I have 2 observations here...first, the obvious...trannies are just severely psychotic, mentally disturbed individuals who need to be committed. What the hell happened to all the state run mental hospitals? Second, women need to start being women again and STOP this incessant desire to do everything men do. This idea that we are living in a society wherein women are soldiers, firefighters, police officers, boxers and MMA FIGHTERS and participating in any other arena that should be MEN ONLY is just as fn crazy as a man pretending to be a female! What the hell is the difference people? For those of you who are missing the obvious, let me spell it out real clear...It's just as bad allowing females do man's work as it is allowing men to pretend to be females!
I believe that anything that would put a "man" in the ring against a woman needs to face the consequences...JACK HAMMERED INTO A PILE OF SHIT...AND I will be the first!!!
Certain specific acts of Social Engineering take a basic premise and create two stances in opposition. These stances are designed to create a specific step in a broader, preplanned Hegelian dialectic. This "Dialectic" is intended to progress the world towards "Utopia" (as designed by the Cabal).
The basic premise can be stated as follows:
A basic respect for people means accepting people for who they are, for the choices that they make for their own life. This is the idea that was explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence; to wit "Pursuit of Happiness" is espoused as an unalienable Right. Respecting this fundamental Right means that people are respected as people even if their life decisions aren't what we think they "should be doing." We don't have to like their choices, but we do need to still respect them as people. The premise simply stated is: as long as people are not directly infringing on someone else's unalienable Rights, they can do whatever they want with their life. It's their life.
Most people agree with this basic premise. The "unalienable Rights" from the DoI is one of the most quoted statements in any conversation about government or social issues from "both sides." (I suggest the "two sides" idea is itself both a contrivance and completely illusory, but that's a different discussion.)
Despite the general agreement, from this premise Social Engineers create two stances:
A specific avenue from the basic premise is pushed on society as an ideology through propaganda. Examples of these types of specific avenues are Women's Suffrage, Women's Liberation, Black Lives Matter, Abortion, etc.
Opposition to these ideologies is guided to focus on the problems that people might have with them, specifically focusing on stances that can be seen as a contradiction of the basic premise itself. Examples of such stances are "Woman shouldn't be allowed to do ________," or "Black women shouldn't be having children without a husband," etc.
What is not allowed to be a part of the conversation on either side is the basic premise; that people have the right to choose their own path in life. The first part assumes it is "obvious," even though it never is, because people in opposition can feel the propaganda push, which mutes the premise itself. The second part purposefully ignores the premise because they can feel the propaganda push. This gives them "an enemy" to focus on, so they focus on the specifics of that push.
So one side pushes the ideology. The other side protests the specifics of the ideology. No one talks about the basic premise; the common ground. Division is created, the Hegelian dialectic moves forward along the prescribed path.
In all such cases of Social Engineering of this type (there are other types) it is a "minority oppression" that really does exist that is focused on. The fact that the same people that create the oppression in the first place are also the people who push the "solution" to it is never a part of the conversation. Because of propaganda which brings certain parts into focus on both sides, no one can ever see past the "enemy they can see."
This idea that we are living in a society wherein women are soldiers, firefighters, police officers, boxers and MMA FIGHTERS and participating in any other arena that should be MEN ONLY
If a woman wants to be a protector, or fight, or whatever, why should she not be allowed to do so? It's her life. In addition, there is a long standing tradition, thousands of years old, all over the world, of specific groups of women filling that role, even elite fighting forces such as the Amazons, who were a group of Scythian elite women fighters from nearly 3000 years ago and are still legendary today. (These Scythian women are themselves a deep dive, but far outside of the scope of this response.)
It is generally agreed that we should respect the desires of the individual. By suggesting they should not be allowed to do things, you are playing the "opposition" role. By ignoring the basic premise, the dialectic moves forward along the Cabal's preplanned solution.
The real solution then, is for those that agree with the premise in the larger scope, to admit the premise, and that the premise itself has validity in the specific stance being espoused. From this point of agreement it is possible to show the propaganda that is pushing the ideology. Once it is understood that it is propaganda that is guiding thoughts on both sides, then, and only then, can the real enemy be seen.
If a woman wants to be a protector, or fight, or whatever, why should she not be allowed to do so?
I agree with this. My one condition for it is that, to be a soldier or firefighter, or any other profession that requires a certain amount of physical strength to do the job properly, women must pass the same tests as a man. There should be no "fudging" of the numbers. There's a reason that men on the frontlines are required to be able to fireman carry a 200 lb comrade, and the same holds true for firemen.
For the former, you need to be able to move one from your group off the battlefield, should they be injured. If you can't do that, you're a detriment to the group and I can see any man refusing to fight with that person by his side.
For the latter--firefighting--if you can't rescue the people you've signed up to save because you lack the upper body strength to do so, you have no business being in that position. People's lives are more important than your ego. I'm 5'2" and damned strong for my size (though a lot of men my size are still stronger than I am because biology!). I can lift 200 lbs, if it's a weight or a small box, but trying to fireman carry a 200 lb man is all but impossible due to the size of my limbs and torso. That's just how it is. Therefore, I have no business being a fireman.
Instead of things working like above, though, everyone wants special considerations. "Well, I'm a woman, so I shouldn't have to do that." No, that's the job. Either you can do it or you can't. If you can't, quit whining and go elsewhere.
As for the MMA fighting... it's a sport. Some women like it. They don't want to play basketball or softball, they want to fight. And there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is putting a man in the ring with a woman, just like it's wrong to put a man up against a woman in a weightlifting competition. I don't give a flying fuck if that man claims to be a woman, he's still a man and doesn't belong there, as shown by this asshole in MMA.
What I'd like to see is a decent man come in and, for one match, claim to be a woman, then kick the everloving shit out of this motherfucker. Either that, the friends of the women who had their skulls crushed should catch him somewhere and throw a blanket party for him--hit this prick with a baseball bat enough times and maybe the SOB won't be able to get his rocks off beating up women anymore.
I agree with this. My one condition for it is that, to be a soldier or firefighter, or any other profession that requires a certain amount of physical strength to do the job properly, women must pass the same tests as a man.
Yes and no. Not all jobs require the same strength. If you are strong enough to pick up a gun and carry it around all day, do you need to be stronger to be a sniper? Yet to be a Seal sniper, you need to go through Seal training. A woman could be more than strong enough endurance wise, and more than strong enough to carry all the gear required, and more than strong enough to lift her gun. Does she really need to be strong enough to lift an ox?
If a person isn't strong enough for a job, then they aren't strong enough for the job, but some jobs can be done with more brains or skill or finesse than others, and yet those things may not be tested for, rather the barrier is physical strength. Our "standardized testing" regimes are fundamentally flawed. It's not even controversial that they are flawed in school. I have seen such flaws in many other places as well, both in my own life prior to "waking up" and since, in other investigations. People have strengths and weaknesses. I'd rather have a 150 IQ woman who could barely lift the 100 lbs that might be required for some job, than a 100 IQ man who can easily lift 500 lbs for a job that only requires lifting 25 lbs 99% of the time, but requires brains 100% of the time (like firefighter, or police officer).
For the former, you need to be able to move one from your group off the battlefield, should they be injured. If you can't do that, you're a detriment to the group
What if you are instead smart enough that your presence reduces the chance of that happening 99% of the time?
Once you start standardizing things, making sure everyone fits perfectly into the box, you miss out on the potential for outside of the box thinking and action.
What's wrong is putting a man in the ring with a woman
This is a separate issue entirely, and addressed as part of the contrivance of "two sides" that was the main point of my post.
To answer your question (I shouldn't need to do this because it's obvious)...men are different (not better...different) than women. The fact that men cannot have children doesn't make women better as individuals...but they are definitely better than men (better equipped) to have children. The same exact logic can be applied to women doing a traditionally "man's job." Men are better and safer at certain things than women are because of their size, bone structure and muscle mass. If women can pass the same endurance test(s) that a man can pass in applying for say...to be a firefighter, police officer or soldier, then more power to them...however, this is not the case...the tests have been altered to make them more in tune with a female's strength...in other words, most women cannot pass the same test a man takes!
The idiocy of this should be apparent (hence why I shouldn't need to state it except for those who are ruled by their emotion instead of their logic apparently), but again to state the obvious, are wars less dangerous because women are soldiers? Are fires less dangerous and those people that need rescued going to made easier because it's a woman firefighter? Are criminals going to be tamer and less dangerous because the police officer is female? Of course NOT! In fact...I as a male would never even think of becoming a police officer because I honestly doubt if I went up against a hardened criminal they would be intimidated by my stature. There's something to say for being able to pass the male version of first responder tests.
Finally, I would like to point out that if I am 220lbs and passed out on the 3rd floor of a burning office building and the women they send up that ladder to lift my dead weight body down that ladder cannot effectively do it because she's not strong enough then in essence her decision to become a firefighter has put my life in danger and effects my rights as a citizen because our society has allowed a less qualified female to take the job of a more qualified male. In most cases the only reason women are able to acquire traditionally male jobs is simply because the warped (reverse discrimination laws) require the employers to hire a certain number of women. I know this first hand because as a 35 year veteran pilot the joke in the airline industry was that to get a pilot job in the airlines in the 90's was that you had to be a black female with a Mexican surname! This pretty much says it all...so no my fren...your logic doesn't hold water!
Well, I'll be the one to say it... play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Beyond the fact that this guy (the poser, as in fake girl... not calling him "trans") is allowed to beat on women in a women's sport, the SPORT ITSELF is fucking stupid.
NO! Women involved in a sport that should be MEN ONLY need to find it in themselves to be what God created them to be...WOMEN...and start acting like a woman!
Why? women are part af the problem. They like so much gay people. At the end is a man that pretend to be a woman.
Women are became so brainless ..."It's a gay. Let's be annihilated by them. I'm also like a man"..... women have to wake up quickly and understand that LGBTQ whatever are not their friends.
Women have gone too far with all bs: feminism, abortions, divorces, men job, prostitution, porno, lesbian, transgenderism, witchcraft, Satanism, ...
They are (most of them) the enemy of the family and now is time to face reality.
There's a huge difference between LGB and the rest of the fucking alphabet squad...Gay men know that they are men...Lesbians know that they are women...they are attracted to their same sex, that's it....The rest of the Squad are mentally fucking ill and for the most they are groomers after the children....
Yes of course.... but remember all this shit started bc the gay community. I remember the days where been a lesbian was not even a thing. Who started the transgender bs? Men who want to be women.
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
Edit: Should have read the comments as this was already noted.
Oh, this is happening in wrestling too and it's quite hilarious. (Skip next paragraph if you're familiar with the landscape)
Back in 2017/18 a new wrestling promotion to compete with WWE was created. Known as AEW they chose to bring more of a woke product featuring a TON (talking 50-60) of WWE rejects and people who they had zero interest in ever signing.
There's a wrestler in that AEW company called "nyla rose" who is openly trans and has had a bit of an odd history of sorts. Everytime they book him in a major feud, he's managed to injure his opponent to the point in which they've either had to relinquish their title or miss significant screen time, with the most recent wrestler missing a year after a botched suplex resulted in a broken neck and coming within millimetres of complete paralysis from the neck down. Their management knows this, and has since booked him in a tag team to try and minimize their in-ring time.
Well there you have it folks even in a fake sport the men are injuring women on accident because of their difference in power, weight and bone density.
I wouldn't really call it a fake sport though and more "entertainment". I liken it to american gladiators or the lesser known yet better series pros vs joes, only that the outcomes are rigged far in advance.
Some people have to be shown. As long as they are going to allow this we might as well root for the trannies to destroy every woman they encounter to the point that people say "enough is enough."
I just looked it up and she only fought from 2012-2014. It’s weird how Fallon is being talked about here as if this is something currently happening when it was from almost a decade ago.
And the girl on the right never even fought Fallon. Always question what you see on this site as much as anywhere else
I have 2 observations here...first, the obvious...trannies are just severely psychotic, mentally disturbed individuals who need to be committed. What the hell happened to all the state run mental hospitals? Second, women need to start being women again and STOP this incessant desire to do everything men do. This idea that we are living in a society wherein women are soldiers, firefighters, police officers, boxers and MMA FIGHTERS and participating in any other arena that should be MEN ONLY is just as fn crazy as a man pretending to be a female! What the hell is the difference people? For those of you who are missing the obvious, let me spell it out real clear...It's just as bad allowing females do man's work as it is allowing men to pretend to be females!
👌👌....
I believe that anything that would put a "man" in the ring against a woman needs to face the consequences...JACK HAMMERED INTO A PILE OF SHIT...AND I will be the first!!!
Certain specific acts of Social Engineering take a basic premise and create two stances in opposition. These stances are designed to create a specific step in a broader, preplanned Hegelian dialectic. This "Dialectic" is intended to progress the world towards "Utopia" (as designed by the Cabal).
The basic premise can be stated as follows:
Most people agree with this basic premise. The "unalienable Rights" from the DoI is one of the most quoted statements in any conversation about government or social issues from "both sides." (I suggest the "two sides" idea is itself both a contrivance and completely illusory, but that's a different discussion.)
Despite the general agreement, from this premise Social Engineers create two stances:
A specific avenue from the basic premise is pushed on society as an ideology through propaganda. Examples of these types of specific avenues are Women's Suffrage, Women's Liberation, Black Lives Matter, Abortion, etc.
Opposition to these ideologies is guided to focus on the problems that people might have with them, specifically focusing on stances that can be seen as a contradiction of the basic premise itself. Examples of such stances are "Woman shouldn't be allowed to do ________," or "Black women shouldn't be having children without a husband," etc.
What is not allowed to be a part of the conversation on either side is the basic premise; that people have the right to choose their own path in life. The first part assumes it is "obvious," even though it never is, because people in opposition can feel the propaganda push, which mutes the premise itself. The second part purposefully ignores the premise because they can feel the propaganda push. This gives them "an enemy" to focus on, so they focus on the specifics of that push.
So one side pushes the ideology. The other side protests the specifics of the ideology. No one talks about the basic premise; the common ground. Division is created, the Hegelian dialectic moves forward along the prescribed path.
In all such cases of Social Engineering of this type (there are other types) it is a "minority oppression" that really does exist that is focused on. The fact that the same people that create the oppression in the first place are also the people who push the "solution" to it is never a part of the conversation. Because of propaganda which brings certain parts into focus on both sides, no one can ever see past the "enemy they can see."
If a woman wants to be a protector, or fight, or whatever, why should she not be allowed to do so? It's her life. In addition, there is a long standing tradition, thousands of years old, all over the world, of specific groups of women filling that role, even elite fighting forces such as the Amazons, who were a group of Scythian elite women fighters from nearly 3000 years ago and are still legendary today. (These Scythian women are themselves a deep dive, but far outside of the scope of this response.)
It is generally agreed that we should respect the desires of the individual. By suggesting they should not be allowed to do things, you are playing the "opposition" role. By ignoring the basic premise, the dialectic moves forward along the Cabal's preplanned solution.
The real solution then, is for those that agree with the premise in the larger scope, to admit the premise, and that the premise itself has validity in the specific stance being espoused. From this point of agreement it is possible to show the propaganda that is pushing the ideology. Once it is understood that it is propaganda that is guiding thoughts on both sides, then, and only then, can the real enemy be seen.
I agree with this. My one condition for it is that, to be a soldier or firefighter, or any other profession that requires a certain amount of physical strength to do the job properly, women must pass the same tests as a man. There should be no "fudging" of the numbers. There's a reason that men on the frontlines are required to be able to fireman carry a 200 lb comrade, and the same holds true for firemen.
For the former, you need to be able to move one from your group off the battlefield, should they be injured. If you can't do that, you're a detriment to the group and I can see any man refusing to fight with that person by his side.
For the latter--firefighting--if you can't rescue the people you've signed up to save because you lack the upper body strength to do so, you have no business being in that position. People's lives are more important than your ego. I'm 5'2" and damned strong for my size (though a lot of men my size are still stronger than I am because biology!). I can lift 200 lbs, if it's a weight or a small box, but trying to fireman carry a 200 lb man is all but impossible due to the size of my limbs and torso. That's just how it is. Therefore, I have no business being a fireman.
Instead of things working like above, though, everyone wants special considerations. "Well, I'm a woman, so I shouldn't have to do that." No, that's the job. Either you can do it or you can't. If you can't, quit whining and go elsewhere.
As for the MMA fighting... it's a sport. Some women like it. They don't want to play basketball or softball, they want to fight. And there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is putting a man in the ring with a woman, just like it's wrong to put a man up against a woman in a weightlifting competition. I don't give a flying fuck if that man claims to be a woman, he's still a man and doesn't belong there, as shown by this asshole in MMA.
What I'd like to see is a decent man come in and, for one match, claim to be a woman, then kick the everloving shit out of this motherfucker. Either that, the friends of the women who had their skulls crushed should catch him somewhere and throw a blanket party for him--hit this prick with a baseball bat enough times and maybe the SOB won't be able to get his rocks off beating up women anymore.
Yes and no. Not all jobs require the same strength. If you are strong enough to pick up a gun and carry it around all day, do you need to be stronger to be a sniper? Yet to be a Seal sniper, you need to go through Seal training. A woman could be more than strong enough endurance wise, and more than strong enough to carry all the gear required, and more than strong enough to lift her gun. Does she really need to be strong enough to lift an ox?
If a person isn't strong enough for a job, then they aren't strong enough for the job, but some jobs can be done with more brains or skill or finesse than others, and yet those things may not be tested for, rather the barrier is physical strength. Our "standardized testing" regimes are fundamentally flawed. It's not even controversial that they are flawed in school. I have seen such flaws in many other places as well, both in my own life prior to "waking up" and since, in other investigations. People have strengths and weaknesses. I'd rather have a 150 IQ woman who could barely lift the 100 lbs that might be required for some job, than a 100 IQ man who can easily lift 500 lbs for a job that only requires lifting 25 lbs 99% of the time, but requires brains 100% of the time (like firefighter, or police officer).
What if you are instead smart enough that your presence reduces the chance of that happening 99% of the time?
Once you start standardizing things, making sure everyone fits perfectly into the box, you miss out on the potential for outside of the box thinking and action.
This is a separate issue entirely, and addressed as part of the contrivance of "two sides" that was the main point of my post.
To answer your question (I shouldn't need to do this because it's obvious)...men are different (not better...different) than women. The fact that men cannot have children doesn't make women better as individuals...but they are definitely better than men (better equipped) to have children. The same exact logic can be applied to women doing a traditionally "man's job." Men are better and safer at certain things than women are because of their size, bone structure and muscle mass. If women can pass the same endurance test(s) that a man can pass in applying for say...to be a firefighter, police officer or soldier, then more power to them...however, this is not the case...the tests have been altered to make them more in tune with a female's strength...in other words, most women cannot pass the same test a man takes!
The idiocy of this should be apparent (hence why I shouldn't need to state it except for those who are ruled by their emotion instead of their logic apparently), but again to state the obvious, are wars less dangerous because women are soldiers? Are fires less dangerous and those people that need rescued going to made easier because it's a woman firefighter? Are criminals going to be tamer and less dangerous because the police officer is female? Of course NOT! In fact...I as a male would never even think of becoming a police officer because I honestly doubt if I went up against a hardened criminal they would be intimidated by my stature. There's something to say for being able to pass the male version of first responder tests.
Finally, I would like to point out that if I am 220lbs and passed out on the 3rd floor of a burning office building and the women they send up that ladder to lift my dead weight body down that ladder cannot effectively do it because she's not strong enough then in essence her decision to become a firefighter has put my life in danger and effects my rights as a citizen because our society has allowed a less qualified female to take the job of a more qualified male. In most cases the only reason women are able to acquire traditionally male jobs is simply because the warped (reverse discrimination laws) require the employers to hire a certain number of women. I know this first hand because as a 35 year veteran pilot the joke in the airline industry was that to get a pilot job in the airlines in the 90's was that you had to be a black female with a Mexican surname! This pretty much says it all...so no my fren...your logic doesn't hold water!
Well, I'll be the one to say it... play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Beyond the fact that this guy (the poser, as in fake girl... not calling him "trans") is allowed to beat on women in a women's sport, the SPORT ITSELF is fucking stupid.
Women in sports need to stand up for themselves. We can't do it for them unfortunately.
NO! Women involved in a sport that should be MEN ONLY need to find it in themselves to be what God created them to be...WOMEN...and start acting like a woman!
Agreed.
My point, though, was that this sport is an ugly stain on humanity.
Women started this crap. It is up to them to stop it.
The majority of them still won’t learn. Repeal the 19th Amendment!
The fact that a second one got her skull cracked open after the first is fucking mind boggling. They chose to fight a man. Lessons learned I guess.
Why? women are part af the problem. They like so much gay people. At the end is a man that pretend to be a woman. Women are became so brainless ..."It's a gay. Let's be annihilated by them. I'm also like a man"..... women have to wake up quickly and understand that LGBTQ whatever are not their friends. Women have gone too far with all bs: feminism, abortions, divorces, men job, prostitution, porno, lesbian, transgenderism, witchcraft, Satanism, ... They are (most of them) the enemy of the family and now is time to face reality.
There's a huge difference between LGB and the rest of the fucking alphabet squad...Gay men know that they are men...Lesbians know that they are women...they are attracted to their same sex, that's it....The rest of the Squad are mentally fucking ill and for the most they are groomers after the children....
Yes of course.... but remember all this shit started bc the gay community. I remember the days where been a lesbian was not even a thing. Who started the transgender bs? Men who want to be women.
You're right but that's because they didn't broadcast it everywhere...
Demonic influence...
Is that Jeremiah 1:6 on her shirt?
It's Jeremiah 1:5
Ah thanks, you are right. And that is a much more befitting verse!
Jeremiah 1:5 on the shirt -
“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
Edit: Should have read the comments as this was already noted.
In the old days, we used to call this misogyny.
Someone should post this pic with the subtitle 'I SAID, MAKE ME A SAMMICH!!". It will trigger both sides and highlight the problem.
Oh, this is happening in wrestling too and it's quite hilarious. (Skip next paragraph if you're familiar with the landscape)
Back in 2017/18 a new wrestling promotion to compete with WWE was created. Known as AEW they chose to bring more of a woke product featuring a TON (talking 50-60) of WWE rejects and people who they had zero interest in ever signing.
There's a wrestler in that AEW company called "nyla rose" who is openly trans and has had a bit of an odd history of sorts. Everytime they book him in a major feud, he's managed to injure his opponent to the point in which they've either had to relinquish their title or miss significant screen time, with the most recent wrestler missing a year after a botched suplex resulted in a broken neck and coming within millimetres of complete paralysis from the neck down. Their management knows this, and has since booked him in a tag team to try and minimize their in-ring time.
Well there you have it folks even in a fake sport the men are injuring women on accident because of their difference in power, weight and bone density.
I wouldn't really call it a fake sport though and more "entertainment". I liken it to american gladiators or the lesser known yet better series pros vs joes, only that the outcomes are rigged far in advance.
Here everyone :- Watch a REAL woman physically beat his ass.
https://iteroni.com/watch?v=Eg9zeQhsFmU
Some people have to be shown. As long as they are going to allow this we might as well root for the trannies to destroy every woman they encounter to the point that people say "enough is enough."
"She"? No, that's a dude. I wish they'd stop calling them women when they obviously are not.
Until another male MMA fighter steps up and claims to be tranny for a day whips this POS arse, nothing will be done.
I just looked it up and she only fought from 2012-2014. It’s weird how Fallon is being talked about here as if this is something currently happening when it was from almost a decade ago.
And the girl on the right never even fought Fallon. Always question what you see on this site as much as anywhere else
I’m pretty sure Dana White will not allow this in the UFC, but as far as other arenas…yea, this is bs.