The Femboy Manifesto

[Lihito]

Rare leftist Win

 

[Lihito]

Traditionalism is misandry
View attachment 2130702

Traditional conservatives love to talk about the “gender cult” of transgender ideology. Meanwhile, they are hypocritically indulging in a far greater and systematic gender cult of their own: the cult of traditional woman worship.
​

• The cult that says men should die in wars while women should be kept safely at home.​

View attachment 2130708

• The cult that says men should pay for everything in a relationship with a woman, or else he is not worthy of her time at all.​

View attachment 2130719

• The cult that allows fully grown daughters to live with their parents, but boots sons from homes when they turn 18, and tells sons to take care of themselves—while also universally shaming men as “basement dwellers” if they get any living assistance from their parents.​

View attachment 2130709

• The cult that says a man's life is unworthy if he is not always keeping some woman happy over himself.​

View attachment 2130724

• The cult that smears men as predators if they enter women's spaces, but says nothing against women entering men's spaces.​

View attachment 2130716

• The cult that expects men to spend many months of his salary on a ring to show his undying provision to a woman if he wishes to be with her—the costs for him then only get more expensive for the wedding, and then for the almost-certainly expected divorce.​

View attachment 2130718

• The cult that protects baby girls from genital mutilation, but says baby boys are to be genitally mutilated in order to please women that demand mutilated men.​

based beyond belief

 

[Lihito]

A money is "fiction"
It does not have any inherent value in and of itself, but rather it is given value through social agreement. The current monetary system is based on scarcity and competition, and is not sustainable in the long term. In communism, the focus would be on creating an abundance of resources and ensuring equitable distribution of goods and services, rather than on the accumulation of money and property. This would allow for a more sustainable and equitable society, where access to resources and opportunities is not determined by one's wealth or social status.

Only in Neognostic postmaterial reality where we would overthrow demiurge and his forces by astral projection and telekinesis (im legit r/escapeprisonplanet is a great sub for this)

 

[Deleted member 16369]

Yeah, I cringed.

 

[Zeruel]

read every word.

@Zeruel read this too

I rape the femboys.

I rape the women.

I rape the world.

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Change is inevitable and no amount of violence, memes, or persuasion will make it possible to turn back the clock of history and halt it at the point where your people were dominant. Fascism is just the last guttering spark of dying cultures. ​

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Naturalism debunked

Humans currently live in unnatural societies and many want to instead do live a more natural lifestyle away from things like vaccines and food additives. Many people oppose medical transition simply because they don't view it as "natural" to medically change your sex.

The brutal reality however is that your society is in competition with other societies and by embracing new technology we will be able to outcompete backwards societies unwilling to embrace progress.

Going to far in the naturalism direction will be detrimental also for your own survival, you might die of cancer because you rejected an effective treatment (which happens on a regular basis) or you might fail to reproduce because you weren't willing to use IVF technology.

In order to be successful in society you need to be willing to use effective tools available for you to achieve said success and this may include modifying your body to become more attractive. You might find a girlfriend using a dating app and you also need internet to effectively manage your finances.

Not everyone can switch to eating organic food since then there will not be enough food for everyone. The supply or things like meat from wild animals will always be rather limited and it's therefore not something most people can begin eating on a regular basis, most people will end up having to go vegan or rely on factory farming for their diet (regardless of what's best for the health).


Cuckservatism aka christian conservatism

They are not actually opposing feminism on the stuff that's actually bad for males. Instead they want to make it even worse by preventing people from transmaxxing or abusing self-ID to circumvent gender quotas.

Christian conservatives often push for draconian anti-abortion policies that would discourage people from getting pregnant (such as opposing medically necessarily abortions) they do not oppose females refusing to have reproductive sex.

Christian conservatives in general discard science and focus on the bible instead. This is especially bad in the US where conservatives often deny basic stuff like evolution. You really cannot expect much good from these people.

There really isn't any benefit to supporting cuckservatism as a male. Maybe some cis females benefit from it at least the ones who to not engage in reproductive sex (so they will not be subjected to retarded anti-abortion laws) but for most of the population it's clearly not a good thing.​

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Traditionalists love radical feminists if they serve their ends.​

TERFism is conservatism of our times. Just look at how their views overlap when it comes to banning porn, male-only conscription, discrimination against transwomen, maintaining unequal retirement age, misandry in general.​

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

A mathematical explanation of why capitalism doesn't work

A worker will not become a capitalist, because a capitalist is not someone who works hard but someone who owns the means of production, on these means of production work the people who generate profits for this owner.

How is profit generated and what is exploitation?

The price of goods (goods or services) is made up of 3 parts: the cost of labour (wages), the cost of consuming the means of production and the additional value (the income of the capitalist - the owner of the means of production). After the workers have produced the good, the capitalist adds up the cost of labour and the cost of consuming the means of production and, in order for production to bring him a profit, he adds the additional value to the good produced. He adds absolutely nothing to the use-value of the good and therefore all the value added by the capitalist has been produced by the workers. Society, in producing goods, gets as remuneration only the cost of labour (wages) and with all the goods it produces the added value, which is taken from society by the capitalist. Society, in order to buy the goods it has produced, has to cover all the components of the price (wage, cost of consuming resources and additional value) from the wage. It is mathematical and logical that wages cannot cover all of this because 1+1+1= 3 >1. This is why capitalism does not work. Hence in capitalism there is a perpetual shortage of money and in capitalism society will never buy what it produces.

This is the irresolvable contradiction of capitalism, the contradiction between labour and capital. This is how the capitalist's profit is made and this is what capitalist exploitation is all about. Of course, the capitalist himself also has a problem because how is he supposed to sell the goods he produces if society does not have the money to do so? This is where the banks come into action, lending money which society must repay with interest - meaning that the gap between wages and the price of goods widens even further.

This was all formulated by the genius Karl Marx. This is how capitalism works all over the world. To resolve this contradiction of capitalism, capitalism must be abolished, i.e. private ownership of the means of production must be abolished by expropriating the capitalists - and that is communism. ​

@alriodai @Bvnny. @thecel @Makhachev @thereallegend @Raskolnikovpilled @Manchild @tallnegga @dimorphism @Justin Trudeau @human304 @positivecoper @LetsDoThis

 

[human304]

A mathematical explanation of why capitalism doesn't work

A worker will not become a capitalist, because a capitalist is not someone who works hard but someone who owns the means of production, on these means of production work the people who generate profits for this owner.

View attachment 2353199

How is profit generated and what is exploitation?

The price of goods (goods or services) is made up of 3 parts: the cost of labour (wages), the cost of consuming the means of production and the additional value (the income of the capitalist - the owner of the means of production). After the workers have produced the good, the capitalist adds up the cost of labour and the cost of consuming the means of production and, in order for production to bring him a profit, he adds the additional value to the good produced. He adds absolutely nothing to the use-value of the good and therefore all the value added by the capitalist has been produced by the workers. Society, in producing goods, gets as remuneration only the cost of labour (wages) and with all the goods it produces the added value, which is taken from society by the capitalist. Society, in order to buy the goods it has produced, has to cover all the components of the price (wage, cost of consuming resources and additional value) from the wage. It is mathematical and logical that wages cannot cover all of this because 1+1+1= 3 >1. This is why capitalism does not work. Hence in capitalism there is a perpetual shortage of money and in capitalism society will never buy what it produces.

This is the irresolvable contradiction of capitalism, the contradiction between labour and capital. This is how the capitalist's profit is made and this is what capitalist exploitation is all about. Of course, the capitalist himself also has a problem because how is he supposed to sell the goods he produces if society does not have the money to do so? This is where the banks come into action, lending money which society must repay with interest - meaning that the gap between wages and the price of goods widens even further.

This was all formulated by the genius Karl Marx. This is how capitalism works all over the world. To resolve this contradiction of capitalism, capitalism must be abolished, i.e. private ownership of the means of production must be abolished by expropriating the capitalists - and that is communism. ​

@alriodai @Bvnny. @thecel @Makhachev @thereallegend @Raskolnikovpilled @Manchild @tallnegga @dimorphism @Justin Trudeau @human304 @positivecoper @LetsDoThis

everyone knows that Capitalism does not work. even 75% of the world knows that Capitalism and democracy does not work.

But Americans are so dumb that they cling to Muh Capitalism and Muh Democracy and destroy the whole world.

 

[Deleted member 32846]

Lmfao, true

 

[Deleted member 32973]

schizo thread, just admit youre gay and move on faggot

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

schizo thread, just admit youre gay and move on faggot

if you're looking for a boyfriend then know that i don't prefer incels

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Why is the Danish left right about immigration?

By supporting the influx of Islamic immigrants, it is working to our own detriment as it contributes to the popularity of right-wing parties.

It is also working to the detriment of working people, as employers are thus able to hire immigrants at lower wages and thus reduce the wages of native workers.

It is also a huge injustice that the working class is forced to work for those of the immigrants who refuse to work.

Personally, I am in favor of deporting those who don't share European values - islamists, supporters of the ideology of russkiy mir, i.e. conservatives

@alriodai @Beastimmung @Wallenberg @tallnegga @thereallegend @LetsDoThis @Lihito @human304 ​

 

[Wallenberg]

Why is the Danish left right about immigration?

View attachment 2354786

By supporting the influx of Islamic immigrants, it is working to our own detriment as it contributes to the popularity of right-wing parties.

It is also working to the detriment of working people, as employers are thus able to hire immigrants at lower wages and thus reduce the wages of native workers.

It is also a huge injustice that the working class is forced to work for those of the immigrants who refuse to work.

Personally, I am in favor of deporting those who don't share European values - islamists, supporters of the ideology of russkiy mir, i.e. conservatives

@alriodai @Beastimmung @Wallenberg @tallnegga @thereallegend @LetsDoThis @Lihito @human304

Agree!

 

[LampPostPrime]

High tier femboys fogs average girls

 

[Deleted member 23391]

High tier femboys fogs average girls

Water.

 

[Deleted member 23239]

High tier femboys fogs average girls

post them or message me privately
thanks

 

[Deleted member 23391]

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

View attachment 2354881

judaism as the ancestor of christianity and islam must disappear after the revolution, this faith is the source of problems - it is the mortal enemy of femboys​

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Stereotypical masculinity = being dumb​

If you look at masculine stereotypes it's basically being dumb such as dying for Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. This is not something that's innate male, it's something societies instill in males to make them act against their self-interest (such as dying in a war for zero benefits to people close to you).

Regardless of your sex/gender you should use your own brain. I very much admire the Russian soldiers who abandoned their tanks in Ukraine knowing that the russian regime no longer could reach them once they were there.

https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1497891974275383296

Generally when it comes to gender roles it's fine to go along with it as long as it doesn't cause serious harm but if people try to use a gender role to make you do something really dumb you have to push back against that.

For males detrimental gender roles are often state-enforced, this illustrate that dying in some war might not actually be something that comes naturally to males in the first place, its something males have to be forced/indoctrinated into. Governments have historically acted very brutally against males unwilling to fight in dumb wars (often outright executing them).

Both Trump and Biden got elected as president even though they dodged the draft. This illustrate how society will not actually punish you for being smart when it comes to these things, you can still get elected to the most powerful position in America if not the world.

@alriodai @tallnegga @thecel @Makhachev @Justin Trudeau @LetsDoThis @thereallegend @Ja-Ja Gabori @ChiraqJihad @BrahminBoss @Sprinkles @Wallenberg @mogger123 @ascension! @incel194012940 @WanderingBurro @disillusioned @TsarTsar444 @itsOVER @Lorsss ​

 

[Lihito]

Why is the Danish left right about immigration?

View attachment 2354786

By supporting the influx of Islamic immigrants, it is working to our own detriment as it contributes to the popularity of right-wing parties.

It is also working to the detriment of working people, as employers are thus able to hire immigrants at lower wages and thus reduce the wages of native workers.

It is also a huge injustice that the working class is forced to work for those of the immigrants who refuse to work.

Personally, I am in favor of deporting those who don't share European values - islamists, supporters of the ideology of russkiy mir, i.e. conservatives

@alriodai @Beastimmung @Wallenberg @tallnegga @thereallegend @LetsDoThis @Lihito @human304 ​

B.bb..bb.bb..based????

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Why do we need collectivization? 6 reasons​

Among the postulates of the communists there is a postulate of collectivization of agriculture, i.e. combining small farms into large cooperatives. Why is collectivization useful for agriculture? Here are some reasons:

1) Small farms have a problem with obtaining capital for modern agrotechnics. Thanks to the pooling of the budget, funds for modernization could be obtained faster. This would reverse the debt trend of our agricultural sector.

2) Large collective farms could more easily establish cooperation with the agri-food industry, which is easier, for purely administrative reasons, to establish cooperation with a few large entities than with many small entities.

3) Technical economies of scale. Some types of machines or techniques can be used effectively only above a certain scale of production. If a combine harvester allows, for example, 250 hectares to be processed during the season, it makes no sense for 10 25-hectare farms to buy 10 combine harvesters, one for each. The same is the case with the possibility of starting secondary production, such as, for example, biogas plants, which operate the more efficiently, the greater the amount of agricultural waste feeds them.

4) Easier control. More concentration means fewer companies to audit. This allows for more efficient checks to verify, for example, whether the allocated investment substitute has been spent in accordance with the target stated in the application, or whether the activity complies with certain health and environmental safety standards.

5) Abolition of pathological labor relations. The landowners and kulak farms use very poorly paid hired workers working for pennies in inhumanly difficult conditions. A victory for the socialized economy in the countryside is essential to finally end this type of barbaric social relationship.

6) Improving working conditions. Thanks to collectivization, it is possible to introduce a division of labor and a shift system in farms. This helps to reduce farmers' fatigue, especially during the harvest season. In addition, it makes it possible to replace it, for example, for the duration of the disease.

@alriodai @thereallegend @currylightskin @Nad @human304 @LetsDoThis @Makhachev @tallnegga @Justin Trudeau @blackpilled I lost @Primalsplit @WontStopNorwooding @Tallooksmaxxer @Danish_Retard ​

 

[Tallooksmaxxer]

Why do we need collectivization? 6 reasons​

View attachment 2364632

Among the postulates of the communists there is a postulate of collectivization of agriculture, i.e. combining small farms into large cooperatives. Why is collectivization useful for agriculture? Here are some reasons:

1) Small farms have a problem with obtaining capital for modern agrotechnics. Thanks to the pooling of the budget, funds for modernization could be obtained faster. This would reverse the debt trend of our agricultural sector.

2) Large collective farms could more easily establish cooperation with the agri-food industry, which is easier, for purely administrative reasons, to establish cooperation with a few large entities than with many small entities.

3) Technical economies of scale. Some types of machines or techniques can be used effectively only above a certain scale of production. If a combine harvester allows, for example, 250 hectares to be processed during the season, it makes no sense for 10 25-hectare farms to buy 10 combine harvesters, one for each. The same is the case with the possibility of starting secondary production, such as, for example, biogas plants, which operate the more efficiently, the greater the amount of agricultural waste feeds them.

4) Easier control. More concentration means fewer companies to audit. This allows for more efficient checks to verify, for example, whether the allocated investment substitute has been spent in accordance with the target stated in the application, or whether the activity complies with certain health and environmental safety standards.

5) Abolition of pathological labor relations. The landowners and kulak farms use very poorly paid hired workers working for pennies in inhumanly difficult conditions. A victory for the socialized economy in the countryside is essential to finally end this type of barbaric social relationship.

6) Improving working conditions. Thanks to collectivization, it is possible to introduce a division of labor and a shift system in farms. This helps to reduce farmers' fatigue, especially during the harvest season. In addition, it makes it possible to replace it, for example, for the duration of the disease.

@alriodai @thereallegend @currylightskin @Nad @human304 @LetsDoThis @Makhachev @tallnegga @Justin Trudeau @blackpilled I lost @Primalsplit @WontStopNorwooding @Tallooksmaxxer @Danish_Retard ​

i agree the agricultural production should be more collectivized but i am not communist or smth.

even a small country like netherlands has more agricultural output than turkey because of collectivization.

IMO it should be both collectivization and corporate farming.

farmers are too retarded/selfish to handle a precious thing like arable land.

 

[Deleted member 33275]

my first 0 on this forum

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

"Religion, nowadays either is used as cheap and transparent support for narrow, short-sighted selfishness (some conservatives use it this way), or even is cynically exploited to make easy money (by many evangelists), or has degenerated into crude irrationalism (fundamentalist protestant sects, “cults”), or is simply stagnant (Catholicism, main-line Protestantism)."

"Conservatives and some others advocate more “local autonomy.” Local communities once did have autonomy, but such autonomy becomes less and less possible as local communities become more enmeshed with and dependent on large-scale systems like public utilities, computer networks, highway systems, the mass communications media, the modern health care system. Also operating against autonomy is the fact that technology applied in one location often affects people at other locations far way. Thus pesticide or chemical use near a creek may contaminate the water supply hundreds of miles downstream, and the greenhouse effect affects the whole world."

"In prison, Kaczynski received many letters from people who urged him to embrace faith. But he has said he doesn't see scientific proof that God exists."

@alriodai @thereallegend @tallnegga @Makhachev @WanderingBurro @incel194012940 @Wallenberg @LetsDoThis @BrahminBoss​

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

Why do we need collectivization? 6 reasons​

View attachment 2364632

Among the postulates of the communists there is a postulate of collectivization of agriculture, i.e. combining small farms into large cooperatives. Why is collectivization useful for agriculture? Here are some reasons:

1) Small farms have a problem with obtaining capital for modern agrotechnics. Thanks to the pooling of the budget, funds for modernization could be obtained faster. This would reverse the debt trend of our agricultural sector.

2) Large collective farms could more easily establish cooperation with the agri-food industry, which is easier, for purely administrative reasons, to establish cooperation with a few large entities than with many small entities.

3) Technical economies of scale. Some types of machines or techniques can be used effectively only above a certain scale of production. If a combine harvester allows, for example, 250 hectares to be processed during the season, it makes no sense for 10 25-hectare farms to buy 10 combine harvesters, one for each. The same is the case with the possibility of starting secondary production, such as, for example, biogas plants, which operate the more efficiently, the greater the amount of agricultural waste feeds them.

4) Easier control. More concentration means fewer companies to audit. This allows for more efficient checks to verify, for example, whether the allocated investment substitute has been spent in accordance with the target stated in the application, or whether the activity complies with certain health and environmental safety standards.

5) Abolition of pathological labor relations. The landowners and kulak farms use very poorly paid hired workers working for pennies in inhumanly difficult conditions. A victory for the socialized economy in the countryside is essential to finally end this type of barbaric social relationship.

6) Improving working conditions. Thanks to collectivization, it is possible to introduce a division of labor and a shift system in farms. This helps to reduce farmers' fatigue, especially during the harvest season. In addition, it makes it possible to replace it, for example, for the duration of the disease.

@alriodai @thereallegend @currylightskin @Nad @human304 @LetsDoThis @Makhachev @tallnegga @Justin Trudeau @blackpilled I lost @Primalsplit @WontStopNorwooding @Tallooksmaxxer @Danish_Retard ​

I wholly disagree with these points however I am too intellectually lazy to articulate why. What I find far more interesting, and want to focus on is the following question: would you apply these models of reasoning to all other industries and more specifically to banking industry, and how would you express it as such?

For example, are you in favor of total central bank control due to the above reasons and others?

Currently, the model is 1 central bank in every country and many large commercial banks who have a trend of merging and therein destroying the smaller retail banks, which destroys the frequency of SME loans as larger banks have bigger balance sheets and are less likely to provide such loans, the larger they are. This concentrates wealth in a small, wealthy elite of corporate stakeholders who have the commercial interest to get the largest and cheapest loans, and therein benefit from the most exchange of goods and services, compared to smaller businesses who are priced out due to more expensive, and less accessible credit. Overtime, this concentrates social and political capital in the financial controllers.

Yet this concentration of wealth, political, financial and social capital, still occurs under communism expressed with a government controlled central bank which becomes the single nexus of financial power, and therein its political Achilles heel. For "pure" communism to work (and an absolute abolition of property) you have to rely on those in control fairly valuing the labor of its citizenry individually and for such a centralized body in control of the valuation of the labor of millions, this is a near impossible feat, especially when subject to human nature: that power corrupts absolutely as evidenced in the centralization of wealth in communist governments where the executive class inevitably dominates the legislature, judiciary and treasury, by concentrating wealth earned by the citizenry into the coffers of the "state", which are really just a proxy for private controlled accounts of the political class.

Society would need some kind of absolute, finite, objective, real time, accurate assessment of labor and dispute resolution mechanism, which could NEVER come from a small centralized body given above; instead only an all encompassing AI could muster necessary millions+ data points to achieve fair valuations of labor that considers all the intricacies of varying social and political behaviors. But if this was programmed with biases (political, social, financial etc) such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, then this could not be relied on. Such centralization of power would only be worsened if national central banks were replaced with one global central bank like the BIS, which in a comedically unlikely scenario, could render any other financial partitions as merely administrators of banking policy (note currently there is much infighting between BIS, states CBs and retail banks so humanity is safe for now). This would concentrate wealth earned by the world's labor into a comparatively smaller elite.

Therefore, if the thesis is that capitalism is bad, due to the above, and the antithesis is that communism is similarly unsustainable, the synthesis is that an amalgam is needed: a largely decentralized financial system, that has both trusted and trustless financial infrastructure. This would be reminiscent of 1960s-1990s Germany and Japan with its 10000+ small retail banks and high frequency of SME loans, high velocity of money and equitable exchange, valuation and distribution of wealth, but combined with modern technology such as AI to lessen the impact of bureaucracy.

However, the issue with this is that modern technology centralizes services and therefore wealth, at far greater rates than in the 1960s (the fast fish, with many allies, can eat at the big corporate fish, or many big corporate fish can create commercial nets to catch all the fast intelligent fish - first movers advantage quelled by corporate mergers). This therefore, necessitates decentralization of tech innovations, and government sponsored, open-source tech infrastructure, so that the citizenry is insulated by the government from corporations privatizing technology with patents, such as what various AI companies are trying to do, which once again, concentrates power to a small elite of technocratic dictators, who now more than ever before have the potential to build digital prisons that control all aspects of a citizens life (proactively and retrospectively). For example, central bank digital currencies and AI surveillance, all connected to a carbon credit and social credit score could be used to punish citizens for wrongthink: expressing and acting in ways that are politically or socially unfavorable to the technocrats. In the future this may include real time bank account deductions for participating in protests, criticizing government on social media or perhaps even as simple as purchasing too much meat/eggs/poultry from small scale organic farms (which coincidentally isn't as profitable for large companies as centralized synthetic slop alternatives)

The solution to this is then technology that lowers bureaucracy and the need for state intervention, leading to less possible corruption, less retrospective intervention and less political persecution. This includes technology such as crypto; NFTs for govt services and tokenization of assets, services & goods; OPEN SOURCE, freely accessible AI/software/gene editing technology/polygenic risk scoring technology; cryptographically owned public social communities and defi for govt trustless loans, all with public ledgers to ensure some government control.

However, decentralization of technology is unlikely because territorial integrity of western societies has been all but undermined by corporations through revolving doors and lobbying: rendering western political systems technocracies rather than the traditional states. Even non-western states such as India, China, SEA are still technocratically centralizing power but through government supremacy.

The synthesis, is thereby countries that are either mildly authoritarian, but where the authoritarian elements are built in through code, that is created by group of benign dictators, or a direct democracy facilitated through a decentralized DAO, and localized to influence competing cantons/states. Both examples, would involve state run technocratic capitalism that redistributes wealth of corporate entities at a certain threshold, trustlessly through CBDCs, privatizing losses but which can easily redistribute funds in the form of welfare and low/negligible interest for small to medium term enterprise business loans, on merit.

However, I think this is unlikely given dysgenics due to weakening selection pressures post industrial revolution. Given the reversal of the flynn effect and leading indictors of intelligence decreasing such as per capita genius and innovation, color differentiations, ability to count backwards etc, as well as declining physical health (correlated with iq), expressed through rising all-cause mortality, it is likely that humanity wont even be able to sustain current infrastructure let alone innovate beyond what we currently have, barring technological augmentation through CRISPR/polygenic risk scoring/AI etc. Yet, development of such technologies are limited because geniuses around the world have access limited especially given the trend of large corporations privatizing their access. As we progressively become more retarded, infrastructure will collapse under the weight of the growing populations, and the failure to innovate, which will lead to a Malthusian collapse and a 1000 year dark age starting around 2200.

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

I wholly disagree with these points however I am too intellectually lazy to articulate why. What I find far more interesting, and want to focus on is the following question: would you apply these models of reasoning to all other industries and more specifically to banking industry, and how would you express it as such?

For example, are you in favor of total central bank control due to the above reasons and others?

Currently, the model is 1 central bank in every country and many large commercial banks who have a trend of merging and therein destroying the smaller retail banks, which destroys the frequency of SME loans as larger banks have bigger balance sheets and are less likely to provide such loans, the larger they are. This concentrates wealth in a small, wealthy elite of corporate stakeholders who have the commercial interest to get the largest and cheapest loans, and therein benefit from the most exchange of goods and services, compared to smaller businesses who are priced out due to more expensive, and less accessible credit. Overtime, this concentrates social and political capital in the financial controllers.

Yet this concentration of wealth, political, financial and social capital, still occurs under communism expressed with a government controlled central bank which becomes the single nexus of financial power, and therein its political Achilles heel. For "pure" communism to work (and an absolute abolition of property) you have to rely on those in control fairly valuing the labor of its citizenry individually and for such a centralized body in control of the valuation of the labor of millions, this is a near impossible feat, especially when subject to human nature: that power corrupts absolutely as evidenced in the centralization of wealth in communist governments where the executive class inevitably dominates the legislature, judiciary and treasury, by concentrating wealth earned by the citizenry into the coffers of the "state", which are really just a proxy for private controlled accounts of the political class.

Society would need some kind of absolute, finite, objective, real time, accurate assessment of labor and dispute resolution mechanism, which could NEVER come from a small centralized body given above; instead only an all encompassing AI could muster necessary millions+ data points to achieve fair valuations of labor that considers all the intricacies of varying social and political behaviors. But if this was programmed with biases (political, social, financial etc) such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, then this could not be relied on. Such centralization of power would only be worsened if national central banks were replaced with one global central bank like the BIS, which in a comedically unlikely scenario, could render any other financial partitions as merely administrators of banking policy (note currently there is much infighting between BIS, states CBs and retail banks so humanity is safe for now). This would concentrate wealth earned by the world's labor into a comparatively smaller elite.

Therefore, if the thesis is that capitalism is bad, due to the above, and the antithesis is that communism is similarly unsustainable, the synthesis is that an amalgam is needed: a largely decentralized financial system, that has both trusted and trustless financial infrastructure. This would be reminiscent of 1960s-1990s Germany and Japan with its 10000+ small retail banks and high frequency of SME loans, high velocity of money and equitable exchange, valuation and distribution of wealth, but combined with modern technology such as AI to lessen the impact of bureaucracy.

However, the issue with this is that modern technology centralizes services and therefore wealth, at far greater rates than in the 1960s (the fast fish, with many allies, can eat at the big corporate fish, or many big corporate fish can create commercial nets to catch all the fast intelligent fish - first movers advantage quelled by corporate mergers). This therefore, necessitates decentralization of tech innovations, and government sponsored, open-source tech infrastructure, so that the citizenry is insulated by the government from corporations privatizing technology with patents, such as what various AI companies are trying to do, which once again, concentrates power to a small elite of technocratic dictators, who now more than ever before have the potential to build digital prisons that control all aspects of a citizens life (proactively and retrospectively). For example, central bank digital currencies and AI surveillance, all connected to a carbon credit and social credit score could be used to punish citizens for wrongthink: expressing and acting in ways that are politically or socially unfavorable to the technocrats. In the future this may include real time bank account deductions for participating in protests, criticizing government on social media or perhaps even as simple as purchasing too much meat/eggs/poultry from small scale organic farms (which coincidentally isn't as profitable for large companies as centralized synthetic slop alternatives)

The solution to this is then technology that lowers bureaucracy and the need for state intervention, leading to less possible corruption, less retrospective intervention and less political persecution. This includes technology such as crypto; NFTs for govt services and tokenization of assets, services & goods; OPEN SOURCE, freely accessible AI/software/gene editing technology/polygenic risk scoring technology; cryptographically owned public social communities and defi for govt trustless loans, all with public ledgers to ensure some government control.

However, decentralization of technology is unlikely because territorial integrity of western societies has been all but undermined by corporations through revolving doors and lobbying: rendering western political systems technocracies rather than the traditional states. Even non-western states such as India, China, SEA are still technocratically centralizing power but through government supremacy.

The synthesis, is thereby countries that are either mildly authoritarian, but where the authoritarian elements are built in through code, that is created by group of benign dictators, or a direct democracy facilitated through a decentralized DAO, and localized to influence competing cantons/states. Both examples, would involve state run technocratic capitalism that redistributes wealth of corporate entities at a certain threshold, trustlessly through CBDCs, privatizing losses but which can easily redistribute funds in the form of welfare and low/negligible interest for small to medium term enterprise business loans, on merit.

However, I think this is unlikely given dysgenics due to weakening selection pressures post industrial revolution. Given the reversal of the flynn effect and leading indictors of intelligence decreasing such as per capita genius and innovation, color differentiations, ability to count backwards etc, as well as declining physical health (correlated with iq), expressed through rising all-cause mortality, it is likely that humanity wont even be able to sustain current infrastructure let alone innovate beyond what we currently have, barring technological augmentation through CRISPR/polygenic risk scoring/AI etc. Yet, development of such technologies are limited because geniuses around the world have access limited especially given the trend of large corporations privatizing their access. As we progressively become more retarded, infrastructure will collapse under the weight of the growing populations, and the failure to innovate, which will lead to a Malthusian collapse and a 1000 year dark age starting around 2200.

In the near future I will present my political program in points where I will include the issue of banking.

In the meantime, I'd like to focus on a certain understatement:

"Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal') is a left-wing to far-left sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement, whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need. A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state."

So how can you write about something like "communist government" or centralization?

As for eugenics - stopping genetic diseases is practically impossible because heterozygotes predominate in the population and transmit one recessive gene (responsible for genetic diseases) and they cannot be detected until a homozygote (two recessive genes) is created, i.e. a person with a genetic disease. So if you forbid genetically ill people from reproducing, you won't stop genetic diseases anyway.

Even if you manage to detect and stop it - there is such a thing as balanced polymorphism. This means that every few generations they recreate the recessive genes responsible for genetic diseases

And apart from genetic diseases, you will not create an army of perfect people by manipulating genes, because the most outstanding individuals with unique skills are created as a result of mixing genes. By limiting this, you will limit the birth of people with a high IQ, etc.​

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

In the near future I will present my political program in points where I will include the issue of banking.

In the meantime, I'd like to focus on a certain understatement:

"Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal') is a left-wing to far-left sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement, whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need. A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state."

So how can you write about something like "communist government" or centralization?

As for eugenics - stopping genetic diseases is practically impossible because heterozygotes predominate in the population and transmit one recessive gene (responsible for genetic diseases) and they cannot be detected until a homozygote (two recessive genes) is created, i.e. a person with a genetic disease. So if you forbid genetically ill people from reproducing, you won't stop genetic diseases anyway.

Even if you manage to detect and stop it - there is such a thing as balanced polymorphism. This means that every few generations they recreate the recessive genes responsible for genetic diseases

And apart from genetic diseases, you will not create an army of perfect people by manipulating genes, because the most outstanding individuals with unique skills are created as a result of mixing genes. By limiting this, you will limit the birth of people with a high IQ, etc.​

"Common ownership based on need".
This is a euphemism for centralization of power: it is an idealistic impossibility and my prior response I articulated why. I then suggested ways to combat it (AI/blockchain/CBDCs/social credit score) but then I argue this is totalitarian. I then proceeded to explain why OPEN SOURCE technology helps create transparency and mitigate executive overreach. Are you honestly implying that the POLITICBUREAU in soviet russia didn't centralize power in the party members? Have you read Orwell's animal farm or analyzed the greater political structure of soviet russia? The point is that a lack of property ownership centralizes control in those who ADMINISTRATE temporary property use. This administration is a proxy for ownership. Therefore the administrators who value the labor of the commoner (comrade), become the defacto owners of said administrated property.
Why haven't you responded to any of these points with intellectual honesty? I expected more than a copy pasted statement from a dictionary, especially as you demonstratively are capable of articulating your thoughts more persuasively than that (based on prior posts in this thread), unless this thread is only mean for unilateral expression (0 discussion).

I can't be bothered getting into genetics arguments - all that ends up happening is those against point to small sample size, selective studies and then I point to large sample size studies refuting this. All I will say is everything over a long enough time period with enough repetition can be selectively bred against or for certain traits as has occurred with all biological beings either explicitly (through human intervention) or indirectly (through evolution and selection pressures) . The only limitation is data and time. There is also an ideological contradiction between the preponderance for liberal science to insist on total biodiversity for all biological things, which reduces single points of biological failure and increases potential points of success, yet when applied to humans (also biological) they are for genetic homogenization of all humans (the complete elimination of varied common culture, language history, political frameworks and genetic diversity) and selective sample sizes. How can you reconcile this intrinsic contradiction? You write about ideological contradictions from the right, so I am interested in your opinion refuting the aforementioned.

 

[Deleted member 23391]

the femboy manifesto: hot femboys should let me fuck them and suck my cock

thanks for reading the femboy manifesto

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

"Common ownership based on need".
This is a euphemism for centralization of power: it is an idealistic impossibility and my prior response I articulated why. I then suggested ways to combat it (AI/blockchain/CBDCs/social credit score) but then I argue this is totalitarian. I then proceeded to explain why OPEN SOURCE technology helps create transparency and mitigate executive overreach. Are you honestly implying that the POLITICBUREAU in soviet russia didn't centralize power in the party members? Have you read Orwell's animal farm or analyzed the greater political structure of soviet russia? The point is that a lack of property ownership centralizes control in those who ADMINISTRATE temporary property use. This administration is a proxy for ownership. Therefore the administrators who value the labor of the commoner (comrade), become the defacto owners of said administrated property.
Why haven't you responded to any of these points with intellectual honesty? I expected more than a copy pasted statement from a dictionary, especially as you demonstratively are capable of articulating your thoughts more persuasively than that (based on prior posts in this thread), unless this thread is only mean for unilateral expression (0 discussion).

I can't be bothered getting into genetics arguments - all that ends up happening is those against point to small sample size, selective studies and then I point to large sample size studies refuting this. All I will say is everything over a long enough time period with enough repetition can be selectively bred against or for certain traits as has occurred with all biological beings either explicitly (through human intervention) or indirectly (through evolution and selection pressures) . The only limitation is data and time. There is also an ideological contradiction between the preponderance for liberal science to insist on total biodiversity for all biological things, which reduces single points of biological failure and increases potential points of success, yet when applied to humans (also biological) they are for genetic homogenization of all humans (the complete elimination of varied common culture, language history, political frameworks and genetic diversity) and selective sample sizes. How can you reconcile this intrinsic contradiction? You write about ideological contradictions from the right, so I am interested in your opinion refuting the aforementioned.

I reject the Soviet model because it was state capitalism. I propose direct democracy, I support open source and the creation of worker cooperatives. AI can help manage resources.

And yes, I have read Orwell's works - and like him, I am for the libertarian left. What I stand for is something like left-wing Switzerland. Of course, the stage called communism will not happen immediately, so a transitional period is needed ... but I will write about it in my political program, while I send the following message to my comrades - let's not make Soviet mistakes.

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

I reject the Soviet model because it was state capitalism. I propose direct democracy, I support open source and the creation of worker cooperatives. AI can help manage resources.

And yes, I have read Orwell's works - and like him, I am for the libertarian left. What I stand for is something like left-wing Switzerland. Of course, the stage called communism will not happen immediately, so a transitional period is needed ... but I will write about it in my political program, while I send the following message to my comrades - let's not make Soviet mistakes.

That seems reasonable, especially if the population is small, and the banking industry has a lot of small retail SME loans like Germany/China to fund small enterprises to combat large transnational corps centralizing social, political and financial capital. I would argue that to combat wealth hoarding by corporations you would also need private property ownership (even if there's a limit on "excess" wealth that applies to both individuals and corporate structures/trusts etc).

Another contradiction I find in the rhetoric coming from the great reset is the push towards "you will own nothing and will be happy": a rental economy. How is this possible when all manufacturers have built in planned obsolescence; nothing is built for the long term and repeated use? Also, how can these people argue for "sustainable living" and yet support planned obsolescence that leads to so much waste?

But it begs the question if such a model is possible on much larger populations? I guess the counter-argument would be small canton like functions across Europe with a lot of self-autonomy; any bureaucracy, at least in some areas, could be improved with ai/modern technology.

But what do you think Switzerland (a country where anti immigration populists have been in control for 30+ years and where you have to pay back your social benefits) is left-wing? https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/poverty_how-swiss-welfare-works/45575954

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

That seems reasonable, especially if the population is small, and the banking industry has a lot of small retail SME loans like Germany/China to fund small enterprises to combat large transnational corps centralizing social, political and financial capital. I would argue that to combat wealth hoarding by corporations you would also need private property ownership (even if there's a limit on "excess" wealth that applies to both individuals and corporate structures/trusts etc).

Another contradiction I find in the rhetoric coming from the great reset is the push towards "you will own nothing and will be happy": a rental economy. How is this possible when all manufacturers have built in planned obsolescence; nothing is built for the long term and repeated use? Also, how can these people argue for "sustainable living" and yet support planned obsolescence that leads to so much waste? ​

They (WEF) want corporations to become like a state - https://apnews.com/article/legislature-legislation-local-governments-nevada-economy-2fa79128a7bf41073c1e9102e8a0e5f0
​

But it begs the question if such a model is possible on much larger populations? I guess the counter-argument would be small canton like functions across Europe with a lot of self-autonomy; any bureaucracy, at least in some areas, could be improved with ai/modern technology. ​

Cantons, communes... we think the same thing. Of course, if they want to unite in larger structures like a "federation of communes" then they should be allowed to do so.
​

But what do you think Switzerland (a country where anti immigration populists have been in control for 30+ years and where you have to pay back your social benefits) is left-wing? https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/poverty_how-swiss-welfare-works/45575954​

I have no problem with anti-immigration policies, and you can find my reasons for them in my earlier posts.
However, when it comes to left-wing policies, in Switzerland they are as follows:​

1. Universal Education​

2. Universal Healthcare​

3. Workers' Rights​

4. LGBT Rights

I don't think Switzerland is left wing, but compared to other countries it looks like it. I'm just saying that direct democracy, access to guns (and they don't have shootings as often as in the US!), and the political system in general would have the potential to flourish if more left-wing policies were introduced.​

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

A preliminary outline of the political program

Is it possible to emerge from the crisis and bring prosperity to the whole world? Of course it can, and it is possible in a relatively short time. Five strokes of the pen of the world's rulers are needed.

1. Introduce immediately free land for every inhabitant. The method of allocation would be regulated by governments. Of course there would be some corruption, but it would be a completely small price to pay for prosperity! Whoever would be owed for the land, the amount would be cancelled immediately. The bank would lose money and would have to be taken over by the government.

2. Immediate liquidation of usurious banks. Arresting the bankers and collecting the assets dishonestly seized in a usurious manner. Takeover of the role of banks by a government bank.

3. Introduction of a payment system in gold coins. Only cheques would be allowed as a written order to pay a certain amount of money in gold. All three moves would completely eliminate inflation. This would be followed by a ban on any credit cards.

4. Take all natural deposits out of private hands, i.e. nationalise all raw materials. There is not a single reason for a private individual to sell fuel or coal to anyone. Profits from raw materials should not go into private pockets but should enrich the citizens of the state.

5. Introduce free medical care and free education. Having control over raw materials and no exploitation due to the previous four points would result in such profits for the government that free benefits would most likely be extended not only to health care or education. Any insurance against any accidents would also be completely free. Only intentional damage or flagrant negligence would be penalised.

Many economists would completely agree that the above points would immediately result in extraordinary prosperity wherever these steps are introduced.

Every economist also knows very well that no government will ever do that!​

@alriodai @incel194012940 @Lorsss @Makhachev @ascension! @mogger123 @thecel @Bvnny. @MaxillaMaxing @tallnegga @Justin Trudeau @thereallegend @GabachoCopium @gribsufer1 @Lihito @human304 @LetsDoThis @WanderingBurro @Manchild @Wallenberg @Joe Rogancel @Corleone @Collagen or rope @HumidVent @LampPostPrime @Sviken

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

When Laissez-faire capitalism has reduced the planet to an uninhabitable husk, you will not be selected in the rigged lottery to win a seat on the billionaires' space station.

@Gonthar @Mumbai Savior @FascisstChad @Exterminator @mecha72 @666nevada @JBcollector ​

 

[Deleted member 30985]

Kys

 

[Dystopian]

A preliminary outline of the political program

View attachment 2438697

Is it possible to emerge from the crisis and bring prosperity to the whole world? Of course it can, and it is possible in a relatively short time. Five strokes of the pen of the world's rulers are needed.

1. Introduce immediately free land for every inhabitant. The method of allocation would be regulated by governments. Of course there would be some corruption, but it would be a completely small price to pay for prosperity! Whoever would be owed for the land, the amount would be cancelled immediately. The bank would lose money and would have to be taken over by the government.

2. Immediate liquidation of usurious banks. Arresting the bankers and collecting the assets dishonestly seized in a usurious manner. Takeover of the role of banks by a government bank.

3. Introduction of a payment system in gold coins. Only cheques would be allowed as a written order to pay a certain amount of money in gold. All three moves would completely eliminate inflation. This would be followed by a ban on any credit cards.

4. Take all natural deposits out of private hands, i.e. nationalise all raw materials. There is not a single reason for a private individual to sell fuel or coal to anyone. Profits from raw materials should not go into private pockets but should enrich the citizens of the state.

5. Introduce free medical care and free education. Having control over raw materials and no exploitation due to the previous four points would result in such profits for the government that free benefits would most likely be extended not only to health care or education. Any insurance against any accidents would also be completely free. Only intentional damage or flagrant negligence would be penalised.

Many economists would completely agree that the above points would immediately result in extraordinary prosperity wherever these steps are introduced.

Every economist also knows very well that no government will ever do that!​

@alriodai @incel194012940 @Lorsss @Makhachev @ascension! @mogger123 @thecel @Bvnny. @MaxillaMaxing @tallnegga @Justin Trudeau @thereallegend @GabachoCopium @gribsufer1 @Lihito @human304 @LetsDoThis @WanderingBurro @Manchild @Wallenberg @Joe Rogancel @Corleone @Collagen or rope @HumidVent @LampPostPrime @Sviken

impossible without an homogeneous society , and most importantly, free of ((((them)))))

 

[FascisstChad]

A preliminary outline of the political program

View attachment 2438697

Is it possible to emerge from the crisis and bring prosperity to the whole world? Of course it can, and it is possible in a relatively short time. Five strokes of the pen of the world's rulers are needed.

1. Introduce immediately free land for every inhabitant. The method of allocation would be regulated by governments. Of course there would be some corruption, but it would be a completely small price to pay for prosperity! Whoever would be owed for the land, the amount would be cancelled immediately. The bank would lose money and would have to be taken over by the government.

2. Immediate liquidation of usurious banks. Arresting the bankers and collecting the assets dishonestly seized in a usurious manner. Takeover of the role of banks by a government bank.

3. Introduction of a payment system in gold coins. Only cheques would be allowed as a written order to pay a certain amount of money in gold. All three moves would completely eliminate inflation. This would be followed by a ban on any credit cards.

4. Take all natural deposits out of private hands, i.e. nationalise all raw materials. There is not a single reason for a private individual to sell fuel or coal to anyone. Profits from raw materials should not go into private pockets but should enrich the citizens of the state.

5. Introduce free medical care and free education. Having control over raw materials and no exploitation due to the previous four points would result in such profits for the government that free benefits would most likely be extended not only to health care or education. Any insurance against any accidents would also be completely free. Only intentional damage or flagrant negligence would be penalised.

Many economists would completely agree that the above points would immediately result in extraordinary prosperity wherever these steps are introduced.

Every economist also knows very well that no government will ever do that!​

@alriodai @incel194012940 @Lorsss @Makhachev @ascension! @mogger123 @thecel @Bvnny. @MaxillaMaxing @tallnegga @Justin Trudeau @thereallegend @GabachoCopium @gribsufer1 @Lihito @human304 @LetsDoThis @WanderingBurro @Manchild @Wallenberg @Joe Rogancel @Corleone @Collagen or rope @HumidVent @LampPostPrime @Sviken

I agree with you somewhat. I believe banks and interest should be illegal. All money should be tied to a finite resource like gold. Free land should only be give if people work the land to benefit the society or do service like the Roman system. I believe in tax cuts to promote behavior like marriage and with each divorce you get less marriage benefits. This will promote a healthy society. Basic healthcare and education should be free only up to a certain degree, higher achievers should have access to better quality service. Anyone with an IQ under so should be sterilized and do should all criminals. There should be heavy regulation to stop greedy jewy corporations to destroy the populace’s health with pesticides, gmos and pills.

 

[Interested]

Read every single word, all of it, However:

1) I agree that being a right-winger is an incel cope, but so is being left-winger (due to leftist men putting women on a pedestal in hopes of getting laid). Both political parties suck equally imo.

2) Femboys are "in theory" an attractive idea, However most femboys irl are incels who couldn't get laid as guys, so they turned gay to have sex one way or another. That means, that most femboys irl are cross-dressing ugly men who couldn't get laid. The real moggers are "straight acting" HTN+ Prettyboys.

Otherwise, Based and followed.

Here's some rare "successful" femboys:

 

[Daqirius]

When Laissez-faire capitalism has reduced the planet to an uninhabitable husk, you will not be selected in the rigged lottery to win a seat on the billionaires' space station.

@Gonthar @Mumbai Savior @FascisstChad @Exterminator @mecha72 @666nevada @JBcollector ​

I'm literally upper class, idgaf, peasents eat shit

 

[Deleted member 32285]

Read every single word, all of it, However:

1) I agree that being a right-winger is an incel cope, but so is being left-winger (due to leftist men putting women on a pedestal in hopes of getting laid). Both political parties suck equally imo.

2) Femboys are "in theory" an attractive idea, However most femboys irl are incels who couldn't get laid as guys, so they turned gay to have sex one way or another. That means, that most femboys irl are cross-dressing ugly men who couldn't get laid. The real moggers are "straight acting" HTN+ Prettyboys.

Otherwise, Based and followed.

Here's some rare "successful" femboys:

View attachment 2444136 View attachment 2444139 View attachment 2444141 View attachment 2444143 View attachment 2444144

only mongoloids can make convincing femboys.

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

I'm literally upper class, idgaf, peasents eat shit

It's good that you confessed. Now we know who the enemy of the people is
​

impossible without an homogeneous society , and most importantly, free of ((((them)))))

When we talk about the 1% of the population that controls most of the world's wealth, we are talking about the same thing.
​

I agree with you somewhat. I believe banks and interest should be illegal. All money should be tied to a finite resource like gold. Free land should only be give if people work the land to benefit the society or do service like the Roman system. I believe in tax cuts to promote behavior like marriage and with each divorce you get less marriage benefits. This will promote a healthy society. Basic healthcare and education should be free only up to a certain degree, higher achievers should have access to better quality service. Anyone with an IQ under so should be sterilized and do should all criminals. There should be heavy regulation to stop greedy jewy corporations to destroy the populace’s health with pesticides, gmos and pills.

Nice to hear we agree. Despite differences in views, we should cooperate, we have the same enemy.
​

1) I agree that being a right-winger is an incel cope, but so is being left-winger (due to leftist men putting women on a pedestal in hopes of getting laid). Both political parties suck equally imo.

I think when you say leftists you mean liberals. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the left was destroyed by infiltration. That's why we need to create our own political movement.​

 

[chudbob]

Femboy is the negation of negation - it is the negation of the contradictory relationship between men/masculinity and women/femininity - after applying the 3rd law of dialectics (i.e. the negation of negation) - the contradiction between masculinity and femininity turns out to be apparent, and we gain a new quality and content.

View attachment 2079093

The social fabric that was created on the capitalist economic ground - one way or another will have to be torn apart and reorganized. The disintegration of the social fabric naturally proceeds under capitalism, and without any interference from the femboys. It's about economics, not femboyism. And the cultivation of gender roles that capitalism has created is itself reactionary - especially because male gender roles continue to belittle men and reduce men to substitutable objects. Then, when capitalism is somehow destroyed - these social relations will lose their economic basis, and then the femboy seems to be the only way out.

What we consider masculinity today is the result of capitalism. Besides, masculinity itself is already very individualistic (and so is femininity) - so its negation is completely justified and desirable.

Why fetishize pregnancy and childbirth so much? It's nothing - it's not a disease or a serious ailment, especially today - a woman can go to work and give birth to children. Where's the problem?

@alriodai @MaxillaMaxing @thecel @ascension! @HarrierDuBois @Exterminator @Makhachev

faggot

 

[mecha72]

Gay dnrd

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

What does an ideal society look like according to tradcucks?​

Let's analyze common elements of the conservative agenda in different countries:

>state-regulated hairstyles [ban on long hair for men]
>compulsory military service for young men only
>total ban on abortion, contraception and porn
>death penalty for gays and transmaxxers
>additional taxation for single men
>banned from leaving the country
>higher retirement age for men
>forced religion in schools
>adult from the age of 21
>forced circumcision
>no vaccinations
>internet ban
>prohibition

As we can see, the common denominator is misandry, hatred of men, while no regulation requires, for example, the birth of at least 4 children by a woman. For them, the most important thing is procreation, mindlessly increasing suffering while there are still orphans and despite declaring themselves pro-life, they are insensitive to the fate of those who have already been born. For this reason, the life of each of you is of lower value to them than the life of any woman, because you cannot bear them new children (new slaves):
​

anticel said: "that s the point bro. weak men are useless & a waste of space. their only use is to be slaves to society. that s the only reason they exist too. if you were raised naturally & healthy u would be chad now.
female privilege doesn't even exist. women are wired to feel awful when they don't get top men. same as men who are wired to feel like shit when they aren't successful with women. u can't escape nature bro"​

These gullible conservatives not only despise you and do not want to help you, but also repeat with feminists that there is no such thing as female privilege - while you know numerous examples of situations in which men have it worse. They never took the black pill, they're still on blue pills

@alriodai @thereallegend @LampPostPrime @NateJacobs @Staceymaxxing @incel194012940 @aspiringexcel @Lucifer X @HumidVent @WanderingBurro @rand anon @Joe Rogancel @Trilogy @Infinitelarp @blackpilled I lost @Napoleon1800 @wyatt.is.weak ​

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

faggot

Gay dnrd

low effort posts, brainlets​

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Also not to mention that the "word of God" itself is incredibly inconsistent/makes it clear the Christ-chan God is an asshole and a liar:

GE 1.11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created
GE 2.4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
GE 1.20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created
GE 2.7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2.7, 19 Man was created before animals were created
GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time
GE 27, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later
GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son)
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)
GE 2.4, 4.26, 12.8, 22:14-16, 26.25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses
EX 6.2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.
GE 2 17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5.5 Adam lived 930 years

You don't just have to be retarded to be a Christian in this day and age. You also have to have never actually read the bible

​

 

[John Cracovizk]

Traditionalism is misandry
View attachment 2130702

Traditional conservatives love to talk about the “gender cult” of transgender ideology. Meanwhile, they are hypocritically indulging in a far greater and systematic gender cult of their own: the cult of traditional woman worship.
​

• The cult that says men should die in wars while women should be kept safely at home.​

View attachment 2130708

• The cult that says men should pay for everything in a relationship with a woman, or else he is not worthy of her time at all.​

View attachment 2130719

• The cult that allows fully grown daughters to live with their parents, but boots sons from homes when they turn 18, and tells sons to take care of themselves—while also universally shaming men as “basement dwellers” if they get any living assistance from their parents.​

View attachment 2130709

• The cult that says a man's life is unworthy if he is not always keeping some woman happy over himself.​

View attachment 2130724

• The cult that smears men as predators if they enter women's spaces, but says nothing against women entering men's spaces.​

View attachment 2130716

• The cult that expects men to spend many months of his salary on a ring to show his undying provision to a woman if he wishes to be with her—the costs for him then only get more expensive for the wedding, and then for the almost-certainly expected divorce.​

View attachment 2130718

• The cult that protects baby girls from genital mutilation, but says baby boys are to be genitally mutilated in order to please women that demand mutilated men.​

High IQ, conservatives only see men as cannon fodder, being conservative knowing the blackpill is dumb af.

 

[Lord-Arthur_17]

Refuting myths about homosexuality​

​

​

Unnatural​

This is an inherently weak and uncogent objection. This argument is a blatant rendition of the appeal to nature, as it assumes that what is natural is acceptable or better and what is unnatural is not, and it does not define what "natural" even is. What this would entail logically is that adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, and nakedness must be acceptable as they are "natural", while playing checkers, sleeping on a bed, wearing clothes and indeed cooking meat are not "natural" and thus unacceptable. Most homophobic persons typically do not advocate creating laws outlawing things such as sleeping on beds, not to mention that using computers isn't natural either — yet homophobes clearly use computers, if only to try to defend themselves on various wiki sites.

Moreover, even if it did logically follow that what is "natural" is good, it turns out that homosexuality occurs in nature; biologists have extensively documented same-sex behavior in over 500 species of animals and observed it in a total of 1,500 species of animals. Bonobos, for example, are known for indulging in almost any "perversion" humanity has thought of — and perhaps some we've missed out on. Mammals are far from the only kind of animal that do this.
​

Perversion​

This is simply a variation, with added bigotry, of the "It's not natural" argument. It implies that being gay is a mental disorder or disability even though there is no evidence to support such a claim. Defining homosexuality as a disability is a classic argument from definition fallacy. But the definition of disability does not include sexuality or gender. Being LGBTQ+ in no way impairs your ability to function as a human being in and of itself. In addition, drawing a parallel with sexuality and disability is a very troubling false equivocation, especially because it assumes that disabled people also do not deserve respect and empathy.
​

Religious arguments​

Before we try to address this issue: Why do the infidels have to pay attention to your God? Then comes the presuppositional argument that everything is contingent on the God of your religion, or double standard of saying that freedom of religion does not apply to those people, or that separation of church and state does not really exist.

Conservative Christians claim that God condemns homosexuality, but Jesus actually never brought the subject up, as it was apparently not very high on his list of important things to do or not do (although he did give some forceful condemnations of hypocrisy and those who used their temporal or religious authority to oppress others and enrich themselves). While this argument may be relevant for some religious practitioners, it has no relevance to those people who read Scripture in a more accommodating fashion, or to those simply do not believe in God, those that are are followers of a different religion, or to the law that respects the divide between church and state.

While the strongest religious criticisms of homosexuality (at least in Western countries, especially Poland and Germany) usually come from Christians, but Jesus Christ himself is not recorded as saying anything whatsoever about homosexuality. Biblical condemnations of homosexuality come from the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus (Along with not eating shrimp, Leviticus 11:10, and not wearing clothes made of multiple materials, Leviticus 19:19) and later apostles such as St Paul. Back then, many people in Ancient Rome disapproved of gay marriage before Christianity came along. Christians may just have wanted to make themselves look homophobic to look acceptable in the eyes of the average Roman.

The Old Testament is explicitly against homosexuality, because it claims it has perverted many ancient civilisations (homosexuality, that is, not the Old Testament). Evidence of impacts on any civilisations remains to be found.
​

"It's disgusting"​

This is simply a value judgment which has no weight outside the mind of the person expressing it. Some people might consider mental images of heterosexual sex as equally repulsive, while others might consider the mental image of Donald Trump having sex to be disgusting.

If the standard chauvinist opinion of "disgusting" is being used, we can assume that God is fine with lesbians. That might be why there's no real mention of female homosexuality in the Bible aside from a questionable reference in Romans 1:26. That claim rests on a very shaky foundation, as the full context of the passage seems to be more of a condemnation of shrine prostitutes than of lesbians. It might be the most honest reason, even if it's the most ridiculous.
​

Corruption or sexual abuse in single-sex communities​

Some communities are sensitive to corruption due to sexual relationships, or sexual abuse. How is that problem solved? Gender separation rules out the opportunities for heterosexual relationships. But to rule out homosexual relationships, the gays must be thrown out, too. The Boy Scouts of America is an example. The Catholic Church also intends to end sexual abuse by throwing out gay people. Except abusive priests. They can stay, provided the Church can shuffle them around to another (unsuspecting) congregation. The problem is that sexual abuse is very different from consensual sexual relationships. Prison rapists are usually not gay, though they are men who have sex with men. The reason is that rape isn't really about sex, but about dominating and abusing others.
​

Definition of marriage​

Homophobes might say that marriage is an ancient institution, clearly defined as a union between man and woman (though they don't specify what ancient institution they're referring to). They ignore that ancient institutions have included slavery, polygamy, forced marriage and child marriage, and that ancient traditions have banned interracial and inter-religious marriage. Also, conservatives' precious Old Testament disagrees with that definition, since its model for marriage seems to be polygamy.

Many conservatives claim that extra-marital sexual relationships are sinful. So if same-sex marriage is not allowed, all same-sex sexual activities would be sinful, by definition.

Homophobes might say that gay marriage would ruin the sanctity of straight marriage. Typically, the sanctity of marriage is only ruined when one partner in the marriage has sex outside of the marriage so it is difficult to see how same-sex marriage could impinge on the sanctity of marriage between straight individuals. Some use vague non sequitur explanations as to why it would devalue their marriage. For example, "If we recognize counterfeit money, it devalues the real thing. Therefore, if we recognize SSM, traditional marriage is devalued."

Besides, straight people have beaten up and devalued marriage on their own with no help from the gays. Straights have allowed divorce, unregistered cohabitation, the de-criminalization of adultery, quickie Vegas wedding chapels where people can get married by Elvis Presley impersonators, dog and cat weddings, and pathetic marriage-themed reality television shows where people can marry strangers they just met before divorcing 48 hours later as soon as they actually had to get to know each other. And many years later, when some gays want to marry, they get the blame for ruining straight marriage?
​

"Homosexuality might encourage other perversions"​

Homophobes might claim that acceptance of homosexuality might be a gateway to acceptance of pedophilia, zoophilia, incest or other perversions, in the same manner as public acceptance of Earl Grey tea is a gateway to public acceptance of heroin. That is a slippery slope fallacious argument; in other words, bullshit. In the past, pederasty certainly existed in Western culture, especially ancient Greece and Rome (and likely fueled some of the early Christians' animus against it), but today's gay communities overwhelmingly condemn pederasty and other such acts just like the rest of us.
​

Homosexuality and choice​

Homophobes often claim that those living the "gay lifestyle" have simply chosen to be gay. This could be correct for any given individual making this argument, but only if they are bisexual. Most people are attracted primarily to either men or women, and can exercise very little, if any, choice in the matter. Bisexual people, however, could conceivably choose to act on their attraction to the opposite sex and ignore their similar attraction to the same sex. But this would not make a bisexual person heterosexual.

Also curious and rarely discussed is why this should even be relevant; it's not as though societies routinely ban behaviors just because they appear to be choices rather than innate and inflexible preferences, whatever that distinction can be said to mean in an apparently deterministic universe. Blind to their own irony, the same people who revile the gays with the non-argument that homosexuality is a "choice" and thus wrong (…implying that it'd be okay if it weren't, as most evidence suggests?) are often very pleased to attempt to inflict a distinctly choice-based religious lifestyle on anyone who'll sit still and listen to their crazy, and none of them ever flips on his gay switch to show us just how easy it is to swap boning preferences.

Also, why would people choose to be gay when they have a higher risk of being harassed?
​

Sexually transmitted infections​

Men who have sex with men are prone to some sexually transmitted infections, most notably HIV. This is mostly because anal sex transmits HIV and other infections and a rate 18 times higher than vaginal sex. Some people have transmitted these infections to heterosexual partners.

STIs are indeed a public health problem. However, most gay people are not infected. And most know how to protect themselves. Just like straight people. It is simply not a problem unique to homosexuality. Also, some STIs may not really be much more common among men who have sex with men, such as genital herpes.

If one is to believe Warren J. Blumenthal, homophobic conservatives might well be shooting themselves in the foot: "Anti-gay bias causes young people to engage in sexual behavior earlier in order to prove that they are straight. Anti-gay bias contributed significantly to the spread of the AIDS epidemic. Anti-gay bias prevents the ability of schools to create effective honest sexual education programs that would save children's lives and prevent STDs."

HIV rarely spreads through lesbian sexual intercourse. Does this mean we ban all marriages except between two women? I mean, stopping AIDS is super important enough to justify criminalizing loving relationships, right? Nope.
​

Promiscuity​

First, even if this were universally true and demonstrable with convincing evidence (which it clearly isn't), it wouldn't mean anything. Promiscuity is not a vice in and of itself, unless someone is religious and wants to force everyone else to be as miserable as them. Second, while some gay communities encourage casual sex, some straight communities do too. Meanwhile, many gay people prefer lifelong, monogamous relationships. All people, no matter their sexual orientation, have different tastes.
​

Anal sex​

Many homophobic jokes and arguments center around anal sex, taking as read that it's a despicable act and implying that The Gays are obsessed with it. Male-on-male anal sex seems to matter more to homophobes than to gay men. There are some health issues with penile-anal penetration, but these also apply to male-on-female anal fun, which is popular among some young Christians and usually not condemned in the same way. Also, some gay men don't do anal sex anyways. Furthermore, due to the invention of the "strap-on", straight female-on-male anal sex is also possible and common.
​

Not reproductive​

Most sexual encounters, including those within straight marriage, are non-reproductive. These include barrier birth control, biochemical birth control, fertility awareness, non-penetrative sex, sex with sterilized people, sex with less fertile people (due to old age or other reasons), and homosexuality. Oddly enough, when someone makes the claim that it's all about children, they tend to become very unhappy if someone suggests that sterile couples should also be banned from marrying… almost as if that wasn't their real reason for opposing same-sex marriage.

Same-sex couples also commonly do something that is arguably more humanitarian than creating new people: they adopt children. There is also no requirement to make new people anyway, and a growing childfree movement against the entrenched emphasis on family and reproduction, while the world's population is still increasing. Does the planet desperately need more reproductive sex that badly? Same-sex couples can also procreate using artificial means, such as artificial insemination or surrogate mothers. Some closeted or semi-closeted homosexuals also have children through marriage before coming out.
​

Homosexual erasure​

Some organizations (and even entire countries) simply deny the existence of homosexuality, seeing it as a rebellious phase, a simpler way to "get some," or simply bisexuality, as opposed to a genuine lack of opposite sex attraction.

Common arguments:
​

• Most homosexual men enjoy women as friends. (Answers in Genesis used this argument.) People making this argument may be thinking that opposite sex friends (sometimes thought of as a psychological impossibility) are some sort of repressed desire for the opposite sex. This argument is even more ridiculous when considering the fact that most heterosexual men enjoy men as friends.​

• All homosexuals have some degree of OS attraction (also used by the same AiG "Scientist" on the same article). First of all, there is some confirmation bias in the study. He was a reparative therapist, who deals with people who want to "change". People who are in accepting communities, who are content with the same sex, may not feel the urge to change. Secondly, having past straight relationships does NOT make a person straight, any more than eating soup makes it someone's favorite food. Third, if homosexuals DO feel heterosexual feelings, they are very weak, in the same way that straight people may have faint homosexual feelings. Does that make everyone bi? Fourth, many homosexuals do not find the opposite sex attractive, describing it as "indifferent". Some may describe forced heterosexual relationships as feeling "unnatural" and compare them to incest. Sorry to leave you with that image.​

• There are no gay men. They are just too lazy to be with a woman (Used by various homophobes) The homophobe's train of thought probably goes like this:
  
  1. Men are naturally promiscuous.​
  2. Women are naturally choosy, slow, and hard to get.​
  3. Men have to go through great struggles just to "get some".​
  4. Since there is no woman in the mix, homosexuality provides men with a simple, lazy, unsophisticated way to "game the system".​

• I can't even imagine how you would like a man instead of a beautiful woman with beautiful breasts and luxurious hair! (used by various homophobes to deny the orientation). That's because you are straight. Also, how could heterosexual women like a man instead of a beautiful woman with beautiful breasts and luxurious hair?​

@alriodai @Ekil73_YT @thenewhebbe @NateJacobs @DR. NICKGA @Gonthar @NationalWarrior @dreamcake1mo

 

[Itsmelurking505]

Femboy is the negation of negation - it is the negation of the contradictory relationship between men/masculinity and women/femininity - after applying the 3rd law of dialectics (i.e. the negation of negation) - the contradiction between masculinity and femininity turns out to be apparent, and we gain a new quality and content.

View attachment 2079093

The social fabric that was created on the capitalist economic ground - one way or another will have to be torn apart and reorganized. The disintegration of the social fabric naturally proceeds under capitalism, and without any interference from the femboys. It's about economics, not femboyism. And the cultivation of gender roles that capitalism has created is itself reactionary - especially because male gender roles continue to belittle men and reduce men to substitutable objects. Then, when capitalism is somehow destroyed - these social relations will lose their economic basis, and then the femboy seems to be the only way out.

What we consider masculinity today is the result of capitalism. Besides, masculinity itself is already very individualistic (and so is femininity) - so its negation is completely justified and desirable.

Why fetishize pregnancy and childbirth so much? It's nothing - it's not a disease or a serious ailment, especially today - a woman can go to work and give birth to children. Where's the problem?

@alriodai @MaxillaMaxing @thecel @ascension! @HarrierDuBois @Exterminator @Makhachev

Mods remove this fag shit