White women let jews ruin America, blacks are violent/have bad credit scores/don't father their young because they were slaves at one point, muh greatest ally.
Kids will ruin everyone's life. No man on a high-performance career trajectory can keep it and a family, because you have to choose one. It is a duty - the continuance of civilization requires some measure of these workaholics, just as it requires the family man.
Aside from the other comments already posted (most importantly the one pointing out that this is propaganda - it is supposed to make motherhood look glamorous), I would also like to add that it is a civilizational duty. Someone has to continue the lineages, and it can't just be the worst of society, or you get Idiocracy.
I personally find your gripes valid, but remember to draw fair delineations. The people posting here aren't the same guys out there womanizing.
> Women are worried they will be abandoned or taken for granted after theyve wasted their youth and ruined their bodies [...] And this post confirms that suspicion.
I don't want to read too much between the lines, but I suspect you are a prime example of why daughters should be protected. Trauma of failed relationships, usually parents, imprints hard on kids. My own parents fell apart when I was young too, and I never wanted to ever get married as a result, causing me to actually push away someone intent on marriage when I was younger. I can't think of any bigger mistake I've made in recent years. I learned from it though, and it sounds like you are still working through it. You have to hurry - the pool of the undamaged shrinks dramatically with age (aka it turns into a bunch of people like us who were afraid to hop on it earlier, and we have to mix with all of the morons who didn't put in the effort to make their first marriage work).
Your statement isn't incorrect, but you have to know that most of the userbase here would take offense to it, even if taking that offense is essentially hypocritical when compared with the self-improvement message common here.
It should seem obvious that we can't blame women for failing to repel the jewish menace. And I personally agree with the first portion as well - I am personally careermaxxing hard, with a lot of recent success, in the hope that my future family will never feel the lack of money I felt growing up.
If you have ever driven one in a 'spirited' manner, you notice that the battery temps rise fast, and then your output power is limited very quickly. None of these cars can maintain the high power outputs - they are 'peak' power, which can only be produced for a short while (very short in the Teslas, longer in e.g. the Taycan which has a higher voltage architecture). The Tesla's with plaid can't even maintain the output long enough to do a proper 0-top speed run.
Gas vehicles can maintain this power indefinitely. EV's have 'show ponies'.
Made by Volkswagen in the EU, where artificial limitations make it really tough to even have a motor that can produce the output that it does. Those motors should be producing around 1000 horses stock, as they are considered to be extremely well built. You can generally return this kind of power with just bolt ons.
> I've never understood this "you're on your own" bullshit I've seen other whites do.
I've explained this a thousand times here and elsewhere.
It is an old depression-era mindset that actually dates back to the founding of the country, based loosely on the saying 'Root, Hog, or die'. The meaning of the saying is literally 'fend for yourself or die', the idea being that everyone else is also fending for themselves. This mindset was seen as being one of the sources of American excellence, and one of the strongest reasons for opposition of jew Rosenfeld's (Roosevelt) welfare program. America was like 98% White back then and infinite immigration wasn't a thing; everyone just thought it would make weak Americans.
These guys raised the boomers and early X, which is a large part of why those old stories of the old men bragging about how hard their life was as a kid exists in the first place. Most Americans lost everything during the depression, and it was super common to see a family of 7 (families were much larger then) living out of the back of a car - my own family has pictures of this that the family historians (here, 'old bitties') maintain. Nobody talks about this, but many American families didn't make it. So when the Boomers that made it, most of which who were destitute as kids, built up significant wealth, they ascribe their success to the difficulty of their childhood. They will tell you that it made them strong, and that the relative ease / infinite guardrails on modern kids leaves them soft, and without the skills or grit to make it in life.
Of course, you can't compete with the jew, who stockpiles generational wealth, with this method, but they are still right - the jew is soft and weak as a direct result of how they are raised.
Go talk to your grandparents; try to figure out who maintains your family history. See if you can find old depression era photos of your great grandparents. The ones of my family were *rough*.
> He told me that my previous Great Dane was "just an animal."
Older generation has a more 'practical' view, my father was the same way. Would love a pet, but strict rules on their behavior (never on furniture, strict on obedience, waits to eat, no begging). His father wouldn't even let their dogs in the house.
Of course, my dad's dad grew up in an era where they literally killed an elephant on television for a movie and the public was largely okay with it. Very different perceptions. We are far softer now.
Excellent work. I wrote a ton on covid - we didn't draw the same conclusions, but it doesn't matter much anymore, as things move so fast that it is hard to keep up these days.
I for one would be very interested in the ritual abuse bits, as I wrote a bit on it on old Voat. That topic was my first confirmation of suppression, as the topic is so interesting to any who read on it, yet it virtually can't spread through the zeitgeist for reasons that are probably as interesting as the rabbithole of ritual abuse in the first place.
> Free trade creates more total opportunities in both countries.
Jews argued this for centuries, as they were the original traders between countries, and, as you would expect, this statement lies by omission. The other important metric is the value of those opportunities, and for the country with the higher cost of labor, the value is necessarily lower. There are also arguments to be made about the so-called 'race to the bottom' that inevitably occurs when the relative cost of labor is lopsided between the two trading countries, but I don't have time for that now.
> We don't need more jobs. We need jobs to pay more.
Again, nearsighted. We literally have no idea what we need, and can't figure it out while we also have the confounding problems of H1Bs, infinite illegals, etc.
Remember that jobs linked in a field create careers, and we have a huge problem of gatekeeping the entry level jobs in multiple disparate career paths where the peak pay is high. As the common complaint goes, yes IT can pay very well, but you'll never get started if the entry level positions require a bachelors, 6 years experience, and pay as much as retail. This is, of course, what the race to the bottom looks like.
> We want higher effective pay per hour for the average American.
This doesn't happen in a vacuum. Certain things have to happen first. To know what those are, it helps to know how we got here.
When a country whose average labor cost is X trades with poorer country whose cost is 0.5X, we can expect goods and services to migrate away from the richer country to the poorer country. What happens next is that the labor cost of the richer country then decreases, while the cost of the poorer country increases, until the costs of import/export equal (for the sake of this simplified example) the difference of the cost of labor.
If this can't happen, the industry leaves the richer country forever (textiles, electronics, anything injection molded). If this can happen, then you have a permanently decreased cost of the laborer in the richer country (programmers/CS, most applied scientific disciplines, IT, engineering).
Literally free trade is why the average American finds his purchasing power robbed from him decade over decade.
> A tariff will never do that.
A tariff increases the costs of import/export, which allows a larger spread between the poorer and richer country. Using the example earlier, if the stabilized labor costs become 0.8X for the richer country, and 0.65X for the poorer country, then we can know that the 0.15X difference in those costs are import/export costs. If the tariffs increase the import cost by 0.2X, then the richer country can sustain the original 1X labor cost it had.
The is the whole reason our country used tariffs going back to the time of its founding. It was protection.
> Go to school.
I get paid to tutor math my man. These are basics and I don't understand how people can function as adults without understanding it.
Started here, which you said "Lets debate these facts [...]" and then abandoned: https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=66b1879ce6fc9#comment_66b1d7497e61e
McNasty responded on your behalf, which I took up since he continued to respond, and I haven't seen much more from him on the topic since that.
> A tariff war is just going to increase cost of goods in both countries for the common person.
What a nearsighted take. What it does is create opportunities for domestics to compete. Prices of an outsourced thing have to come up, or we can't afford to pay our own guys to make the same thing where our cost of labor is higher. What will happen is domestic manufacturers will continue to expand until your options mirror the older, jewish outsourced options, but without the hidden tax of money permanently leaving your country.
It has to happen or things will continue to get worse, and the pain of the changeover also only gets worse the longer you wait (and the weaker you become, and the less capable you are of recovering, etc).
This, by the way, was the original reason for the half-decade cycle in oil prices. Common folk naively assume that OPEC cares about which jewish stooge wins our election, when it turns out that 4 years is about how long it took a new petro startup to be dangerous. They can't keep prices low forever or they don't make money, and when they raise them, almost immediately new domestic startups appear. Since they completely control the pricing, they just keep prices high overall, while purging the startups every few years.
They didn't discover them, and the addictive qualities took care of the overindulgence. They just made them easily accessible, and palatable, to the masses, and then made smoking/packing tobacco socially acceptable (as it was considered disgusting for most shortly after Europe's first introduction).
They then monopolized the distribution, and used power and influence gained from just the monopoly on tobacco distribution to pass e.g. the 1753 jew bill.
No easy source, as it is independent research. I can walk you through to the conclusion though.
The British East India Trading Company is what built the British empire, but it was largely isolated from the King. It kept it's own armies, and had agreements where it's jurisdiction was (generally) everything outside of Britain, while the King had jurisdiction inside Britain. The British East Indian Trading Company did not allow jews to hold positions inside of it.
The primary competition to the British EITC was jews, who ran their own trading outfits based out of (what we now know as) the Netherlands, which was originally part of Spain. Literally, the Netherlands exists because Jews who didn't want to leave Spain when expelled ran to what is now the Netherlands, caused [the 80 years war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War), then took 'the Dutch Republic', as it was called, for their own.
The entire economy of the Dutch Republic was trading. While Amsterdam was originally the main hub for Sugar importing to Europe (through the Dutch EITC, a direct competitor to the British EITC which was literally simply bought by jews), by 1650, sugar took a backseat to tobacco, which became the jewish Dutch Republic's greatest import, and **Europe's first Tobacco processing center was created in Amsterdam.** In fact, [Tobacco was so lucrative for the jews that the money they made off of Tobacco literally caused the Dutch 'Golden Age'.](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-72368-6_8) As a fun fact, [it should be no surprise that the same Dutch EITC literally brought the first jews to America in 1654,](https://jewishcurrents.org/june-3-the-dutch-east-india-company) where they would establish New Amsterdam and larger New Netherlands, now known as the insufferable New York / New Jersey area. This is, of course, the same area and same jews behind rum distillation, if you have been following my posts on the jews behind alcohol consumption.
And what did the jews do with a bunch of tobacco and no consumers? Manufacture consumers, of course. As with American women in the 1910s, smoking was considered disgustingly unattractive, and jews spent the next 50 years pushing tobacco on the rest of Europe. Reminder that their primary opposition was King James VI and I, who, try as he might, couldn't stop the jews from pushing tobacco in his territories (please see his rather humorous ['Counterblaste to Tobacco').](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Counterblaste_to_Tobacco)
In general, any time something addictive is introduced to modern society, jews were behind it. Jews literally require their wares to be addictive, because the addiction makes a country's citizens actually want to disobey their leaders enough to consume. Otherwise, people decide it isn't worth the risk.
Jews introduced us to tea, and later coffee (when they realized that coffee was more addictive, which we now know is due to higher caffeine content), tobacco, hard spirits (originally, Rum), weed, and, though I don't know about us, they introduced China to Opium, which caused a massive destabilization and ended the thousands of years of their dynasty system.
-----------------
Google anything I've typed. I checked every sentence to ensure they are worded in a way that they are easily citable.
> Governments all over the world have been trying to get people to quit smoking for almost 50 years.
Reminder that jews are the whole reason that we smoke in the first place. 4-500 years ago, they were the original traders that brought tobacco to England, and right about a 100 years ago (1920s) jews tied cigarettes to the suffragette movement, calling them 'Freedom Sticks', and are the whole reason women smoke in the first place. Previously, it was considered extremely unattractive for women, to the point of being taboo. The lead jew behind women smoking was (((Edward Bernays))).
You and I, regular people, have been trying to get people to stop smoking for half a century. Jews only finally let it go as they have national banks for their income now, which they didn't have 110 years ago. Same with alcohol consumption laws heading into prohibition, you wait long enough and nobody can tell who the good guys were anymore.
You two's comments are inspirational. I see the constant doomposting about the state of dating, but I have enough friends with unicorns that I'm not sure unicorns are \*that\* rare.
I'll keep working on self improvement, and hold on to hope in the meantime.
Interesting, but old news. Old Naval Intelligence had multiple units of trained animals, including sea lions and dolphins, reportedly the dolphins were known to use a language, and a device was made to transcode to and from that language as early as 1960. This would have been under the SPAWAR program.
aleleopathic 4 points 2 months ago
Where do you see boomers in the article? I see this was a private foundation's donation, which usually means jews.
/v/ClownWorld viewpost?postid=67eb131c17511
aleleopathic 1 point 2 months ago
White women let jews ruin America, blacks are violent/have bad credit scores/don't father their young because they were slaves at one point, muh greatest ally.
I'm sure there is more.
/v/Nationalism viewpost?postid=67e45fbad075e
aleleopathic 0 points 3 months ago
Glad to see you are still around.
Kids will ruin everyone's life. No man on a high-performance career trajectory can keep it and a family, because you have to choose one. It is a duty - the continuance of civilization requires some measure of these workaholics, just as it requires the family man.
Aside from the other comments already posted (most importantly the one pointing out that this is propaganda - it is supposed to make motherhood look glamorous), I would also like to add that it is a civilizational duty. Someone has to continue the lineages, and it can't just be the worst of society, or you get Idiocracy.
I personally find your gripes valid, but remember to draw fair delineations. The people posting here aren't the same guys out there womanizing.
> Women are worried they will be abandoned or taken for granted after theyve wasted their youth and ruined their bodies [...] And this post confirms that suspicion.
I don't want to read too much between the lines, but I suspect you are a prime example of why daughters should be protected. Trauma of failed relationships, usually parents, imprints hard on kids. My own parents fell apart when I was young too, and I never wanted to ever get married as a result, causing me to actually push away someone intent on marriage when I was younger. I can't think of any bigger mistake I've made in recent years. I learned from it though, and it sounds like you are still working through it. You have to hurry - the pool of the undamaged shrinks dramatically with age (aka it turns into a bunch of people like us who were afraid to hop on it earlier, and we have to mix with all of the morons who didn't put in the effort to make their first marriage work).
/v/TraditionalWives viewpost?postid=67d473c647aca
aleleopathic 1 point 3 months ago
Your statement isn't incorrect, but you have to know that most of the userbase here would take offense to it, even if taking that offense is essentially hypocritical when compared with the self-improvement message common here.
It should seem obvious that we can't blame women for failing to repel the jewish menace. And I personally agree with the first portion as well - I am personally careermaxxing hard, with a lot of recent success, in the hope that my future family will never feel the lack of money I felt growing up.
/v/TraditionalWives viewpost?postid=67d473c647aca
aleleopathic 0 points 3 months ago
I must have missed that one. Anything I can read on this?
/v/Weather viewpost?postid=67d4c4e1e6647
aleleopathic 1 point 3 months ago
> Electric vehicles are very fast.
It's just a show.
If you have ever driven one in a 'spirited' manner, you notice that the battery temps rise fast, and then your output power is limited very quickly. None of these cars can maintain the high power outputs - they are 'peak' power, which can only be produced for a short while (very short in the Teslas, longer in e.g. the Taycan which has a higher voltage architecture). The Tesla's with plaid can't even maintain the output long enough to do a proper 0-top speed run.
Gas vehicles can maintain this power indefinitely. EV's have 'show ponies'.
/v/WhiteBoySummer viewpost?postid=67ca035befbc6
aleleopathic 2 points 3 months ago
> I don't know what's wrong with the Lambo.
Made by Volkswagen in the EU, where artificial limitations make it really tough to even have a motor that can produce the output that it does. Those motors should be producing around 1000 horses stock, as they are considered to be extremely well built. You can generally return this kind of power with just bolt ons.
/v/WhiteBoySummer viewpost?postid=67ca035befbc6
aleleopathic 0 points 3 months ago
> I've never understood this "you're on your own" bullshit I've seen other whites do.
I've explained this a thousand times here and elsewhere.
It is an old depression-era mindset that actually dates back to the founding of the country, based loosely on the saying 'Root, Hog, or die'. The meaning of the saying is literally 'fend for yourself or die', the idea being that everyone else is also fending for themselves. This mindset was seen as being one of the sources of American excellence, and one of the strongest reasons for opposition of jew Rosenfeld's (Roosevelt) welfare program. America was like 98% White back then and infinite immigration wasn't a thing; everyone just thought it would make weak Americans.
These guys raised the boomers and early X, which is a large part of why those old stories of the old men bragging about how hard their life was as a kid exists in the first place. Most Americans lost everything during the depression, and it was super common to see a family of 7 (families were much larger then) living out of the back of a car - my own family has pictures of this that the family historians (here, 'old bitties') maintain. Nobody talks about this, but many American families didn't make it. So when the Boomers that made it, most of which who were destitute as kids, built up significant wealth, they ascribe their success to the difficulty of their childhood. They will tell you that it made them strong, and that the relative ease / infinite guardrails on modern kids leaves them soft, and without the skills or grit to make it in life.
Of course, you can't compete with the jew, who stockpiles generational wealth, with this method, but they are still right - the jew is soft and weak as a direct result of how they are raised.
Go talk to your grandparents; try to figure out who maintains your family history. See if you can find old depression era photos of your great grandparents. The ones of my family were *rough*.
/v/Whichever viewpost?postid=67c7a80de08e9
aleleopathic 3 points 3 months ago
> He told me that my previous Great Dane was "just an animal."
Older generation has a more 'practical' view, my father was the same way. Would love a pet, but strict rules on their behavior (never on furniture, strict on obedience, waits to eat, no begging). His father wouldn't even let their dogs in the house.
Of course, my dad's dad grew up in an era where they literally killed an elephant on television for a movie and the public was largely okay with it. Very different perceptions. We are far softer now.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=67c0b3ff4e9b9
aleleopathic 2 points 4 months ago
Excellent work. I wrote a ton on covid - we didn't draw the same conclusions, but it doesn't matter much anymore, as things move so fast that it is hard to keep up these days.
I for one would be very interested in the ritual abuse bits, as I wrote a bit on it on old Voat. That topic was my first confirmation of suppression, as the topic is so interesting to any who read on it, yet it virtually can't spread through the zeitgeist for reasons that are probably as interesting as the rabbithole of ritual abuse in the first place.
/v/introductions viewpost?postid=67a27d5902e19
aleleopathic 1 point 4 months ago
> Free trade creates more total opportunities in both countries.
Jews argued this for centuries, as they were the original traders between countries, and, as you would expect, this statement lies by omission. The other important metric is the value of those opportunities, and for the country with the higher cost of labor, the value is necessarily lower. There are also arguments to be made about the so-called 'race to the bottom' that inevitably occurs when the relative cost of labor is lopsided between the two trading countries, but I don't have time for that now.
> We don't need more jobs. We need jobs to pay more.
Again, nearsighted. We literally have no idea what we need, and can't figure it out while we also have the confounding problems of H1Bs, infinite illegals, etc.
Remember that jobs linked in a field create careers, and we have a huge problem of gatekeeping the entry level jobs in multiple disparate career paths where the peak pay is high. As the common complaint goes, yes IT can pay very well, but you'll never get started if the entry level positions require a bachelors, 6 years experience, and pay as much as retail. This is, of course, what the race to the bottom looks like.
> We want higher effective pay per hour for the average American.
This doesn't happen in a vacuum. Certain things have to happen first. To know what those are, it helps to know how we got here.
When a country whose average labor cost is X trades with poorer country whose cost is 0.5X, we can expect goods and services to migrate away from the richer country to the poorer country. What happens next is that the labor cost of the richer country then decreases, while the cost of the poorer country increases, until the costs of import/export equal (for the sake of this simplified example) the difference of the cost of labor.
If this can't happen, the industry leaves the richer country forever (textiles, electronics, anything injection molded). If this can happen, then you have a permanently decreased cost of the laborer in the richer country (programmers/CS, most applied scientific disciplines, IT, engineering).
Literally free trade is why the average American finds his purchasing power robbed from him decade over decade.
> A tariff will never do that.
A tariff increases the costs of import/export, which allows a larger spread between the poorer and richer country. Using the example earlier, if the stabilized labor costs become 0.8X for the richer country, and 0.65X for the poorer country, then we can know that the 0.15X difference in those costs are import/export costs. If the tariffs increase the import cost by 0.2X, then the richer country can sustain the original 1X labor cost it had.
The is the whole reason our country used tariffs going back to the time of its founding. It was protection.
> Go to school.
I get paid to tutor math my man. These are basics and I don't understand how people can function as adults without understanding it.
/v/HDLunited viewpost?postid=679f65956c3a4
aleleopathic 0 points 4 months ago
> "ball earthers"
You know we don't have a name. We are just 'everyone else who doesn't push FE', which you could shorten to 'everyone else'.
Feel free to hop in - I argue in good faith. What do you think are the most damning bits of the Galilean model? Or, what was most convincing to you?
/v/ImportantPosts viewpost?postid=679d3a606e84d
aleleopathic 0 points 4 months ago
Started here, which you said "Lets debate these facts [...]" and then abandoned: https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=66b1879ce6fc9#comment_66b1d7497e61e
McNasty responded on your behalf, which I took up since he continued to respond, and I haven't seen much more from him on the topic since that.
/v/ImportantPosts viewpost?postid=679d3a606e84d
aleleopathic 0 points 4 months ago
> A tariff war is just going to increase cost of goods in both countries for the common person.
What a nearsighted take. What it does is create opportunities for domestics to compete. Prices of an outsourced thing have to come up, or we can't afford to pay our own guys to make the same thing where our cost of labor is higher. What will happen is domestic manufacturers will continue to expand until your options mirror the older, jewish outsourced options, but without the hidden tax of money permanently leaving your country.
It has to happen or things will continue to get worse, and the pain of the changeover also only gets worse the longer you wait (and the weaker you become, and the less capable you are of recovering, etc).
This, by the way, was the original reason for the half-decade cycle in oil prices. Common folk naively assume that OPEC cares about which jewish stooge wins our election, when it turns out that 4 years is about how long it took a new petro startup to be dangerous. They can't keep prices low forever or they don't make money, and when they raise them, almost immediately new domestic startups appear. Since they completely control the pricing, they just keep prices high overall, while purging the startups every few years.
/v/HDLunited viewpost?postid=679f65956c3a4
aleleopathic 1 point 4 months ago
Finish your debate with me, or drop the constant flat Earth spam.
You spam it in bad faith if you yourself don't believe it.
/v/ImportantPosts viewpost?postid=679d3a606e84d
aleleopathic 0 points 4 months ago
I get this issue too. Try deleting the '2' after the pomf.
/v/Based viewpost?postid=679d63c7235bd
aleleopathic 0 points 4 months ago
I run into problems with their certs too. Deleting the '2' after the pomf makes it work on mine.
/v/Based viewpost?postid=679d63c7235bd
aleleopathic 0 points 4 months ago
They didn't discover them, and the addictive qualities took care of the overindulgence. They just made them easily accessible, and palatable, to the masses, and then made smoking/packing tobacco socially acceptable (as it was considered disgusting for most shortly after Europe's first introduction).
They then monopolized the distribution, and used power and influence gained from just the monopoly on tobacco distribution to pass e.g. the 1753 jew bill.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=67996cb337c1d
aleleopathic 1 point 4 months ago*
No easy source, as it is independent research. I can walk you through to the conclusion though.
The British East India Trading Company is what built the British empire, but it was largely isolated from the King. It kept it's own armies, and had agreements where it's jurisdiction was (generally) everything outside of Britain, while the King had jurisdiction inside Britain. The British East Indian Trading Company did not allow jews to hold positions inside of it.
The primary competition to the British EITC was jews, who ran their own trading outfits based out of (what we now know as) the Netherlands, which was originally part of Spain. Literally, the Netherlands exists because Jews who didn't want to leave Spain when expelled ran to what is now the Netherlands, caused [the 80 years war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years%27_War), then took 'the Dutch Republic', as it was called, for their own.
The entire economy of the Dutch Republic was trading. While Amsterdam was originally the main hub for Sugar importing to Europe (through the Dutch EITC, a direct competitor to the British EITC which was literally simply bought by jews), by 1650, sugar took a backseat to tobacco, which became the jewish Dutch Republic's greatest import, and **Europe's first Tobacco processing center was created in Amsterdam.** In fact, [Tobacco was so lucrative for the jews that the money they made off of Tobacco literally caused the Dutch 'Golden Age'.](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-72368-6_8) As a fun fact, [it should be no surprise that the same Dutch EITC literally brought the first jews to America in 1654,](https://jewishcurrents.org/june-3-the-dutch-east-india-company) where they would establish New Amsterdam and larger New Netherlands, now known as the insufferable New York / New Jersey area. This is, of course, the same area and same jews behind rum distillation, if you have been following my posts on the jews behind alcohol consumption.
And what did the jews do with a bunch of tobacco and no consumers? Manufacture consumers, of course. As with American women in the 1910s, smoking was considered disgustingly unattractive, and jews spent the next 50 years pushing tobacco on the rest of Europe. Reminder that their primary opposition was King James VI and I, who, try as he might, couldn't stop the jews from pushing tobacco in his territories (please see his rather humorous ['Counterblaste to Tobacco').](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Counterblaste_to_Tobacco)
In general, any time something addictive is introduced to modern society, jews were behind it. Jews literally require their wares to be addictive, because the addiction makes a country's citizens actually want to disobey their leaders enough to consume. Otherwise, people decide it isn't worth the risk.
Jews introduced us to tea, and later coffee (when they realized that coffee was more addictive, which we now know is due to higher caffeine content), tobacco, hard spirits (originally, Rum), weed, and, though I don't know about us, they introduced China to Opium, which caused a massive destabilization and ended the thousands of years of their dynasty system.
-----------------
Google anything I've typed. I checked every sentence to ensure they are worded in a way that they are easily citable.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=67996cb337c1d
aleleopathic 2 points 4 months ago
It was before that, when FPH and related were kicked off. Atko actually needed to upgrade their hardware as the influx made the site unstable.
I also believe the term was borrowed from 4chan.
/v/Voat viewpost?postid=6799c0bc9a405
aleleopathic 1 point 4 months ago
> Governments all over the world have been trying to get people to quit smoking for almost 50 years.
Reminder that jews are the whole reason that we smoke in the first place. 4-500 years ago, they were the original traders that brought tobacco to England, and right about a 100 years ago (1920s) jews tied cigarettes to the suffragette movement, calling them 'Freedom Sticks', and are the whole reason women smoke in the first place. Previously, it was considered extremely unattractive for women, to the point of being taboo. The lead jew behind women smoking was (((Edward Bernays))).
You and I, regular people, have been trying to get people to stop smoking for half a century. Jews only finally let it go as they have national banks for their income now, which they didn't have 110 years ago. Same with alcohol consumption laws heading into prohibition, you wait long enough and nobody can tell who the good guys were anymore.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=67996cb337c1d
aleleopathic 5 points 4 months ago
You two's comments are inspirational. I see the constant doomposting about the state of dating, but I have enough friends with unicorns that I'm not sure unicorns are \*that\* rare.
I'll keep working on self improvement, and hold on to hope in the meantime.
/v/anime viewpost?postid=679431d5189bb
aleleopathic 2 points 4 months ago
I NEVER WANT [s]TO HEAR A[/s] FUCKING JEW[S] [s]SAY THEY'RE WHITE AGAIN[/s] PERIOD
/v/Jews viewpost?postid=678aa433675a5
aleleopathic 1 point 5 months ago
Interesting, but old news. Old Naval Intelligence had multiple units of trained animals, including sea lions and dolphins, reportedly the dolphins were known to use a language, and a device was made to transcode to and from that language as early as 1960. This would have been under the SPAWAR program.
Interesting reads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_marine_mammal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Howe_Lovatt
/v/AnimalsBeingBros viewpost?postid=678622921bad4
aleleopathic 3 points 5 months ago
That rule applies to whores, and more specifically the 'born again virgin/tradwife' type.
/v/FatPeopleHate viewpost?postid=678599800b125