Social Justice Warriors Thread

[Martin Hash]

People have an erroneous understanding of education: education is indoctrination. It's not learning, students teach themselves, but patriotism, work ethic, liberty concepts have to be instilled at a young age. That's the danger of private education, the indoctrination can be different; religion, ideology, identity can all be divergent. Unfortunately, since society is feminine, current public education indoctrination is overturning The Patriarchy.

p.s. The Patriarchy = liberty, meritocracy, and nationalism.

[Hwen Hoshino]

People have an erroneous understanding of education: education is indoctrination. It's not learning, students teach themselves, but patriotism, work ethic, liberty concepts have to be instilled at a young age. That's the danger of private education, the indoctrination can be different; religion, ideology, identity can all be divergent. Unfortunately, since society is feminine, current public education indoctrination is overturning The Patriarchy.

p.s. The Patriarchy = liberty, meritocracy, and nationalism.

I don't think the Matriarchy has what it takes for a true dictatotship.

[Martin Hash]

People have an erroneous understanding of education: education is indoctrination. It's not learning, students teach themselves, but patriotism, work ethic, liberty concepts have to be instilled at a young age. That's the danger of private education, the indoctrination can be different; religion, ideology, identity can all be divergent. Unfortunately, since society is feminine, current public education indoctrination is overturning The Patriarchy.

p.s. The Patriarchy = liberty, meritocracy, and nationalism.

I don't think the Matriarchy has what it takes for a true dictatotship.

??? Stalin did fine.

[Hwen Hoshino]

People have an erroneous understanding of education: education is indoctrination. It's not learning, students teach themselves, but patriotism, work ethic, liberty concepts have to be instilled at a young age. That's the danger of private education, the indoctrination can be different; religion, ideology, identity can all be divergent. Unfortunately, since society is feminine, current public education indoctrination is overturning The Patriarchy.

p.s. The Patriarchy = liberty, meritocracy, and nationalism.

I don't think the Matriarchy has what it takes for a true dictatotship.

??? Stalin did fine.

He was a man. Him and his bros had manly parties.

[Speaker to Animals]

I don't think the Matriarchy has what it takes for a true dictatotship.

??? Stalin did fine.

He was a man. Him and his bros had manly parties.

socialism/communism runs on pure female power structure, dude. It's a projection of inner circle power into the outer circle (politics and economics).

Daycare State.

[Martin Hash]

I don't think the Matriarchy has what it takes for a true dictatotship.

??? Stalin did fine.

He was a man. Him and his bros had manly parties.

"Patriarchy" and "Matriarchy" don't mean biological sex.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's better to think of it in terms of outer and inner circle power structures of a society. Women traditionally dominated the inner circle (and still do). Men traditionally dominated the outer circle (and no longer do, which is why our civilization is falling apart right now).

Women are not naturally equipped to wield power in the outer circle. They don't understand basic shit like limitations of power or even how to wield that kind of power. They approach everything in our world like they do in their world, which is why you get these nanny states and moral laws. This kind of nanny state shittiness began in America as soon as women got the vote. They immediately began to do that shit, banning alcohol and drugs, prostitution (it was a threat to their power), etc. They just don't process how stupid such laws are, fixating only on the perceived threat to women.

You can see the worst of it happening in the economic realm, with major corporations losing their capacity to innovate very fast as they increasingly have to hire more useless employees for social justice concerns and just to maintain the growing HR behemoth in order to deal with women bitching about everything.

I believe it's actually possible for women to operate in the outer circle without destroying civilization, but a lot has to change. Also, if we are going to share outer circle power with chicks, then they need to share the inner circle -- no more default custody, double standards, controlling most household finances, etc. No more ability to influence men to "protect" women. Women have to protect themselves now. If you want to share the outer circle with me, you better be prepared to stand by my side and hold the motherfucking line if the time comes.

[Speaker to Animals]

To really understand the way our species does this, and how it scaled up to civilization, you might do well to go back to the paleolithic.

Homo sapiens are a patrilocal species. Human society forms around gangs of men with females migrating between gangs. This is why mitochondrial DNA traveled much faster than y-chromosomes.

The gang of men secured a piece of territory, built structures in which to live, hunted, and waged war against invading males.

Women exchanged their fertility for security from the gang. They ruled over the camp and the children. Inner circle power is how the camp is run. Outer circle power is how the gang is run.

Scaling that up: the gang becomes a kingdom and the kingdom becomes an empire. Civilizational government is a more abstract and complex form of a gang. Women still control the family for the most part. They usually control most of the finances that are set aside for the maintenance of the family. They dominate social customs and control how men are to behave in the "camp".

Patriarchy just refers to how the men tended to run the gang, how it operated, and how they divided responsibilities and honor (ideally, based primarily upon merit). Because men ran the gang based on competition and merit, conflict was unavoidable. Men naturally fall into their dominance hierarchy because of this. It works really well for us.

Martriarchy just refers to how women tended to run the camp. They tend to want to maximize security for themselves and their offspring. They seek to assign men to their reproduction in order to be responsible for providing resources in order to raise them. They seek to maximize social harmony and reduce conflict.

Masculine men generally hate having to operate in a matriarchal framework, which is why they are checking right the fuck out of the corporate AIDS we see today. Feminine women generally hate having to deal with conflict and dominance hierarchies, which is why they demand special treatment and the constraint of men.

Something has to give. Either women go back to just inner circle power or they learn to deal with dominance hierarchies and being held accountable for their poor performance.

[GloryofGreece]

There were two contempary pledges going around in the 1890s. And the author your referring to was a Christian and a Nationaist but you left that out of course. Liberals don't believe in loyalty or authority or sanctity. I get it.

Bellamy was a Socialist. Sure, a Christian one, but still absolutely a Socialist. And yeah, I know Communist and Socialist is not the same thing, but as if most people here would acknowledge that there was that much difference between those two philosophies, and it was for that reason it's funny.

And I believe in both loyalty and authority, and there are things I hold sacred for my society.

I just don't believe in wrapping those things up in useless ritualism. You're either sincere or you're not, a liar will pledge just as readily as an honest man. If your beliefs require pageantry to be believed... your beliefs just can't be that sincere.

Culturally and citizenship wise what are you loyal to?
What should a people hold sacred?
Rituals are useless to you not everyone.
She was also a nationalist , right? ...yes the author was.

[Martin Hash]

There were two contempary pledges going around in the 1890s. And the author your referring to was a Christian and a Nationaist but you left that out of course. Liberals don't believe in loyalty or authority or sanctity. I get it.

Bellamy was a Socialist. Sure, a Christian one, but still absolutely a Socialist. And yeah, I know Communist and Socialist is not the same thing, but as if most people here would acknowledge that there was that much difference between those two philosophies, and it was for that reason it's funny.

And I believe in both loyalty and authority, and there are things I hold sacred for my society.

I just don't believe in wrapping those things up in useless ritualism. You're either sincere or you're not, a liar will pledge just as readily as an honest man. If your beliefs require pageantry to be believed... your beliefs just can't be that sincere.

Culturally and citizenship wise what are you loyal to?
What should a people hold sacred?
Rituals are useless to you not everyone.
She was also a nationalist , right? ...yes the author was.

There's a name for Nationalist Socialists but it's become taboo to say so.