💰 Grifter StoneToss (allegedly, formerly Red Panels)

If you read 'School of Darkness', by Bella V. Dodd, you will see that indoctrination started early on in the Western countries around the 1910's, with a gradual takeover of all universities. This isn't a Jewish problem, this is a manufactured consent problem.

Ultimately, one that is enabled by Jews that coincidentally hits at Israelis as well. Nothing against people who just want to live their own lives, but the fact that talking about the Great Replacement is forbidden and is considered right-wing extremism is part of the problem.
I don't really disagree with you, and I think we can both agree that the root cause of the problem is the proliferation of Marxism in academia, which would very likely coincide with your dates if not even earlier. I'm not going to argue that Jewish academics of that period weren't particularly susceptible to Marxism, because they were, but that's mostly because Marxism offers such a tantalizing solution to people who are oppressed or at the bottom of social hierarchies, despite the fact that Marxism creating serious problems of its own.

The complete silencing of dissident or non-orthodox thought has always been a problem in Western societies, but it has become the worst it has been in probably an entire century and needs to be fought against. Thinking about it now, I imagine this must have been how the followers of the Greco-Roman philosophies must have felt by the late 4th Century. Their ancestors had allowed a previously reviled and heavily persecuted group become the dominant force in society, and were fighting desperately to keep what little of their institutions they had left until their eventual destruction and banning by the new faith in the Sixth Century. It's a harrowing thought, but the Great Replacement might not just be of European cultures but of European civilization itself, and I really hope it doesn't follow along the lines of the destruction of Greco-Roman civilization.
 
I don't really disagree with you, and I think we can both agree that the root cause of the problem is the proliferation of Marxism in academia, which would very likely coincide with your dates if not even earlier. I'm not going to argue that Jewish academics of that period weren't particularly susceptible to Marxism, because they were, but that's mostly because Marxism offers such a tantalizing solution to people who are oppressed or at the bottom of social hierarchies, despite the fact that Marxism creating serious problems of its own.

The complete silencing of dissident or non-orthodox thought has always been a problem in Western societies, but it has become the worst it has been in probably an entire century and needs to be fought against. Thinking about it now, I imagine this must have been how the followers of the Greco-Roman philosophies must have felt by the late 4th Century. Their ancestors had allowed a previously reviled and heavily persecuted group become the dominant force in society, and were fighting desperately to keep what little of their institutions they had left until their eventual destruction and banning by the new faith in the Sixth Century. It's a harrowing thought, but the Great Replacement might not just be of European cultures but of European civilization itself, and I really hope it doesn't follow along the lines of the destruction of Greco-Roman civilization.

Pretty unusual take to single out western societies as those with the least freedom of speech.

And when I say unusual, I mean to ask, where does the jewish default hostility for the west come from?
 
Pretty unusual take to single out western societies as those with the least freedom of speech.

And when I say unusual, I mean to ask, where does the jewish default hostility for the west come from?
Non western societies aren't even considered, because barring a few exceptions, they don't have freedom of speech, which is a fundamentally Western concept. Jewish hostility to the West comes from centuries of persecution, but there's plenty of Jewish antipathy towards Islam as well, and probably far more than that against the West.

The American Jewish antipathy you're seeing against Western systems today is an unholy mix of traditional resentment at WASPs and American conservative elites for discriminatory treatment that ended around the 1940s, combined with a generally left wing social view as a result of emigrating from reactionary states in Eastern Europe plus loyalty to the Democratic Party and FDR, all of which has been seriously coopted by Marxist academia into the monster we see today.
 
The complete silencing of dissident or non-orthodox thought has always been a problem in Western societies

Non western societies aren't even considered, because barring a few exceptions, they don't have freedom of speech, which is a fundamentally Western concept.

So it always has been a problem in western societies, but compared to other societies, it is doing least bad in that department?

Seems like a pretty contradictory perspective.
 
So it always has been a problem in western societies, but compared to other societies, it is doing least bad in that department?

Seems like a pretty contradictory perspective.
What are you getting at? If freedom of speech is under threat in the societies where it is most protected and cherished, what does it matter what's happening to freedom of speech in those societies where it's an imported concept?
 
What are you getting at? If freedom of speech is under threat in the societies where it is most protected and cherished, what does it matter what's happening to freedom of speech in those societies where it's an imported concept?
I thought I spelled it out pretty clearly. What more is there to say?

You could have said that silencing of dissidents is a universal problem. Or that freedom of speech is hard to defend. Instead you singled out the west as always having a problem with freedom of speech/thought.

If I say women spend money poorly, it is weird if I later say, when challenged that men spend their money even worse. Because the implicit meaning of the first statement compares to the others.

If I say jews are hostile to the west and then later defend myself that gentiles are even more hostile to the west, that would be kinda weird. It contradicts the previous statement.
 
I thought I spelled it out pretty clearly. What more is there to say?

You could have said that silencing of dissidents is a universal problem. Or that freedom of speech is hard to defend. Instead you singled out the west as always having a problem with freedom of speech/thought.

If I say women spend money poorly, it is weird if I later say, when challenged that men spend their money even worse. Because the implicit meaning of the first statement compares to the others.

If I say jews are hostile to the west and then later defend myself that gentiles are even more hostile to the west, that would be kinda weird. It contradicts the previous statement.
Okay, I should have amended it to say that everywhere has a problem with dissident thought, some more than others, but based off my own understanding of the world the civilization I have the strongest affinity for and want to see improve is becoming increasingly totalitarian in its suppression of dissident thought, which bothers me to the point that I don't even care what's going on with freedom of expression in other societies. Would that have made it more clear that I'm not singling out the West for criticism, but focusing on its issues because that is the place that concerns me the most and I couldn't give a shit about anywhere else?
 
Some civilizations have major problems with speech in general and free speech is a relatively recent phenomenon. However, what WAS NOT a recent phenomenon was freedom of movement, which you generally had a lot more of before controls and checks were made in the West against Westerners, and then increasingly relaxed for Third Worlders completely hostile to the new places they're heading for.
 
One of the current leaders of BLM literally bombed the capitol building in 1983.
Susan_Rosenberg
Even with certain (((privileges))), she still got 16 years in the slammer until pardoned by Slick Willy. Maybe President Barron Trump can extend the January 6 shitkickers the same courtesy a couple decades down the road. Although it is a sad reminder that left wing terrorism used to get punished instead of glorified like it is today.
 
1611069924739.png



Above the Law​

Stay safe on inauguration day. Biting the hand that salutes you.
 
The Kavanaugh hearing comes to mind.
You have a mild point but it's usually retards who are nearly immediately frogmarched off the premises. Tarding out on the floor when you started out as a public attendee is ridiculously common and if you watch C-SPAN at all this happens a lot. It's never a huge event where you have dipshit Congress things cowering under desks and shit. And I'll actually agree the entire Kavanaugh circus was a disgrace and it is utterly sad this is how we pick Supreme Court Justices.
Criticize Israel's blatant racism, you're an Antisemite according to the diasporean liberals.
Unless they're the ones doing it. Then Jews are the "real Nazis."
You could have said that silencing of dissidents is a universal problem. Or that freedom of speech is hard to defend.
It's easier to do when you have guns.
 
Never really understood why "don't tread of me" types support the (state owned and tax funded) police. Isn't lolbertism all about small government? How does having a police state help?
My theory is as a counter reaction to BLM and their stance on police.

Although, it IS funny seeing those same people who bootlick police now oppose them when they don't do what they want.
 
Never really understood why "don't tread of me" types support the (state owned and tax funded) police. Isn't lolbertism all about small government? How does having a police state help?
Because they view them not as oppressors but as members of their community whose job it is to protect them and ensure law and order, and this is especially true in rural areas. It's going to be interesting seeing the police biting the hand that feeds them.
 
My theory is as a counter reaction to BLM and their stance on police.

Although, it IS funny seeing those same people who bootlick police now oppose them when they don't do what they want.
This shit is universal. "All Cops Are Bastards." *something I don't like happens* "REEE REEE where are the cops?"
Although, it IS funny seeing those same people who bootlick police now oppose them when they don't do what they want.
And suddenly those same fuckers are "REEE REEEEEE arrest those actual literal nawtzeeeees," meaning anyone they disagree with in any way.
 
Never really understood why "don't tread of me" types support the (state owned and tax funded) police. Isn't lolbertism all about small government? How does having a police state help?
Libertarians are pretty consistent on still needing courts, military, and police; they aren't anarchists.
Where Libertarians struggle is the fact that to properly assess the current state you need to admit that Mexicans and Blacks are the main groups causing problems, and you can't just keep saying that Liberals are Communists and Communists are the REAL Nazis.
They know completely removing the police will not solve anything - both in regards to the recent insanity, but also the high crime rates in certain areas - but they don't want to appear racist or fascist. This is where their ideology breaks down and they just ignore it whenever possible.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo