×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules
11

Reminder that ALL women are femenist and none are based

submitted by NukeAmerica to Women 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 06:46:28 ago (+21/-10)     (www.talk.lol)

https://www.talk.lol/viewpost?postid=64ac827aa8290&commentid=64ac9f7009ad2

Even the few women here on voat are the same as the rest of them. Stop simping fellas, and women shut your fucking mouths.


29 comments block


[ - ] Broc_Liath 10 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 08:17:27 ago (+11/-1)

What kind of blackpill forum sliding bullshit is this?

[ - ] NukeAmerica [op] 0 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 13:04:15 ago (+1/-1)

Shove the 19th up your ass!

[ - ] Broc_Liath -1 points 10 monthsJul 12, 2023 18:29:39 ago (+0/-1)

Fuck the 19th and all but this is just divisive.

[ - ] Rotteuxx 6 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 08:11:16 ago (+7/-1)

So what part of her comment do you disagree with exactly?

IMO modern men are so kiked out that they indeed act without their own best interests at heart.

It's also obvious that modern land/property owners are driven by profit alone, not the best interest of the community/society they're a part of.

[ - ] WNwoman 5 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 09:13:41 ago (+6/-1)

Meh. I’m pretty based. Granted it took some life experiences to get me here. The key is having a strong man to lead you in the right direction. It’s easy to denigrate women but you have no room to talk if you’re not acting like a real man.

[ - ] deleted 1 point 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 08:00:10 ago (+4/-3)

deleted

[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 17:59:21 ago (+1/-1)

Women are property
No we’re not. But fuck off to mudslime town where its true and see what happens to a society that commoditizes women. You faggots always forget that all the most “sexist” macho societies are the shittiest. Those things are connected, tard.

[ - ] deleted 0 points 10 monthsJul 12, 2023 11:38:31 ago (+0/-0)

deleted

[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 10 monthsJul 12, 2023 13:03:30 ago (+1/-1)*

Triggered
Bulverism. Totally irrelevant what my emotional state is, only whether I am correct. And I am.

You might as well say that you, gentile, are property of a jew or of some noble and you should learn your place.

Just because women are property, doesn't mean I don't respect them.

Jews say the same thing, goy. Just be a good goy and serve jews. You’ll probably object to that, but its the best thing for a secure society, oy vey!

ALL societies which treat women as chattel property are bad societies. The best societies are monogamous societies in which women have the greatest level of autonomy and can choose their own husbands. Why are islamic countries corrupt and dysfunctional? For the very reason you like them. The shift you propose is dysgenic.

Secure attachments make for a secure society,

You’re not talking about secure attachments. You’re talking about tyranny. As soon as you make women property, men start to barter them commoditize them. Then only the richest men (usually the most aggressive, wealth hoarding, corrupt and old) will get the best women and the most women and the youngest women. The average young man will experience a scarcity of females and will have only low quality females to choose from. Fathers will sell their daughters to the highest bidders at as early an age as possible so that they can acquire another wife. This is a marriage regime which selects for the most aggressive males and nice guys finish last and basically go extinct. This is why the middle east and all muslim countries are corrupt and violent and non-productive. This is why European countries southeast of the Hajnal line are crappier than the ones that are northwest.

Monogamous societies where women select their own mates favor personality traits like productivity and fairness and being a good dad. When women are not selecting their own mates (intersexual selection) then intrasexual selection takes over. Male intrasexual selection is violent and destructive: it’s when males hoard resources, kill each other, hoard females. Why are white guys nicer than shitskins? Because white women choose them. Chivalry, all that stuff? Thats the result of males vying for the affections of the most valuable female in the tribe. Nice guys finish first.

so the men don't go enslaving everyone because their wife is annoying.

Its literally the opposite of this. Islamic countries treat their women like property and they all go around enslaving everyone so they can have more “property”.

You dont consider that marriage regimes greatly influence the behavior of males of a breeding population for better or worse. High male intrasexual selection—which is what you are advocating— will lead to high wealth disparity and high reproductive disparity and low productivity and violence and corruption and everything they do in the middle east. Thats because evolution is ongoing and genetic drift toward aggressive male reproductive strategies can happen rapidly over just a few generations.

So bon voyage muhammed. You should enjoy the consequences of your policy in some place like Syria, land of secure attachments.

[ - ] deleted 0 points 10 monthsJul 13, 2023 09:17:00 ago (+0/-0)

deleted

[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 10 monthsJul 13, 2023 13:55:59 ago (+1/-0)*

I'm not going to argue with a woman,

You probably shouldn’t argue with this woman.

I'll admit you have fair points about Muslim society.

When I got race pilled, I started to study human evolution, the origin of the races and how they are related to each other. I became determined to understand why mexicans or muslims do not produce nice countries or why japanese and northern europeans, who are not related, do. I began to understand that environmental factors like climate as well as societal factors like type of economy, marriage and inheritance patterns, laws, all shape what we might call national character . Through genetics and natural selection. And it can happen rapidly.

If we understand the mechanisms of evolution that select for higher violence or higher levels of corruption and deception or alternatively more fair behavior, higher productivity and cooperativity etc, we can eugenically engineer a better society and avoid the problems that we see at low or moderate levels in whites and at higher levels in most non-white groups.

What would you think of the 1800, the early 1900s? These were extremely "sexist" times where women were still viewed as property.

Instead of saying “How about the 1800s?” or “How about ancient Greece?”, focus on what policies were in place (secular and religious) that made those periods what they were and whether or not those policies will have the effect that you want, and whether there will be any other unintended undesirable effects.

These were extremely "sexist" times where women were still viewed as property.

No, they weren’t . I know we are living in peak weimar, but the problems we are facing are generally not female driven or at least not particularly so. Really, there were some things that were already very wrong in the male sphere of influence in the 1800s or early 1900s. Feminism and LGBTQPZ are just the icing on a very large shit cake .

A more basic problem imo is the decoupling of merit/productivity with compensation. An unproductive parasitic bureaucracy has expanded in the last few centuries. “Vice” industries which also produce nothing have expanded. Through these inefficient or predatory institutions there is a massive redistribution of wealth from the productive to the non-productive. Women are only the lastest group to jump on this redistribution band wagon. They have fake jobs that pay enough to live on so women do not feel its incumbent upon them to marry or stay married. But lots of white men were sucking on that bureacratic teat before women, living off more productive men.

But it will not do to tyrannical hold women hostage. In the “good old days” many bad men tormented their wives because they controlled the property. There will always be men that do this. Men are not more moral or wise than women—they are equally as petty and devious and selfish. Many goats here take the attitude that either some men didnt treat women like garbage when they could or that its not really a problem that some men treat women like garbage because fuck foids.

I don’t accept this. Men need checks and balances to their power as do women. You can’t just say, let’s give men carte blanche and “trust men” because I don’t . Men do what’s in their own interests as do women. If you can’t conceive of a scenario in which both white men and women benefit, then fuck it. I cant support any pro-white movement which treats women like axlotl tanks.

Men have obligations to society. Women have obligations to society. Men must produce wealth. Women must have babies. This must occur within a monogamous context.

If some men and women don’t want to get married, have kids, we should not force them. But we should have targets for marriage rate, birth rate, as a nation and there should be consequences if those goals are not met, and perhaps there needs to be privileges for married people with children that are not extended to people who don’t marry or reproduce.

I think we should allow some women to work, but the % of women in the workplace should be controlled and perhaps there should be many fields not open to women. Women with young children should not be allowed to work (there may be exceptions) and women with older children should probably be limited to PT work. There may be a need for different policies for different kinds of work.
The point is, we need to engineer a society in which women are having kids at replacement rates at least, and that high IQ women and non-degenrate women are out reproducing the dum-dums and skanks.

A decent eugenics program should track and manage all this shit. What we dont want is high IQ women crowding men out of the job market and chasing glamourous careers instead of doing their duty to society. But I’m in favor of the carrot, not the stick in these matters.

When love songs talk about "you're mine," it overwhelmingly is talking about the male "owning" the woman.

This is cherry picking. Theres an equal number of songs sung by women describing a beau as belonging to them. This is not particular to males. Nor is it a new notion that a man belongs to his wife. This is just semantics.

In monogamy, a man claims a woman and a woman claims a man and that ends the right of any other interloper, male or female, to mate with either person in the couple. It ends sexual competitionamong married people which creates a stability that polygamous societies can never have. Its the foundation of western civilization. Monogamous populations are different, genetically and behaviorally. Even among animals.

What do you think "treat her right" even comes from? Yes, the woman is supposed to "treat him right," but you hear this less because it's a one-way ownership.

It means don’t beat her, because men have a habit of doing that.

The chattel ownership you're talking about, and the metaphysical ownership I'm talking about are drastically different.

Theres no such thing as metaphysical. If you are talking about a religious teaching I would consider that tantamount to any other law. Otherwise I think that besides an exclusive claim to mating rights which both men and women have over their spouse, there is no ownership.

If Im your wife and we have a couple kids together and I raise them and you work and pay the bills, why dont I own you? Metaphysically? You have to please me. You have to work for me. You can’t do whatever you want. You cant flirt with the neighbor. I would have considerable control over your behavior.

Do you doubt that women have controlled their husband’s behavior for eons in Europe? Its a consequence of monogamy. Female preferance becomes more powerful where males cannot replace one female with another (as in Islam). This is why white women are so much more independent compared to middle eastern women.

Anyway I am for a partnership of men and women, Im tired of hearing this naive narrative that things will just fall in to place if men can beat their wives again. You’ll make all the same mistakes you did before. We need to do better.

[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 12:47:20 ago (+3/-3)

Get fucked.

[ - ] NukeAmerica [op] 1 point 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 13:12:42 ago (+1/-0)

Be gone from here, femenist!

[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 17:41:46 ago (+1/-1)

You can’t even spell it ffs.

[ - ] NukeAmerica [op] 1 point 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 17:45:37 ago (+1/-0)

I spell it that way because the word men triggers you femenists. Now, fuck off back to tumblr, you have been exposed to everyone now.

[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 18:00:28 ago (+0/-0)

You spell it that way because you are a moron.

[ - ] NukeAmerica [op] 1 point 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 23:39:35 ago (+1/-0)

Nice comeback, hole. You know what autocorrect is boomer? lmao

[ - ] aldecal 0 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 17:25:12 ago (+0/-0)

I lean towards agreeing with his op, but what you said in the comment he linked was spot on. Don't understand why being socially traditional means you have to be in favor of Republican economics or exploitation by the elites. The Germans were National Socialists for a reason, it's the only system of governance that to me makes any sense for a commoner to be in favor of.

[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 17:56:16 ago (+1/-1)

They know that the greeks had that rule and they figure its a good one because of that. But the landed class has historically been a problem. They tend to get their land through conquest and exploitation so if they are the only ones that vote you basically have an oligarchy. You could say “no jews can vote” but others with jewy strategies would still acrue power. You cant have a meritocracy if you favor landlords.

In fact, when Im fuhrer, I plan to severely limit landlording. It doesnt incentivize productive behavior, only hoarding. Theres plenty of land for every white family in north america and europe to have a couple of acres, with lots left over. We should strive to minimize wealth disparity. We should never have allowed a billionaire class to exist. Billionaires dont become billionaires through high productivity. They do so through rent seeking behviors and exploitation.

[ - ] deleted -1 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 09:25:10 ago (+0/-1)

deleted

[ - ] Joe_McCarthy -4 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 06:50:18 ago (+3/-7)

Very few women are not feminists of some sort. That is true. But then very few people would return to norms like this:

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/when-could-women-open-a-bank-account/#:~:text=It%20wasn't%20until%201974,a%20signature%20from%20their%20husbands.

It wasn’t until 1974, when the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed, that women in the U.S. were granted the right to open a bank account on their own.

Technically, women won the right to open a bank account in the 1960s, but many banks still refused to let women do so without a signature from their husbands. This meant men still held control over women’s access to banking services, and unmarried women were often refused service by financial institutions.

[ - ] NukeAmerica [op] 7 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 06:52:57 ago (+8/-1)

YOU MUST BE SUBSCRIBED TO THE MEMRI DOMESTIC TERRORISM THREAT MONITOR (DTTM) TO READ THE FULL REPORT. GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA CAN REQUEST A COPY BY WRITING TO [email protected] WITH THE REPORT TITLE IN THE SUBJECT LINE. PLEASE INCLUDE FULL ORGANIZATIONAL DETAILS AND AN OFFICIAL EMAIL ADDRESS IN YOUR REQUEST. NOTE: WE ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE A COPY ONLY TO MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT, LAW ENFORCEMENT, MEDIA, AND ACADEMIA, AND TO SUBSCRIBERS; IF YOU DO NOT MEET THESE CRITERIA PLEASE DO NOT REQUEST.

[ - ] Gowithit 0 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 14:13:17 ago (+0/-0)

?

[ - ] SecretHitler 1 point 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 16:36:20 ago (+1/-0)

joe recently posted a link to a fed-only site by accident, outing himself. You can't read the article unless you're subscribed, and apparantly you can't subscribe unless you're a fed. Nuke is reminding everyone about the terms on that site.

[ - ] Gowithit 0 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 18:19:54 ago (+0/-0)

Got it. Thanks. I thought he was referring to the woman opening bank accounts article so I was confused.

[ - ] Joe_McCarthy -6 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 06:55:10 ago (+2/-8)

So this is the new rote disruption strategy eh? Seems pretty lame.

I CAN talk about fire every post. You know that, right?

[ - ] AryanPrime 1 point 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 07:58:55 ago (+3/-2)

no, you cant, you don't have the IQ or the ability to, because inbred kike filth only have one play, deception

The truth is not on your side, so you twist your words to try and make yourself sound good all the while being a filthy child porn endorsing piece of kike filth who should be shot on sight

Dirty inferiors like you are not permitted in Aryan countries...what parasites and filth you and your kind are

[ - ] Joe_McCarthy -2 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 08:04:22 ago (+1/-3)

Oh, I can. And if I want I can do so constantly and look for places with larger audiences to do it. It needn't even require that I go all in and start calling reporters. I can spread the arson insurgency all over the internet if I want.

So keep turning up the heat. I can turn it up too.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2023/07/10/wildfire-in-central-wisconsin-has-spread-to-800-acres-officials-say/70400434007/

[ - ] IdlyDyiny -5 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 10:29:34 ago (+0/-5)

The only women that would be on voat are severely mentally ill. So it's not like you're providing healthy example.