what people say and people tend to overrate how similar Rome and Greece were, it gives answers like this
..
purl.stanford.edu
Yes cumskins are basically like high IQ niggers.
I think only white female suppression works. Ethnic/black women are incredibly entitled, they expect a man ‘on their level’ to provide for them while they sit on their ass.
Men are providers and women look after the children and home in tradcuck cultures. Virginity is prized in Muslim and curry culture so the women become prudes to obtain better marriage offers. Whites have had sexually liberated women for generations. Women were property in Saudi Arabia only two decades ago. They are property right now in Afghanistan.
If you’re non-Muslim or don’t follow a religion why would you care about virginity anyway
That's why they don't do it so they don't get honor killed or disowned or become unmarriageable. They are prudes because their men want them to be prudes.
They are chaste because of religion/faith. When men try to enforce, they’ll naturally rebel and act like hoes.
They are indoctrinated into it. The worldly consequences matter because they are so severe.
Christianity was not afiliated with jews.
