From my experience, teenage boys (especially white and asians) are typically very conservative culturally and politically until they get girlfriends. They end up self-censoring in an effort to please their girlfriends and appear desirable to them.
In this society women are the ones selecting (and thus forming) their partners.
Back in the old days the men had a lot more choosing power because they were the ones expected to make the money and provide. Now when 66% of college graduates are women, the situation is basically reversed. Hence the incel epidemic.
Sadly, girls are trending liberal, which does not bode well.
I suggest "conservatism" and "liberalism" are just two sides of the same Controlled Opposition coin. Adhering to any "ism" fulfills the Cabal agenda. Neither side actually listens to why the other side feels the way they feel, because they have all been fed the "proper counter arguments," designed to keep everyone divided. "Divide" being an essential part of conquer.
Having said that, the conquered (post tense) tend to not be divided. If all the world went "conservative" (a specific ideology), I suggest that would be the end of humanity as a free thinking entity.
Maybe we should instead let go of our isms.
I'm not suggesting we need to embrace conflicting ideologies. I'm suggesting that perhaps we can learn to appreciate that our beliefs are probably not "the Truth," and that everyone has the inalienable Right to choose their own beliefs. The GA isn't about aligning ideologies (or at least I hope not), It's about getting everyone to be willing to ask the question, "why do I believe what I believe." I think the GA's main function is to show all people that their ideologies were fed to them.
Not just the "liberals," but both sides.
ALL sides.
All "isms" come from the same source. One voice, speaking out of many mouths. Showing THAT is the purpose of the GA.
This has always been true. ALL ideologies have the same source; the Cabal.
It is not controversial, nor in any way difficult to show that all ideologies come from the Aristocracy. No one who is not an aristocrat (prior to the early/mid 1900s) has ever had a book published. Every single book ever written prior to that time was written by a member of the Aristocratic class. It is easy to show that every single book that has gained any sort of "acceptance" after that time was controlled by the Cabal. It is from books exclusively that we get our ideologies.
The Cabal has been around for a very, very long time. They are essentially (i.e. fundamentally) an elitist group. They recruit from within the Aristocratic class. They have also always been in control of what gets printed in the first place, and further, what gains prominence in public discourse. This prominence can change, but those changes are intentionally to bring to the fore specific ideologies, as part of a reverse (pre-planned) Hegelian Dialectic (or Marxian if you prefer).
All ideologies, all ideas, all social programs, all governmental systems, all of everything has been created by the Aristocracy in order for them to rule We The People. The Cabal either subverted those Aristocratic systems, ruling them from within, or they created them themselves. Figuring out which is which is actually pretty difficult and it may be that the Cabal have created every single one for about 3000 years, at least in the European and near eastern regions of the world (and later America).
there are objectively evil things
Maybe. From the point of view of the Sovereignty of the Individual, any direct infringement on another's inalienable Rights (right to choose their own path in life e.g.) is by definition "evil." As in, what we call evil can always be traced to such a direct infringement. There is some grey area there though, because what is "direct" can cause some confusion. People often consider "indirect" to be direct, and vise versa.
For example, if I drive a car, I am putting CO2 into the atmosphere. I am thus, by the belief of many, harming the planet, and all present and future humans. Is that action direct or indirect? I am doing it by choice, thus an argument can be made that it is direct, and thus evil. But is it really direct? Is it even harmful at all? Those are questions that make the conversation on it's evilness less obvious. If we aren't able to have conversations about it, where all sides are actually listening to each other, and not just regurgitating canned responses, we can't possibly make any reasonable determinations on those questions.
On the other hand, for something like pedophilia where a child is being preyed upon, it is much more difficult to make an argument that it is an "indirect" harm. Nevertheless, an argument could be made that it isn't harmful ("They said they enjoyed it" e.g.), and thus it's not evil. I'm not suggesting I think their argument is sound, because children can be brainwashed into believing just about anything (which is how we are where we are), and it is thus the brainwashing in this case that would be the "direct infringement of Rights" that comes before the pedophilia itself.
However, even here things are not so clear. Our present day pedophilia laws were created by the Cabal at the end of the 19th century specifically to set up the modern day taboo that makes us believe that sex with teenagers is "pedophilia". I am not talking about children now, but rather, people who have biologically and mentally (at least potentially) reached the age of both consent and reproduction.
For almost all of human history the age of consent was at the age of biological reproduction, which generally coincides with our modern understanding of when a person "comes into their own" mentally (around 11 or 12). The age of consent laws didn't change for millennia (and were only loosely adhered to) until William Stead (who is easily shown as an agent of the Cabal, including direct ties to Rothschild) pushed for a substantial increase in the age of consent. This then created a situation where young women are biologically ready for sex, and have, at least in general, the mental capacity to make their own decisions, yet they were now "forbidden fruit," whereas before the creation of those laws, no one would even bat an eyelash at these young girls batting their eyelashes. Indeed, this decision making capability was expected of these young people at the time, and for all of recorded human history prior to that time. Yet by these new Cabal created laws, they all of the sudden no longer had that "capacity."
In our present day, these actions are clearly illegal. Everyone agrees with that being "proper" and anything against it being "evil." Yet biologically (and formerly socially) it was perfectly reasonable. This creates a situation where instincts must war with legality and taboo. This creates a control mechanism. It is by this exact control mechanism, this internal war, that all of the world is today controlled.
This "teenager" brand of "pedophilia" that they created is only used as a gateway. From this encouragement to "lose the internal war", once you are already "breaking the law" and liking it, it becomes easier to go a little bit younger, and then finally, you are preying on children, having sex with them, and killing them in ritual sacrifices to steal their life force.
I am not trying to condone any actions here. I am not in any way trying to suggest "what is right." I am only trying to show that what is "evil" is a social construct; something that is not necessarily as obvious as it may appear.
Nevertheless, I agree that children, indeed, all people, must be protected from predation. I suggest that a society can not function if such protection is not a founding principle. However, the boundaries of what is "direct" and "indirect" are not always easy to determine. If we adhere too strictly to any one particular belief, we can't hear what the other side has to say on the matter. Debate is the key to an increase in understanding. If someone "takes a side" on anything, including the "objectively evils," then debate can't happen, and we remain a conquered people, subject to larger scale predation that we won't even see coming, and won't realize when it's consuming us.
From my experience, teenage boys (especially white and asians) are typically very conservative culturally and politically until they get girlfriends. They end up self-censoring in an effort to please their girlfriends and appear desirable to them.
In this society women are the ones selecting (and thus forming) their partners.
Back in the old days the men had a lot more choosing power because they were the ones expected to make the money and provide. Now when 66% of college graduates are women, the situation is basically reversed. Hence the incel epidemic.
What is not acknowledged is how it's led to a large number of "femcels" who are bitter having made themselves undesirable to men.
However look at how more than half of single men have noped out of the dating pool because they're so sick of feminists.
A neighbor’s 7th grade son said that TikTok is bad, I was impressed
Conservatism is the counter culture. The youth always goes against the grain.
I suggest "conservatism" and "liberalism" are just two sides of the same Controlled Opposition coin. Adhering to any "ism" fulfills the Cabal agenda. Neither side actually listens to why the other side feels the way they feel, because they have all been fed the "proper counter arguments," designed to keep everyone divided. "Divide" being an essential part of conquer.
Having said that, the conquered (post tense) tend to not be divided. If all the world went "conservative" (a specific ideology), I suggest that would be the end of humanity as a free thinking entity.
Maybe we should instead let go of our isms.
I'm not suggesting we need to embrace conflicting ideologies. I'm suggesting that perhaps we can learn to appreciate that our beliefs are probably not "the Truth," and that everyone has the inalienable Right to choose their own beliefs. The GA isn't about aligning ideologies (or at least I hope not), It's about getting everyone to be willing to ask the question, "why do I believe what I believe." I think the GA's main function is to show all people that their ideologies were fed to them.
Not just the "liberals," but both sides.
ALL sides.
All "isms" come from the same source. One voice, speaking out of many mouths. Showing THAT is the purpose of the GA.
This has always been true. ALL ideologies have the same source; the Cabal.
It is not controversial, nor in any way difficult to show that all ideologies come from the Aristocracy. No one who is not an aristocrat (prior to the early/mid 1900s) has ever had a book published. Every single book ever written prior to that time was written by a member of the Aristocratic class. It is easy to show that every single book that has gained any sort of "acceptance" after that time was controlled by the Cabal. It is from books exclusively that we get our ideologies.
The Cabal has been around for a very, very long time. They are essentially (i.e. fundamentally) an elitist group. They recruit from within the Aristocratic class. They have also always been in control of what gets printed in the first place, and further, what gains prominence in public discourse. This prominence can change, but those changes are intentionally to bring to the fore specific ideologies, as part of a reverse (pre-planned) Hegelian Dialectic (or Marxian if you prefer).
All ideologies, all ideas, all social programs, all governmental systems, all of everything has been created by the Aristocracy in order for them to rule We The People. The Cabal either subverted those Aristocratic systems, ruling them from within, or they created them themselves. Figuring out which is which is actually pretty difficult and it may be that the Cabal have created every single one for about 3000 years, at least in the European and near eastern regions of the world (and later America).
Maybe. From the point of view of the Sovereignty of the Individual, any direct infringement on another's inalienable Rights (right to choose their own path in life e.g.) is by definition "evil." As in, what we call evil can always be traced to such a direct infringement. There is some grey area there though, because what is "direct" can cause some confusion. People often consider "indirect" to be direct, and vise versa.
For example, if I drive a car, I am putting CO2 into the atmosphere. I am thus, by the belief of many, harming the planet, and all present and future humans. Is that action direct or indirect? I am doing it by choice, thus an argument can be made that it is direct, and thus evil. But is it really direct? Is it even harmful at all? Those are questions that make the conversation on it's evilness less obvious. If we aren't able to have conversations about it, where all sides are actually listening to each other, and not just regurgitating canned responses, we can't possibly make any reasonable determinations on those questions.
On the other hand, for something like pedophilia where a child is being preyed upon, it is much more difficult to make an argument that it is an "indirect" harm. Nevertheless, an argument could be made that it isn't harmful ("They said they enjoyed it" e.g.), and thus it's not evil. I'm not suggesting I think their argument is sound, because children can be brainwashed into believing just about anything (which is how we are where we are), and it is thus the brainwashing in this case that would be the "direct infringement of Rights" that comes before the pedophilia itself.
However, even here things are not so clear. Our present day pedophilia laws were created by the Cabal at the end of the 19th century specifically to set up the modern day taboo that makes us believe that sex with teenagers is "pedophilia". I am not talking about children now, but rather, people who have biologically and mentally (at least potentially) reached the age of both consent and reproduction.
For almost all of human history the age of consent was at the age of biological reproduction, which generally coincides with our modern understanding of when a person "comes into their own" mentally (around 11 or 12). The age of consent laws didn't change for millennia (and were only loosely adhered to) until William Stead (who is easily shown as an agent of the Cabal, including direct ties to Rothschild) pushed for a substantial increase in the age of consent. This then created a situation where young women are biologically ready for sex, and have, at least in general, the mental capacity to make their own decisions, yet they were now "forbidden fruit," whereas before the creation of those laws, no one would even bat an eyelash at these young girls batting their eyelashes. Indeed, this decision making capability was expected of these young people at the time, and for all of recorded human history prior to that time. Yet by these new Cabal created laws, they all of the sudden no longer had that "capacity."
In our present day, these actions are clearly illegal. Everyone agrees with that being "proper" and anything against it being "evil." Yet biologically (and formerly socially) it was perfectly reasonable. This creates a situation where instincts must war with legality and taboo. This creates a control mechanism. It is by this exact control mechanism, this internal war, that all of the world is today controlled.
This "teenager" brand of "pedophilia" that they created is only used as a gateway. From this encouragement to "lose the internal war", once you are already "breaking the law" and liking it, it becomes easier to go a little bit younger, and then finally, you are preying on children, having sex with them, and killing them in ritual sacrifices to steal their life force.
I am not trying to condone any actions here. I am not in any way trying to suggest "what is right." I am only trying to show that what is "evil" is a social construct; something that is not necessarily as obvious as it may appear.
Nevertheless, I agree that children, indeed, all people, must be protected from predation. I suggest that a society can not function if such protection is not a founding principle. However, the boundaries of what is "direct" and "indirect" are not always easy to determine. If we adhere too strictly to any one particular belief, we can't hear what the other side has to say on the matter. Debate is the key to an increase in understanding. If someone "takes a side" on anything, including the "objectively evils," then debate can't happen, and we remain a conquered people, subject to larger scale predation that we won't even see coming, and won't realize when it's consuming us.
Conservative is the new punk rock.
How do you rebel against liberal parents? Come out as a straight Christian conservative.