The Other Internet Tranny Sociology Thread: Pooner Edition
#1
Because KimK won't stop pinging me in the shoutbox and failing to follow the thread of a conversation. Yes I am mad, go tell Cool Nigger.

If you want to follow the discussion up to now it starts on page 565 of the shoutbox archive and goes on and off intermittently up to 572 (so far).

We've had a very interesting tranny sociology thread mostly with a focus on the male troon. They were the big issue in politics and on the internet, and as has recently been noted here, are now far less of an issue. And along the way we maybe made a few posts about pooners or adjacent to pooner-issues, but not a lot. It's interesting to me, but I know some people find this weird.

If you're so not into this you don't even know what the hell I'm saying, pooner is the pointy, trollish, doomerish image of what a female to male transsexual is as a trendy meme one can riff on. The FtMjak, we could say.


[Image: some-pooners-v0-ka8cvkwdctbb1.jpg]

[Image: some-pooners-v0-j43gapwdctbb1.webp]

[Image: some-pooners-v0-7oej5pwdctbb1.jpg]

I think these are hilarious and all things pooner are at the very least fascinating. I've been discussing this stuff with a few people and looking in on things now and then for years now. So when the subject came up in the shoutbox I was happy to discuss it at some length spontaneously.

I think most of us are happy to start at the foundation that this is a stress response to circumstances and a social phenomena, to some extent that we can't quantify in each case. The stress is nothing new, girls have always had a rough time of maturing, accepting change in their bodies and places in life. Teenage girls have been known for doing all kinds of strange and extreme things when they have any kind of freedom. Most of these I believe constitute something between a search for self/meaning/belonging on one hand, and a revolt against felt impositions on another. Problems with their own bodies are recurring. In girls puberty can understandably be taken as a kind of imposed sentence. You're a woman now. You thought guys looked at you funny before... People I consider trustworthy internet historians have told me that Cracky-Chan used to post online about wanting to cut her tits off because she hated her body.

[Image: 1158844456606.jpg]

She hated her tits and wanted to cut them off and felt weird and uncomfortable about herself. But she didn't actually cut her tits off and decide she wasn't a woman, instead she became a weird trail blazing internet meme. She defined herself so intensely and personally that she's appearing in this thread nearly 20 years after the fact. Point being, she had something in common with the FtM of today, and she apparently got through it in her own way. But I'm a bit ahead of us now.

There was something like a point of contention in the shoutbox. We need to explain where the phenomena of FtM comes from, what is currently done to or about it, and what ought to be done. 

Where does it come from? I've sort of already gone into that. The growing anxieties of girls. The world is weirder and less certain than ever. Social and cultural decay and politicisation (libtardism) are destroying what's left of old sources of sense and stability, while also strangling newer ones out and preventing new growth. Cracky Chan was clearly a somewhat sharp girl, undeniably ahead of her time. So she turned to the internet. As I said in the shoutbox, the internet took in all of the weird outlier girls who didn't know what the fuck was going on from all over the world. This did on one hand lead to some Cracky Chan types with the strength, luck, and ingenuity to find themselves with the help of the freedom and wider pool of human contacts provided by the internet. Especially earlier on I think this was more the case (due to who was coming in and what was available and happening online at the time), but things have been changing with time. The internet has become less personal, more mass political. Girl subcultures started to come into contact with and absorb the logic of psychology and civil rights. More personal and extreme outlets (hanging out with weirdos on 4chan, drawing shotas cutting each other with knives on deviantart, etc) started to draw heat and get cracked down on. Harder and less available than pre-formed political identities which were now being handed out on the streetcorners of girl-internet.

This happening paralleled the closing off of irl opportunities to build a relatively sane life. All that 'Bowling Alone' stuff. Civic life is dead. Public space is dying. Culture is becoming closed off, boring, weird gay and retarded. Economy is doing poorly. Again, stress response. STRESS is mounting. Old reliable outlets and controls for stress are DYING.

Now apologies for awkward structuring, brief thoughts on lesbianism and the pooner impulse in general. I think it's a fairly common opinion around here that both lesbianism and poonerism are not real in the sense that they are a hard biologically determined reality. They are instead a response. A response to what? As said above, male sexuality can be scary. The roles imposed by acquiescence to it are scary. "Lesbianism" is the first kind of dodge. And I think it could perhaps be better defined in most cases as an abstention from or rejection of male sexuality than an active drive towards women. Can women be into women? I believe so. Some more than others? I believe so. Can they also be less into men? Of course. But still I wouldn't say I believe in a true and exclusive lesbianism. It strikes me as a choice, and a choice that's made against men rather than for women. Now I'm not a woman (and will never be one, of course), if one were to say I'm totally unqualified to speak on this I'd say that's fair.

Where I do feel more qualified to speak is the issue of FtMs, which I see as adjacent to lesbians. Now I'm not a woman, but I am a man. And I didn't choose to be one. I am one. Beyond bodies and the accidents of birth, I can spot a man online without any contact with his body and tell him apart from a woman. Men and women are very distinct. So what does it mean for one to choose to be another? As in the case of lesbianism, I believe that FtMs are not choosing to become men. As the silly memes above make fun of, they tend to be very unconvincing and unmanly. A woman can't become a man. The bodies can be mangled and pumped into a somewhat more manly shape, but they don't think like us. They simply aren't us. Again, what is one choosing when one becomes a man? The essence of a man can only be quantified biologically in ways that transition therapies cannot touch. The rest is up to interpretation. And manhood as interpreted by pooners tends to be very silly and distorted. Very fanciful. Fancies that feel less spawned from observation of men, and more like dreams of escaping a bad idea of what womanhood entails.

A point I don't see raised too often is that FtM seems to cluster a lot more strongly within a certain age cohort. The trans phenomena in general is very much a youth thing I'm aware, but MtF's reputation was seriously hurt by how many bizarre looking older men (so much further from womanhood) were into it. As far as I know older FtMs are virtually non-existent. The illustrator I wrote about in that other thread probably being about the oldest specimen we can readily find.

It shouldn't be controversial to point out that for a start, younger girls and pubescents are the most trend-pliable people in the world. And to tie into all the above, these are the ones who are very STRESSED about their BODIES and WHERE THEIR LIVES ARE GOING. They are a demographic that is anxious for stuff to do which they can hide in, identify with, find peers within, and gain some kind of sense of control over themselves and their destiny. In the past this would first probably be not as strong a drive (because the world made more sense and was less fucked up day to day), and secondly a lot more things existed to get into (fashions, scenes, subcultures, etc).

I didn't get to this above, what are pooners doing? Like lesbians, I think they are rejecting a life offered. All of the above lends itself to poonerism. The stress and anxiety of what womanhood entails, and the ability to take control and find like company in a new community and empowering (more on this in a moment) movement through poonerism. Specifically I say they are rejecting a life offered because the idealism of maleness in FtM tends to specifically not resemble the life and existence of a man very much. Instead it looks more like a fetishism towards the life of a boy. A boy defined by a kind of negation of life. Becoming a boy being like a return to girlhood only even purer and safer. Boys don't have to get leered at by men, they don't have to get locked in the foomeler trap if they don't feel like it (family life), etc, they just get to play outside in the sun and mess around in some kind of edenic bliss.

Point made I hope, I consider the pooner path an understandable reaction to an old girl problem that is getting worse. But I also consider it a very silly answer (how typical of women). The other point that needs brief touching on. The difficulty in addition to the absurdity. Becoming a goth might be absurd, you might look silly. But the clothes and makeup only cost so much, and one day you can just take it off. You're the time and cost of the clothes in the hole. Easy in and out. Gender transition is not easy. Activists like to fuss about the strain of doctor and therapist approval as though the difficulty is purely bureaucratic, but biologically it's a war on yourself that makes unalterable changes, and think of the damn logistics behind this.  Are hormones free? Is the time of doctors free? There's a cost to patients, and more broadly, a cost to society to maintain, support, and broaden this option pathway.

I bolded the word "empowering" above, because this leads into politics. What is being done about FtMs right now? The pathway into becoming one is being actively maintained, supported, and expanded by purposeful top-down efforts. Yes, FtMs existed before this heavy top-down effort. That does not mean that the effort is not worth consideration or irrelevant. What is currently being done? This very extreme and impractical and obviously harmful solution to perennial but presently worsening girl-problems is receiving serious support from above. These people have infrastructure. Cops and bureaucrats protect them and attack their enemies. Tax money goes towards making more FtMs. The British police will suplex a pensioner into concrete for saying he loves his country and cheer for a dead-eyed zealot therapist telling anxious girls that misery is a sign of their inner boy screaming for testosterone injections.

At the same time this is happening the culture and arts spaces both irl and online are being destroyed by the same forces. Omocat was obviously at one point a weird girl with a head full of fancies. But she was able to join the weird fanciful girl internet, draw shotas cutting each other with knives, and not only did that carry her through the scary times of puberty and early womanhood, it became her career. She could not have done that if she were born ten years later. The sheer, vicious policing and scrutiny all remotely strong, eccentric, and real human impulses are subject to now makes such free and expressive outlets impossible. They killed my forum that was made of text, Omocats knife-shotas wouldn't have stood a chance. But she did get in in time. Worked out her feelings in a fun way that did no lasting damage (if you ask me), and got internet tenure just in time. So the sex-safety police can only smoulder from a distance. 

[Image: image.png]


There is now so much less room to be yourself online and have a personal time on the internet, explore and express yourself. It is all owned space as a certain Jew said. Every online streetcorner is crowded with weirdos telling you to pick a side. You can't find yourself in that. Only a team. And one of the biggest teams (thanks to heavy state backing) online is team pooner.

That's what I believe is happening with pooners, and how the issue is currently treated and handled in our time. Now the other question. What should be done?

My answer remains the same. Crush libtardism.

That answer means a lot of things. And it is not a positive program, intentionally so. By crush libtardism I mean start taking apart many of the social forces which are amplifying irl STRESS, some ought to be real no-brainers like can we please fucking solve crime and start taking shrill race-war psychotics off the tv so everyone can calm down? Then we can end the most egregious economic and career injustices like affirmative action and start attempting to correct towards a sustainable and plausible long term working life model for the first world. Maybe certain people who obviously don't belong on the continents they currently live on can go back. Etc.

It goes without saying that within this, massive built up infrastructure supporting what are basically weird sexual neurosis will start being dismantled. I understand many people are deeply attached to their therapists and psychs so I would probably kind of kick the ladder away and then slowly drain away what's currently present if that makes sense. Get as few new people into this stuff as possible (I don't believe this'd be too hard if you cut their free advertising and stopped brutalising alternative and opposing forces) and start cutting away subsidies. You want to be a weirdo injecting sex-hormones, try making a case from scratch that taxpayers owe you that.

Take all the issues with the above you care to, I'm trying to make the general point that it's all connected, and you can undermine the spread of poonerism from quite a distance.

The more specific charge made by KimK in the shoutbox was the lack of a positive answer. Maybe some of you can already see where I approach this from having read all of the above. I believe that culture is a kind of growth. Girls were finding ways to deal with the modern world themselves. Some part of me is still somewhat optimistic on the human race. I do believe that much of what's wrong comes down to what is in the way rather than peoples' bad natures driving them irresistibly towards filth and destruction. Women will always to some extent have to cope with life. Their existence is subsumed within the world of men. Sucks to be them on some level. No way around this. But I believe that with well intentioned oversight they can probably be entrusted to grow some new copes with the state of the current and coming world that will be good for them and everyone. No. This is not me saying they will learn to love being 50s tradwives and take up knitting. I don't know what's coming. But right now anarcho-tyranny is laying such absurd incentives towards such absurd answers and placing such impossible barriers in the way of sense and past solutions that any attempt at an answer working within their frame is pointless and hopeless.

A thought I might leave you with, KimK specifically, look at Japan. Do you see how this all becomes easier looking without the libtard master-factor having such an overwhelming advantage? Do you have questions? You are also free to disagree. But if your disagreement is only possible because you're ignoring something I've written here I won't be happy.
#2
Part of the FtM problem, I believe, is how women are socialized at a young age. It’s already been pointed out that whenever women don’t feel comfortable with their womanhood, they are told by therapists that they’re secretly trannies and should chop their tits off. However, I’d also like to point out that women are told from birth that they can do anything men can, they should be like men, etc.. The feminist upbringing involves attempting to convince women that there’s no difference between them and men, but thanks to the troon overtake of libtard politics around the 10s, acting like a man means that you are a man. This contradictory code is a significant reason, at least in my opinion, of why FtMs are so common.
#3
Sakana Wrote:Part of the FtM problem, I believe, is how women are socialized at a young age. It’s already been pointed out that whenever women don’t feel comfortable with their womanhood, they are told by therapists that they’re secretly trannies and should chop their tits off. However, I’d also like to point out that women are told from birth that they can do anything men can, they should be like men, etc.. The feminist upbringing involves attempting to convince women that there’s no difference between them and men, but thanks to the troon overtake of libtard politics around the 10s, acting like a man means that you are a man. This contradictory code is a significant reason, at least in my opinion, of why FtMs are so common.

I think the FtM is common moreso because externally these women do not receive any accurate information about men. They never really get the remotest idea on what that means and what we are, and that opens them up to misidentifying quirks about their own natures as fundamentally "male" in some way when they aren't. That said, it's critical to distinguish from the two forms of rejecting womanhood. The thing you are describing plays less of a role than general confusion and lack of information. It's not really an envy of manhood that exists in FtM's, they are seeking something of a regression. They want to reject womanhood by going backwards. This is why they are almost always associating themselves with extremely childish aesthetics and interests. The radical feminist penis envy and usurping of manhood both advocates for and results in a different type of female, one who is usually more promiscuous and behaves more aggressively, whereas the FtMs are much more blatantly fragile figures. Though I am sure feminism would reluctantly validate this group nonetheless, the two worldviews don't seem very compatible with each other, women who internalize the view that they can do anything men can and should be like men almost always become seething female supremacists rather than FtMs (the distinctly unmanly nature of FTM post-transformation is key to note in this regard).
#4
a system is failing Wrote:
Sakana Wrote:Part of the FtM problem, I believe, is how women are socialized at a young age. It’s already been pointed out that whenever women don’t feel comfortable with their womanhood, they are told by therapists that they’re secretly trannies and should chop their tits off. However, I’d also like to point out that women are told from birth that they can do anything men can, they should be like men, etc.. The feminist upbringing involves attempting to convince women that there’s no difference between them and men, but thanks to the troon overtake of libtard politics around the 10s, acting like a man means that you are a man. This contradictory code is a significant reason, at least in my opinion, of why FtMs are so common.

I think the FtM is common moreso because externally these women do not receive any accurate information about men. They never really get the remotest idea on what that means and what we are, and that opens them up to misidentifying quirks about their own natures as fundamentally "male" in some way when they aren't. That said, it's critical to distinguish from the two forms of rejecting womanhood. The thing you are describing plays less of a role than general confusion and lack of information. It's not really an envy of manhood that exists in FtM's, they are seeking something of a regression. They want to reject womanhood by going backwards. This is why they are almost always associating themselves with extremely childish aesthetics and interests. The radical feminist penis envy and usurping of manhood both advocates for and results in a different type of female, one who is usually more promiscuous and behaves more aggressively, whereas the FtMs are much more blatantly fragile figures. Though I am sure feminism would reluctantly validate this group nonetheless, the two worldviews don't seem very compatible with each other, women who internalize the view that they can do anything men can and should be like men almost always become seething female supremacists rather than FtMs (the distinctly unmanly nature of FTM post-transformation is key to note in this regard).
I think pretty well captures the FtM/MtF split in a nutshell. MtF tranny's are chasing the promiscuity and easy availability of sex that they imagine women enjoy; it's fundamentally a fetish. FtMs are running away from a female sexuality that they have not been taught to handle and are afraid of having foisted upon them. 

Interestingly, while it would seem like easy availability of sex would be the natural cure for MtFs (providing the sexual gratification to the male that they feel is only available as a woman), it actually seems far more effective at de-trooning FtMs. "You can fuck it out of them". Most FtMs seem basically insecure and afraid of their own femininity, but of course, they're still women deep down, so the natural solution is to have a man take control of their sexually and ravish them. It seems to be enormously psychologically relieving and "affirming" of their womanhood.
#5
To summarize your position (feel free to correct):
1) girls have girlstress
2) world goes to shit, girlstress gets worse
3) subcultures offer personal-tailored coping
4) the internet further expands subcultures
6) libtarded universalist politicization coopts subcultures
    a) expands some (troonism)
    b) represses others
7) somewhere along the line apparatchiks get behind libtardism and root it further
8) therefore break libtardism - break troonism, and we go back to 3-4 (?)

What's missing is the lack of consideration of the appeal behind libtardism. Surely you're not saying it's the apparatchiks that got the ball rolling? So why did the "pre-furbished political identity" of the libtard Borg so utterly outcompete the patchwork of subcultures? Why did a "team identity" blow "finding yourself" out of the water? Could it be that it simply was the superior idea in the marketplace of ideas under the given circumstances? Calling it "absurd", "impractical", and "obviously harmful" is just signalling an unwillingness to understand (or perhaps exasperation over inability to do so?). You refuse to see why it fits the place it has been allocated by history, and why those who adopt it think of it as the better option among alternatives. In financial markets, regularly finding yourself in opposition to the majority is called sucking at trading. In the ideas market, you may find yourself eking a bare subsistence on the periphery of the internet, blaming apparatchiks. I don’t know how that’s called.

The Christianization of Rome offers a good analogy. The eclectic, flexible patchwork of pagan cults was overcome by the Borg-like black and white, intolerant assimilator of Christianity (very similar to libtardism in that regard). It also famously had its wealth, apparatchiks and burning stakes. Were these the cause then? Fortunately the slowness of the process allows the eye to clearly tell the cart from the horse: the selling point of Christianity was in fact its ability to offer a universalist religious experience in a cosmopolitan context – a task all its competitors failed. It wasn’t a niche waiting to be approved by top-down apparatchiks, but in fact already spread like wildfire while still providing lionfodder. The apparatchiks came later, after all the name-calling and prosecution ended by the emperor’s adoption in an attempt to save the empire. Have you considered that modern emperors and apparatchiks are also merely reacting to the developing trends and trying to adapt, save the empire, instead of orchestrating "obviously harmful" social developments for inexplicable reasons? Honestly, the concept of bad actors has got to be the laziest and most un-systematic explanation ever.

Your post is unclear on whether you consider libtardism to be the sole cause of our ills, or merely a comorbidity. The first seems untenable and the other conflicts with your solution.

anthony Wrote:look at Japan. Do you see how this all becomes easier looking without the libtard master-factor having such an overwhelming advantage?
Such comparisons may not be warranted. The people are extremely different.

anthony Wrote:Becoming a goth might be absurd, you might look silly. But the clothes and makeup only cost so much, and one day you can just take it off. You're the time and cost of the clothes in the hole. Easy in and out.
Have you considered that that's exactly why they are trooning themselves instead of becoming goths?

anthony Wrote:But I believe that with well intentioned oversight they can probably be entrusted to grow some new copes with the state of the current and coming world that will be good for them and everyone.
The claustrophobia of a "well intentioned oversight" sounds like something they're trying to escape.

anthony Wrote:And it is not a positive program, intentionally so.
You ask for demolishing without offering anything in return. Not a good selling point. Also, going by above, if coupled with a lack of understanding, see Chesterton's Fence.

Btw I'm may sound more disagreeable than I am, but I agree with most of your post, in fact. However it is difficult to reply to such a long and what appears somewhat ambiguous post, and I've already spent hours re-writing the reply. This is why I prefer to shitbox instead.
#6
KimKardashian Wrote:To summarize your position (feel free to correct):
1) girls have girlstress
2) world goes to shit, girlstress gets worse
3) subcultures offer personal-tailored coping
4) the internet further expands subcultures
6) libtarded universalist politicization coopts subcultures
    a) expands some (troonism)
    b) represses others
7) somewhere along the line apparatchiks get behind libtardism and root it further
8) therefore break libtardism - break troonism, and we go back to 3-4 (?)

Break the strength of libtardism and you also severely reduce the 1/2 factor. I believe that a lot of social issues, interesting as they are to discuss in depth, would just roll up and go away if the libtards got rolled up and put away.

Quote:What's missing is the lack of consideration of the appeal behind libtardism.
Do you believe that I have never thought about this before? There are certain things I believe can be taken for granted considering where we are, but sure, let's have a miserable fucking day doing this.

Quote:Surely you're not saying it's the apparatchiks that got the ball rolling? So why did the "pre-furbished political identity" of the libtard Borg so utterly outcompete the patchwork of subcultures?

Your post reads like a cultural case of the libtard strawman of "huergghhuergghh you believe might make right therefore anything that happen exist is good get owned nohtsee".

Yes, libtardism appeals to something that humanity wants. But so does fentanyl laced with chinese rat poison. There are places in America where that is the most popular means of coping with life. Hard drugs can be cheap and fairly potent. A combination which people can literally ride themselves out to the point of physical rot with.


Quote:Why did a "team identity" blow "finding yourself" out of the water? Could it be that it simply was the superior idea in the marketplace of ideas under the given circumstances?
Superior... What does that mean? Is Fentanyl "superior" to literally every other possible human activity because people choose it? Obviously it looks that way to a certain number of people (very possibly more than going FtM, I haven't checked the numbers). Enough I think for us to have to address its superiority by this angle of approach you want to hold things to.


Joining team libtard is like getting on cultural/social fentanyl. I'm not the first to say this. Moldbug recently made a somewhat substantial comparison between bluepilling yourself and opiates. It's a readily accessible source of relief and feedback which is far easier and more accessible than any kind of personal pursuit. Circumstances, as you say, are a factor. But your insinuation that I'm ignorant of or callous towards personal factors is a mean and stupid dodge on your part to step away from how many impersonal factors are at work. I've heard every point you're making here before coming out of the mouths of hard drug use apologists. People who tell you we should let people inject krokodil until they rot to death outside our homes if they want. I know you do not believe that what we are discussing is good, but in your straining to present a more discerning and insightful position this is what you have been reduced to.


Quote: Calling it "absurd", "impractical", and "obviously harmful" is just signalling an unwillingness to understand (or perhaps exasperation over inability to do so?). You refuse to see why it fits the place it has been allocated by history, and why those who adopt it think of it as the better option among alternatives.
Tell us why. What has your superior will to see revealed to you which is lost on me?



Quote:In financial markets, regularly finding yourself in opposition to the majority is called sucking at trading. In the ideas market, you may find yourself eking a bare subsistence on the periphery of the internet, blaming apparatchiks. I don’t know how that’s called.

We're on the same forum having the same discussion. There is no superior outcome earned by superior insight. If there were you wouldn't be here. We are on the down and out opposition side because this politics, not a meritocratic knowledge quest.


Quote:The Christianization of Rome offers a good analogy.

No it doesn't.


Quote: The eclectic, flexible patchwork of pagan cults was overcome by the Borg-like black and white, intolerant assimilator of Christianity (very similar to libtardism in that regard). It also famously had its wealth, apparatchiks and burning stakes. Were these the cause then? Fortunately the slowness of the process allows the eye to clearly tell the cart from the horse: the selling point of Christianity was in fact its ability to offer a universalist religious experience in a cosmopolitan context – a task all its competitors failed. It wasn’t a niche waiting to be approved by top-down apparatchiks, but in fact already spread like wildfire while still providing lionfodder. The apparatchiks came later, after all the name-calling and prosecution ended by the emperor’s adoption in an attempt to save the empire. Have you considered that modern emperors and apparatchiks are also merely reacting to the developing trends and trying to adapt, save the empire, instead of orchestrating "obviously harmful" social developments for inexplicable reasons?
This is obscenely stupid. Do you believe this? Can you show me a single gender-freakery activist or accommodator who looks like a stern, calculating servant of civilisation rather than a deranged hysteric? 


This whole challenge you're so determined to force hinges on a refusal to believe in what we've been observing right in front of us for our entire lives. There is a class of people who are batshit insane in a certain direction, they have certain tendencies, they have lots of political power and influence, they like to adopt antisocial causes and boost them as hard as possible, and they've picked up FtM transitioning. If you say we (I, you only seem interested in applying this absurd standard to me) haven't put any thought into this phenomena I may just ban you. Again, it ought to go without saying considering where we are. If I have to explain the nature of the libtard before every political discussion you might as well also demand that I lay out a theory of mind and reality. Maybe we're brains in a jar experiencing simulation. Why don't we clarify that first?

Libtards are not an inexplicable factor. They are an irrational one. Again, they're like drug addicts. They have a very destructive satisfaction feedback loop set up for themselves and they're addicted.


Quote:Honestly, the concept of bad actors has got to be the laziest and most un-systematic explanation ever.

It's not lazy. It's just simple. Because it's true and right in front of us. Underman politics are addicting and empowering. Your attempt at a libtardless explanation of this is far more absurd and anti-intellectual than anything anybody else has written on the subject. You would have us disbelieve our lying eyes (which see armies of therapists, teachers, and bureaucrats with dull, wide-open zealot eyes pushing this stuff) and speculate on the existence of a conservative elite movement which seeks to preserve civilisation by boosting transsexuality as a popular stress-relief option for girls to the detriment of every other possibility. Very highstatuseugenicschristlikehardworkingsystematic. 


Quote:Your post is unclear on whether you consider libtardism to be the sole cause of our ills, or merely a comorbidity. The first seems untenable and the other conflicts with your solution.
Untenable. Unlike theories of conservative civilisation-serving global elite networks pushing poonerism to save the world.


Quote:
anthony Wrote:look at Japan. Do you see how this all becomes easier looking without the libtard master-factor having such an overwhelming advantage?
Such comparisons may not be warranted. The people are extremely different.
Fuck you.

Quote:
anthony Wrote:Becoming a goth might be absurd, you might look silly. But the clothes and makeup only cost so much, and one day you can just take it off. You're the time and cost of the clothes in the hole. Easy in and out.
Have you considered that that's exactly why they are trooning themselves instead of becoming goths?
No. That sounds retarded.

Quote:
anthony Wrote:But I believe that with well intentioned oversight they can probably be entrusted to grow some new copes with the state of the current and coming world that will be good for them and everyone.
The claustrophobia of a "well intentioned oversight" sounds like something they're trying to escape.
Were you the guest shitting up the education thread by saying that everyone opposed to mainstream schooling is an overbearing sheltered hysteric who can only produce snaggletoothed tradcath lawnbowls enthusiasts?

Quote:
anthony Wrote:And it is not a positive program, intentionally so.
You ask for demolishing without offering anything in return. Not a good selling point. Also, going by above, if coupled with a lack of understanding, see Chesterton's Fence.

I ought to wring your stupid faggot neck.
#7
KimKardashian Wrote:What's missing is the lack of consideration of the appeal behind libtardism. Surely you're not saying it's the apparatchiks that got the ball rolling? So why did the "pre-furbished political identity" of the libtard Borg so utterly outcompete the patchwork of subcultures? Why did a "team identity" blow "finding yourself" out of the water? Could it be that it simply was the superior idea in the marketplace of ideas under the given circumstances? Calling it "absurd", "impractical", and "obviously harmful" is just signalling an unwillingness to understand (or perhaps exasperation over inability to do so?). You refuse to see why it fits the place it has been allocated by history, and why those who adopt it think of it as the better option among alternatives. In financial markets, regularly finding yourself in opposition to the majority is called sucking at trading. In the ideas market, you may find yourself eking a bare subsistence on the periphery of the internet, blaming apparatchiks. I don’t know how that’s called.
"Given circumstances" irreparably undermines the rest of your argument, as these circumstances are the result of the apparatchiks Anthony blames.

"Why those who adapt it think of it as the better option among alternatives" suggests women make rational decisions with some degree of independence from social conditioning.

Quote:The Christianization of Rome offers a good analogy. The eclectic, flexible patchwork of pagan cults was overcome by the Borg-like black and white, intolerant assimilator of Christianity (very similar to libtardism in that regard). It also famously had its wealth, apparatchiks and burning stakes. Were these the cause then? Fortunately the slowness of the process allows the eye to clearly tell the cart from the horse: the selling point of Christianity was in fact its ability to offer a universalist religious experience in a cosmopolitan context – a task all its competitors failed. It wasn’t a niche waiting to be approved by top-down apparatchiks, but in fact already spread like wildfire while still providing lionfodder. The apparatchiks came later, after all the name-calling and prosecution ended by the emperor’s adoption in an attempt to save the empire. Have you considered that modern emperors and apparatchiks are also merely reacting to the developing trends and trying to adapt, save the empire, instead of orchestrating "obviously harmful" social developments for inexplicable reasons? Honestly, the concept of bad actors has got to be the laziest and most un-systematic explanation ever.

This only makes sense if history began in 1973.
#8
Quote:In financial markets, regularly finding yourself in opposition to the majority is called sucking at trading.

This is so blatantly wrong. It’s also like the Rosetta Stone to your rambling arguments. If this simple statement about trading stocks is true then everything else is perfectly lucid, but it’s retarded.
#9
I know a few lesbians, all older, who seem pretty clearly to be somewhat abnormal as women.  This is similar to the flaming faggot who was prancing about in his mom's lipstick when he was six (unbidden, I now have to add). 

I agree with anthony that FtMs and lesbians of the zoomer generation are basically the same.  There must be a few born dykes among them, but it's now no longer possible to tell them apart.  I don't think that "women are the real victims of leftism" as I sometimes see asserted elsewhere, but they are definitely more susceptible to propaganda.  The fear that these women have of male sexuality, while definitely amplified by hostile psyops, does unfortunately have a real basis in reality.  The sexual revolution means that "whore" is the default setting for treatment of women sexually, and this has recently been aggravated by multiculturalism.  The number of women who have been subject to degrading sexual experiences at the hands of niggers etc -- while not a majority -- is still probably at an all-time high.  Of course they want to avoid this. 

It's true that you can "fuck the libtard out of them" but obviously getting vigorously gang raped by Local Youth won't do it; Normal Sexual Relationships Don't Exist Anymore so if you can actually provide this luxury item she will of course prefer it to being some weird paraphiliac.
#10
KimKardashian Wrote:In financial markets, regularly finding yourself in opposition to the majority is called sucking at trading.

Honestly, the concept of bad actors has got to be the laziest and most un-systematic explanation ever.

The claustrophobia of a "well intentioned oversight" sounds like something they're trying to escape.

At the very least it's validating to know the opposition is represented by such empty and retarded "counterarguments". Le poptimism, hurrrrfff nobody is evil chud, and then white bread mayo lmao. Yep, you got nothing. Thankfully there's still all the time in the world to just confess to yourself you are clearly just wrong and you have nothing and you ought to do more listening and lurking and less correcting and nitpicking.
#11
Quote:Kim
the selling point of Christianity was in fact its ability to offer a universalist religious experience in a cosmopolitan context – a task all its competitors failed.


It’s asinine to pretend that Christianity outcompeted its opponents in a free marketplace of ideas. At the time of Constantine’s conversion, the Christians comprised no more than 10% of the Empire, and the lowest part of it at that. The Jews had similar numbers, likewise the cults of Mithra, Isis, Apis, etc. There’s no explosion of conversions until after Constantine’s edicts of toleration and the establishment, at first only semi-official, of the Church. That explosion would not have happened without the efforts of the Emperors. Without Constantine and his successors, Christianity would have remained what it was: the proselytizing religion, distasteful to most people, of a sizable but relatively powerless minority within the Empire. It would have remained Jewish, sociologically if not spiritually. It became the dominant faith, not because it answered to an authentic need in the souls of The People — right up to Constantine’s time it was a religion primarily, almost exclusively, for women,  slaves, and the proletariat — but because the Emperors had their thumbs on the scale. 

Of course, the conclusion vis-a-vis pooners (disgusting word) should draw itself. Like early Christianity, tranny-ism is a way of life that, inherently, appeals to a minority even among girls, unless you take into account the massive official campaign to promote it. For some reason, you’re determined to ignore or minimize that campaign. You have the same blind spot about liberalism generally. Why did it “outcompete the patchwork of subcultures”? Because committed liberals gained positions of power which they used to harass their opponents and stigmatize the spread of their views. Doing so, they established a system of legal, social, and institutional incentives that ensured their successors would also be liberals. Their opponents tried to fight this and failed; just as Julian tried to undo the establishment of the Church, and failed. 

Quote:Kim
the concept of bad actors has got to be the laziest and most un-systematic explanation ever.


History isn’t systematic. It’s the result of unpredictable human activity, a product of individual wills engaging with each other and with chance. There’s no reason why Christianity had to succeed, just as there’s no reason why tranny-ism has to be part of the governing philosophy of modern Western countries. That it is, is due not to the unfolding of Spenglerian necessity, but to the actions of specific people. Constantine wasn’t obeying the diktat of History when he oversaw Nicea: he was acting according to his personal, contingent, idiosyncratic beliefs. The apparatchiks came later — first there was simply a man with a conviction. The same is true of tranny-ism. But for a few dozen individuals, maybe fewer, it wouldn’t exist. Maybe a few girls here and there would cut their tits off, but society wouldn’t organize around protecting their inalienable right to feel comfortable getting a mastectomy, any more than Rome restructured its legal code to penalize hurtful remarks about the priests of Cybele. In any case, the idea of bad actors isn’t lazy. The idea of sweeping historical changes arising from the spontaneous collective needs of The People, is. No need to trace the motives or behavior of particular actors across time — it was all the will of Zeus the World Soul the Zeitgeist. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, to preach HRT to the poor.”

A “positive solution” to tranny-ism could mean a solution for an individual “pooner” who’s suffering or it could mean a political solution to the social contagion. As I understand him, most of Anthony’s suggestions were aimed at the latter. Dismantling the structures that exist to perpetuate the ideology is an excellent first step; perhaps the only step. Will there still be FtM trannies after the Great Amarnite Purge (read: the re-establishment of basic Enlightenment principles of governance)? Of course. And their loved ones can pursue various methods of cure or amelioration as they choose. Maybe they work. Maybe they don’t. Maybe Alexamenos continues to worship his god. If he isn’t my cousin, and the monks aren’t ravaging the culture, then what do I care?
#12
Girls actually are the biggest victims of libtardism; the idea that feminism is anything but detrimental to girls and that it's what women really want is completely detrimental to women, men, and gender relations in general. Women are not rational creatures (Men aren't entirely rational either, but they are more logical than women) Women do not really want to compete with men economically, women don't want to slave-away in wagie cagies either (Of-course, the same goes for men). Feminism teaches women that irrationality is bad, that not wanting to compete with men is bad, that not being a wage-slave is bad. Feminism is actually entirely contrary to female nature, and it was an ideology pushed by bitter kike hags, libtard politicians, and private corporations to destroy femininity, and turn women into just another grey mass of laborers and consumers (As had been done to men)

The thing about the Longhouse is that it isn't constructed by women, women are not actually powerful by themselves and don't want to be (Even the ones that think they do). The Longhouse is primarily constructed by the old, by old men, for which women are just a tool used to keep the young in-line. When there's not old men to keep the young in-line, when all you have is nagging ladies to police men, you get niggers. Niggers might be ignorant and self-destructive, yet we can see that they don't allow themselves to be Longhoused. They don't work the wagie cagie, they aren't politically correct unless its expedient for them, they don't care. I'm not saying that nigger life is ideal, it obviously isn't, they're retarded, but I don't think you can say they're Longhoused (Except for the ones that go to College). Gynarchy is an illusion, there has not been a single real female conqueror in all of history, Gynarchy is something imposed by men onto other men.

Why do HR ladies have power? Because the institutions they work for (Built and ran by men) Will fire you if you don't listen to them, they're middle mangers, not the boss. In the feminine longhouse farming cultures that existed in Neolithic Europe, the ultimate ruler was typically the cowardly and selfish old Chief, who was male. All the Longhouse was was a tool he used to keep the youth in-line, to secure the interests of the old to the detriment of the youth. We can observe this today, during Covid we sacrificed the interests of the youth so old boomers could gracelessly eat up resources for a few more years. We ruined the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions just so the old could cling to life for a few more years, that is the epitome of the Longhouse. All the moralizing is a just a screen to cover the old's oppression of the young.

Women deep down are silly and romantics. They want to be priestesses and sperg about astrology (If you've ever shit on a woman for liking astrology, you're shitting on a woman for being feminine. You are creating trannies.) Stupid men like to think women like modern dating, but they don't. The hatred that women hold for men today is based around the all encompassing fear of being pumped and dumped (Which white men do plenty) Women are so scared of being used up and thrown away that'd they'd rather die as cat ladies than risk it. Some of them cope by turning themselves into whores, so they can act like they have power in the situation, to try to become the users themselves, but we can see how that goes, it only makes them miserable. Some women try to entrap men with children, and while some of them do it for economic reasons, it's just as typical for them to do so in order for them to feel like they're not just being used, to have a safety net to ensure their man won't leave them. The more women try to act like men, the more feminist they are, the more miserable they become.

Ultimately, incels are actually very feminine in their thought processes. They think like women in the sense that they too fear rejection to the point they'd rather be alone than rejected. Vulgarly masculine men don't care about romance or love, they're fundamentally rapists (From a woman's perspective, being lied to, and pumped and dumped is no different from rape.) If you like anime girls, that's you celebrating love and femininity. You think the average NPC slave cares about those things? They think you're gay for liking anime, for liking femininity. All they care about is cooming, and they enjoy the thought of perverting femininity, and making the feminine a slave rather than an equal. This is why women will never be happy with the "trad" life . Most men just want to treat women like an employee, like a servant, like a slave. "I provide you with a house, so you owe me sex and food." What most men want is a rational economic arrangement (That's what trad life is fundamentally), which is completely contrary to romanticism.

Actual human beings (Incels and femcels) Don't want their lives to revolve around a fucking economic arrangement. They want romance, and love, loyalty, and purity. They don't want their lives to be built off obligation to someone who doesn't really care about them. They don't want to exist just to feed resources to a monster (Whether that monster be a Goyim slave, or the system for which is its true love.) The FTM pipeline is basically girls seeing the hell the Longhouse has forced women into, and rejecting it. They mutilate themselves because they'd rather be a monster than a slave. This is one of the saddest things I can think of. I hate the majority of humanity, and I think a global apocalypse would be a mercy compared to allowing this hell to continue.
#13
anthony Wrote:I believe that a lot of social issues, interesting as they are to discuss in depth, would just roll up and go away if the libtards got rolled up and put away.
So libtardism is the root of the evil that we need to get rid of. Okay, so what exactly are we reversing here? How far does libtardism go and where do you draw the line? Obviously troonism and the alphabeticals are included. What about the Civil Rights? Feminism? Enlightenment? Protestantism? Roman Christianity? Neoplatonism? How separable are these? What ills can we ascribe to libtardism? Wave of mental illness? Divorce rates? Infertility? Atomism? State expansion? Mass politics? Ideological persecution? Totalitarianism? Immigration? Of who, niggers? Southern Europeans? Papists? But all that began a long time ago. What drove it? Are you sure all this fits inside “libtardism”? At what point are you fighting all of modernity? Something even bigger? These aren’t rhetorical questions. You have an entire life history of a civilization in front of you, and you are the doctor. How do you delineate a disease? What if the worsening decline is just aging? Should you be really entertaining reversal here, or prophylactics? I see not even an attempt at putting forth a cogent case. Oh, it’s the “dull wide-open zealot eyes” that’s the driving factor... Some untermenschen with their addictions that sprung from the woodwork… Come on...

anthony Wrote:Tell us why. What has your superior will to see revealed to you which is lost on me?
Well if you look at the big picture Western history, you can clearly see a progression take place: Christian universalism lifting group-based restrictions, protestantism those of a religious hierarchy, capitalism traditional restrictions, Enlightenment political, socialism economical, feminism gender-role related, and now troonism biological. (To some extent these overlap.) A gradual shedding of all external limitations and particularities in favour of a universal yet individual inner “abstract human,” comparable to the “soul,” but going way further than just Christian eschatology. What this is, is socio-technologial progression gradually dissolving previous modes of living with their previously necessitated restrictions, which become perceived as violently oppressive immediately upon becoming outdated. It's just scalar stresses (archaeological term) from new modes of complex living (eg. modernity) that propel people towards social innovation (eg. feminism, troonism). But it's not some neatly packaged "libtardism" that you can flip on/off by banging the heads of a few apparatchiks against the wall. It entails all of society and reaches as far as one cares to look. There is no delineation to be found. How do you reverse "libtardism"? Just how much of the genie would you have to be attempting to put back in the bottle? Even hypothetically, if you rewind the society 20 or 40 or 140 or howevermany years, what makes you think it's going to be any different? You've no positive program, remember? What remains, blind hope?

This may sound way more abstract than what a green-haired acne-ridden pooner would seem to warrant, but go tell them their brain structure is determined by their evolutionary role as a baby-machine, and then go figure how far back the roots of the resulting backlash of a response exactly go. What is this if not someone protesting being constrained into an outdated mode of life? If you interviewed them, that's what their sentiment would reflect. And it's very visceral!

And I'm not saying this is some endless progression either, for there is nothing sustainable here. It’s energy-intensive and regularly overextends itself, requiring cyclical “corrections.” This is something all civilizations go through, somewhat equivalent to the Behavioral sink. But despite the regular corrections, the overall trend has been proceeding upwards since prehistory.

Now this is just an interpretation of mine. But I think it gives quite a decent explanatory hypothesis, and allows for causative analysis, without assuming irrationality, absurdity on any other inexplicability on the actors' part. Socio-technological advancement is the backbone of the changes. Conservatives are simply representatives of whatever's the last "previous mode of life with its previously necessitated restrictions." This is why their arguments don't sell, except maybe during "corrections." Progressives OTOH are those most hard-pressed by the restrictions and thus who dismantle these as soon as made possible by socio-technological advancement. One could say the current psychological degenerates are the canary in the coalmine of just how constrained people are becoming between the rock and a hard place of socio-technological pressure and lagging behavioral restrictions.

anthony Wrote:Libtards are not an inexplicable factor. They are an irrational one. Again, they're like drug addicts. They have a very destructive satisfaction feedback loop set up for themselves and they're addicted.
Well first of all irrationality is inexplicable. Secondly, there’s nothing irrational about addiction, neither from the addict’s nor the observer’s viewpoint. Addiction for the addict: addiction vs pain; addiction for the observer: susceptibility x environment. An understanding from both perspectives is necessary to fix and prevent addiction. Thirdly, addiction is destructive compared to what? Are you sure removing the opiate from the pained results in less destruction? The knife, the emo.

anthony Wrote:Is Fentanyl "superior" to literally every other possible human activity because people choose it?
I think you’ll find the people opting for fentanyl are very constricted in options. In a similar vein, one could ask why do people kill themselves if they could be doing literally anything else? I think you know this.

anthony Wrote:I've heard every point you're making here before coming out of the mouths of hard drug use apologists. People who tell you we should let people inject krokodil until they rot to death outside our homes if they want.
The nature of the example should make it clear enough how a mere negative program of dismantling big krokodil isn’t going to solve the problems facing these people. At best, you will end up with another drug. At best.

anthony Wrote:We're on the same forum having the same discussion. There is no superior outcome earned by superior insight.
Insight is crucial. Ask Hitler or Stalin, who shared bunks with numerous historical non-entities during their cellar years.

anthony Wrote:you might as well also demand that I lay out a theory of mind and reality. Maybe we're brains in a jar experiencing simulation. Why don't we clarify that first?
No that would have zero relevance on your reasoning about societal ills. We might be Boltzmann brains for all we care.

anthony Wrote:speculate on the existence of a conservative elite movement […] Unlike theories of conservative civilisation-serving global elite networks pushing poonerism to save the world.
Why speculate? Why conservative? Why movements and networks? Was Constantine the Great conservative when he adopted Christianity? What are you even attempting to say here? That elite interests are entirely separate from those of their society?

capgras Wrote:"Given circumstances" irreparably undermines the rest of your argument, as these circumstances are the result of the apparatchiks Anthony blames.
Refer to first paragraph.

BillyONare Wrote:This is so blatantly wrong. It’s also like the Rosetta Stone to your rambling arguments. If this simple statement about trading stocks is true then everything else is perfectly lucid, but it’s retarded.
There is no way the conversation can proceed from here without you making an ass of yourself so it’s best if you don’t elucidate on why it’s retarded.

Drusus Wrote:Because committed liberals gained positions of power which they used to harass their opponents and stigmatize the spread of their views.
Wow stimulating. Now riddle me where had all the committed non-liberals gone? Why were positions of power open all of a sudden? “LOOK STUFF JUST HAPPENS OK??” Get glasses for that myopia.

Drusus Wrote:History isn’t systematic. It’s the result of unpredictable human activity, a product of individual wills engaging with each other and with chance.
Check out the Galton board. Or the Gulf Stream. These will blow your mind.

Drusus Wrote:No need to trace the motives or behavior of particular actors across time — it was all the will of Zeus the World Soul the Zeitgeist. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, to preach HRT to the poor.”
?

Oh and you’re wrong about Christianity.
#14
(02-13-2024, 09:43 AM)KimKardashian Wrote: So libtardism is the root of the evil that we need to get rid of. Okay, so what exactly are we reversing here? How far does libtardism go? Obviously troonism and the alphabeticals. What about the Civil Rights? Feminism? Enlightenment? Protestantism? Roman Christianity? Neoplatonism? What ills are we fighting? Mental illness? Divorce rates? Infertility? Atomism? State expansion? Mass politics? Ideological persecution? Totalitarianism? Immigration? Of who, niggers? Southern Europeans? Papists? When did all these evils begin? What drove them?
None of these questions are at all relevant to the question being asked here. Actually almost nothing in your post is. It’s irrelevant debate for the sake of debate, pure sophism. You clearly have conceded the point that being a tranny is essentially caused by liberalism, you don’t even attempt to attack Anthony’s logic in judging so.


Quote:Well first of all irrationality is inexplicable. Secondly, there’s nothing irrational about addiction, neither from the addict’s nor the observer’s viewpoint.
You have a loose (and poor) definition of irrationality. Things happening for a reason don’t make those things essentially rational. Every addict would have a fairly well-improved life by kicking the habit and living in Longhoused society (and no, I don’t believe your frankly retarded scaremongering about “uhh maybe things would be worse if people didn’t commit sin”). It’s thus irrational to be an addict.


Quote:I think you’ll find the people opting for fentanyl are very constricted in options. In a similar vein, one could ask why do people kill themselves if they could be doing literally anything else? I think you know this.
This simply isn’t true. Most people who opt for fentanyl and ruin their lives due to it have better options in life (Again, if you want to argue that they don’t, you’re just dumb). The same goes for suicide. The TorchTheEarth Nietzschean gigachad who is able to rationally consider the cost-benefit analysis of fentanyl addiction or suicide is incredibly uncommon.

Quote:Wow stimulating. Now riddle me where had all the committed non-liberals gone? Why were positions of power open all of a sudden? “LOOK STUFF JUST HAPPENS OK??” Get glasses for that myopia.
You are retarded.

Your entire worldview rests on an incredibly ridiculous assumption that people will be left worse off if anyone takes decisive action against societal ills. You haven’t provided any proof of this, nor have you explained why you believe so, besides invocations of “le Chestertons Fence”. Defend this principle.
#15
Sakana Wrote:None of these questions are at all relevant to the question being asked here.
The questions are crucial. If one calls for the removal of X, one should delineate what it is.

Sakana Wrote:Every addict would have a fairly well-improved life by kicking the habit. [...] The TorchTheEarth Nietzschean gigachad who is able to rationally consider the cost-benefit analysis of fentanyl addiction or suicide is incredibly uncommon.
Just because people don't break out the SWOT test doesn't mean they're not applying jugdgement. In fact most of judgement is intuitive, automatic. Addicts self-medicate their pains. You've nothing to offer them.

Sakana Wrote:You are retarded. Your entire worldview rests on an incredibly ridiculous assumption that people will be left worse off if anyone takes decisive action against societal ills. You haven’t provided any proof of this, nor have you explained why you believe so, besides invocations of “le Chestertons Fence”. Defend this principle.
Which ills? (See first point) What decisive action? "Umm ok guys STOP taking drugs. And STOP being miserable. No I will not put forth any positive program of what the fuck you should be doing instead. TTYL love you." Would someone put Sakana in office? His ingenious methods may yet solve countless problems...
#16
KimKardashian Wrote:Which ills? (See first point) What decisive action? "Umm ok guys STOP taking drugs. And STOP being miserable. No I will not put forth any positive program of what the fuck you should be doing instead. TTYL love you." Would someone put Sakana in office? His ingenious methods may yet solve countless problems...

[Image: 2013-11-21-Helpful-Advice.png]

The problem is apparently the Amarna Forum has FAILED to address this shitty retarded Robot Hugs comic and the logic therein. Yea, I guess it makes sense now why libtardism is this omnipotent eldritch Borg to you. In your case when confronted with the above Arguments the entire process of discussion and figuring things out grinds to a halt, because we have to take everything said here as completely factual and honest and thus nothing can really be done besides spinning in circles and babbling incoherently about Roman Christianity. 

There is a crossroads that occurs when you are first confronted by this obvious empathy-hijacking sophism. Either you stop right there and become libtardism's bitch forever because you can't deny these claims...because...you just can't okay! Or you apply cynicism and the concept of competing wills to this and all other forms of empathy-terrorism. You want to claim we have nothing substantive but that's a neg coming from someone who is getting frothy over the idea that some group of people that doesn't include you figured something out. You just want us to drop everything and defer to your ideas about this which are meandering, stupid and very poorly-thought out. Your actual solutions haven't even been presented. You keep answering our questions WITH questions and long diatribes filled with red herrings.
#17
(02-13-2024, 12:11 AM)Cyber Viking Wrote: Niggers might be ignorant and self-destructive, yet we can see that they don't allow themselves to be Longhoused. They don't work the wagie cagie, they aren't politically correct unless its expedient for them, they don't care. I'm not saying that nigger life is ideal, it obviously isn't, they're retarded, but I don't think you can say they're Longhoused

"BLACKS FOR TRUMP 2024! THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS! DESTROY THE LONGHOUSE!"

[Image: 4rwCJuG.jpeg]

[Image: gB9fgn1.jpeg]
[Image: JBqHIg7.jpeg]
Let me alone to recover a little, before I go whence I shall not return 
A land as dark as darkness itself, where even the Light is like darkness
#18
august Wrote:"BLACKS FOR TRUMP 2024! THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS! DESTROY THE LONGHOUSE!"
To give credit to nigs, they're racist as fuck. Towards chinks and whites. They're shitskins who are easily bribed with gibs so the left doesn't care if they don't believe in every leftist platitude. It was a mistake on my part to imply they weren't longhoused however (They are, just in a different way). I'm sorry, but if you reply like a dramatic homosexual with walls of pictures to one of my posts again, I'm going to have to implore you to post evidence you can pass the paper bag test.
#19
Cyber Viking Wrote:To give credit to nigs, they're racist as fuck.

Technically true, but first and foremost they're racist as fuck to whites, and that's what matters.
#20
Bankvole Wrote:
Cyber Viking Wrote:To give credit to nigs, they're racist as fuck.

Technically true, but first and foremost they're racist as fuck to whites, and that's what matters.
I agree, they're not our friends.



[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)