[Serious Sam]

(03-02-2017 02:21 AM)Delta Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 12:36 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:39 PM)Delta Wrote:  

Episode is airing right now. The attacker pours acid on attractive individuals who are featured on the fictional manosphere website "No Means Yes," a site whose purpose is to post pictures of attractive young people and mock them for being good-looking. Seriously.

Wait....what?

Yeah the whole thing is a rather cartoonish portrayal of the manosphere as a bunch of bitter social rejects who hate everyone that's able to get laid. As I mentioned earlier, it's clearly inspired by Elliot Rodger, who the mainstream has apparently decided is the face of our movement .

Just once can mainstream media portray the manosphere in a remotely balanced way? I'm not even bothered by them saying we're bitter. It's true enough. But you NEVER hear the other side, about how so many men have used the advice written here to improve their lives. I'm one of them. I was a virgin in my 20's when I first stumbled upon the manosphere, and since then, I've banged girls and had girlfriends cuter than those I used to think of as an impossible pipe dream. In a few years, I've gone from feeling totally clueless, powerless, and depressed, to feeling confident and optimistic about life. I'm sure there are thousands out there like me; why can't one of us be the face of the manosphere? Why does one psycho who was barely even associated with the movement get to define us?

At this point, I won't even be surprised if in the near future some police procedural does an episode about diabolical men using the Internet to assemble "pro-rape meetups."

Because everything we write runs contrary to their society-murdering beliefs. In the short term, it's hard to see how a Criminal Minds episode can have a long term effect, but it does. It's one of many seeds being planted by those who control the media.

Fictional media works to elicit an emotional response from the audience. There is a reason they dropped so many manosphere terms: they want to elicit an emotional response that then becomes connected to those words. Now, the next time dried-up Susy reads about a pro-rape group coming to her town--some group from the dreaded "manosphere"--she will feel a stronger emotional response because her mind has already connected the manosphere with psycho-killing and now rape.

The mainstream despises everything we are about. That's why for years, in every movie and TV show you see, the jock is the asshole and the sensitive loser is the salt of the earth (and a lot of times the jock "comes around" and becomes a sensitive little pussy as well as part of his "redemption"). Have you ever been out with people who see a muscular guy and automatically label him a douche even though they've never talked to him? That comes from somewhere, and a lot of it has to do with the tiny seeds being planted all throughout the media, both fictional and non-fictional. Similar-looking guys were total dicks in every movie and TV show they watched, so their minds automatically attached negative feelings towards that person simply because he reminded them of other bad people, even if those bad people weren't real.

It's a battle of the minds, and it's a reason why I believe the manosphere needs to set some of its sights on fictional media. It has a heavy influence on our culture, and right now it's controlled by those who oppose us.

[Once Was Not]

(03-02-2017 11:11 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

This is only tangentially related to the OP.

There was an episode of Law and Order: SVU years ago, featuring a White Supremacist / KKK defendant. The hot female DA told him that a free public defense attorney would be appointed for him, and he rolled his eyes and said, "What? Jewwy Jewstein!? Can't we just settle this between Whites?"

I'm guessing the dialogue in the Criminal Minds episode was just as bad.

I've always considered major network TV dramas bad in general because most people have difficulty divorcing their realistic portrayals of barely altered real life stories, and the network uses that to plant narratives into the minds of the unwitting drama addicts. SVU might be the most sinister in my opinion. It, like all law and order shows is produced with a very realistic tone and setting, it looks real and grounded. Now think about how many women watch and have watched that show over it's extremely long and successful history and how many of them have been permanently damaged by the rape rape rape rape rape rape pumped into their heads for all those years.

I can almost guarantee a lot women now have unfounded paranoia about rape and spiked drinks and other incredibly rare nonsense because, in large part, due to that fucking evil man rape show. They may think they realize it's just a TV show but the way it's presented it almost certainly has a subconscious effect on them, and it's made even worse by the constant plot-lines ripped straight from the mainstream media and news. Oh yes they claim nothing is based on true events and it's all made up but all they do is very slightly alter the story. Any woman who follows the news will be able to make the connection and have it subvert her mind beacause "oh, it's not real" but subconsciously she recognizes the story and after over half a decade of this crap she's constantly on edge walking alone everywhere because of the evil raping men everywhere and constantly worries about being drugged and raped, oblivious to the actual rarity of any of that.

I don't know, maybe I'm overreacting, but I've really soured on that show for, in my opinion, playing a role in the ridiculous rape hysteria we've seen. I know they do this with their other dramas, ripping headlines and slightly altering them so they have plausible deniability, and can thus push their narrative even when the news isn't running. And it's why this slandering of the manosphere is not something to be taken lightly. Sure, TV might not be as popular as it used to, but I don't think it's as dead as we'd like to believe. I wonder how many people just throw on major network TV and unwittingly consume its message under the guise of just watching some innocent TV. Because the message is still getting out there as Serious Sam put so well. It's the same method as commercials, the whole point is to get you to remember the brand name through whatever stupid ass ad they've come up with, so that when you're out shopping and weighing what to get, you recognize the brand name and nothing else, and thus reach for it instead of labels you haven't seen. That unconscious connection with no reasoning behind it, that's what we need to avoid.

[Thrill Jackson]

(03-02-2017 10:20 AM)torid Wrote:  

The episode is called "Alpha Male" and it is "Season 12 --- Episode 15":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6391990/plotsummary

"Alpha Male", not surprised they'll just try to lump it all together.

Anybody know why Torid was banned?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-02-2017 02:21 AM)Delta Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 12:36 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(03-01-2017 09:39 PM)Delta Wrote:  

Episode is airing right now. The attacker pours acid on attractive individuals who are featured on the fictional manosphere website "No Means Yes," a site whose purpose is to post pictures of attractive young people and mock them for being good-looking. Seriously.

Wait....what?

Yeah the whole thing is a rather cartoonish portrayal of the manosphere as a bunch of bitter social rejects who hate everyone that's able to get laid. As I mentioned earlier, it's clearly inspired by Elliot Rodger, who the mainstream has apparently decided is the face of our movement .

Just once can mainstream media portray the manosphere in a remotely balanced way? I'm not even bothered by them saying we're bitter. It's true enough. But you NEVER hear the other side, about how so many men have used the advice written here to improve their lives. I'm one of them. I was a virgin in my 20's when I first stumbled upon the manosphere, and since then, I've banged girls and had girlfriends cuter than those I used to think of as an impossible pipe dream. In a few years, I've gone from feeling totally clueless, powerless, and depressed, to feeling confident and optimistic about life. I'm sure there are thousands out there like me; why can't one of us be the face of the manosphere? Why does one psycho who was barely even associated with the movement get to define us?

At this point, I won't even be surprised if in the near future some police procedural does an episode about diabolical men using the Internet to assemble "pro-rape meetups."

We are living in dark times and the ones who in fact sometimes cause trouble are the likes of Eliott Rodgers. Someone here used the term Black Pill.

It is fitting - the guys from sluthate and puahate do the following:

1) They accept some of the groundwork of Red Pill of female psychology of women being attracted to tall, rich, good-looking men.

2) But they miss out on the Game aspect, on dominance and a veriety of added resons.

Since they don't believe in Game, then their perception of Game is plastic surgery, neck tattoos and dangerous operations of raising your height.

Of course those things are ridiculous if you lack the most basic understanding of male to female attraction - Game.

Because if you miss out on the best raw feature of attracting women, then you are literally in a black pill. You are now Red Pilled on women and suddenly are even worse off than before.

However the media of course throws those pathetic guys who hate us into the same bag.

Eliott Rodgers frequented rather anti-Game sites and hated men who taught other men Game. Also hating on someone's looks is bullshit.

Anyone worth something knows of guys who outbang more good-looking taller men. Of course height and looks make things easier, but without Game, those men usually bang girls 2-3 levels below them because those are the kind of girls who throw themselves at them easily.

But of course to the untrained blackpilled guy it is the same - he is getting laid! Yeah buddy - you as a male 5 could get laid with obese monsterous 2-3s, but don't want to.

Either way - nothing surprises me about the media - they are a bunch of liars and manipulators and this is their main occupation. The entertainment aspect is just smoke and mirrors.



Now they are not only after us, they are after Trump supporters, after nationalistic men, after anyone who is against this immigration madness, even after health-conscious people who oppose the medical and food mafia, they have recently even started attacking alternative celebs like PewdiPie and female popular Youtubers who have bigger reaches than the New York Times. Why do the do this? Because the only celeb they want to exist is the one they control and create! And a positive Manosphere group of masculine men - nah - that group has to be villified quickly as well. So they pick the cockroaches of the Manosphere who actually hate us and direct some light on them claiming that we are like them.

[Steve McQueen]

Donald Trump said the fake media was the enemy of the people but I think its the tv shows pushing the Marxist agenda by stealth that are the biggest threat. This is where the consent gets manufactured.

They normalise that we are a problem, before the news then starts to ask what is to be done about said problem at which point the politicians step in to squash the problem.

The inverse is true of things they want to see encouraged, like feminism. We see the manufacture of consent and normalisation of feminism has its roots back in the 1950's with shows like I Love Lucy, the effects of which hit a decade later. That train continues to roll today.

[TigerMandingo]

(03-02-2017 12:25 PM)Serious Sam Wrote:  

The mainstream despises everything we are about. That's why for years, in every movie and TV show you see, the jock is the asshole and the sensitive loser is the salt of the earth (and a lot of times the jock "comes around" and becomes a sensitive little pussy as well as part of his "redemption"). Have you ever been out with people who see a muscular guy and automatically label him a douche even though they've never talked to him? That comes from somewhere, and a lot of it has to do with the tiny seeds being planted all throughout the media, both fictional and non-fictional. Similar-looking guys were total dicks in every movie and TV show they watched, so their minds automatically attached negative feelings towards that person simply because he reminded them of other bad people, even if those bad people weren't real.

It's a battle of the minds, and it's a reason why I believe the manosphere needs to set some of its sights on fictional media. It has a heavy influence on our culture, and right now it's controlled by those who oppose us.

Yes.

There has been a big push by the media henchmen to portray jocks/athletes as rapey assholes and "douchebags". It's basically in every movie/TV show you can think of. They are almost always white and blue-eyed as well.

I think this is a relevant excerpt from an interview with Rosalind Wiseman, an "educator" on masculinity and on raising boys:

Quote:

]Can you debunk any myths about popular boys?

We have stereotypes that the highest social status boys are having the most sex. And that they're having a particular kind of hookup--that they don't have heartbreak and only have random hookups, that they use girls. And that's not the case. Nor is it the case that lower social-status boys are sitting there hoping a girl hooks up with them. Adults make assumptions that, for example, the theater people are geeky, and they're not getting it on. In my experience, that's 100 percent not the case. Those people are very active, shall we say.

I brought this up with a male friend in his 30s, who completely disagreed. He still says the popular guys got all the girls.

No, they don't. Ask him if the guy in high school who played his acoustic guitar got any hookups. Really, the theater and band people are spending all their time together. It's a tight-knit group. Some of them will be good friends and some of them will hook up. The athletes, on the other hand, are spending much less time together. When the football team goes to an away game four hours away on the bus, that's a single-sex activity. When the band goes, it's co-ed.

As a mother of two boys, what have been your biggest surprises?

There's something every day. Here's one from this morning. My boys love to play hard-to-get with me. When I say "Come here and kiss me before you go to school!" my 10-year-old will run away to his bike, as fast as he can, laughing the whole time. For me, in that moment, I wonder: Why can't I just have a kid who wants to kiss me goodbye? But I have to realize that from the boys' perspective, that was the bonding. The bonding wasn't the kiss; it was "I'm going to run away from Mommy."

So we need to be more attuned to the ways they express themselves?

Exactly.

So they are basically trying to detach men from their masculinity and push them into being soft faggots.

[Vill@in]

(03-02-2017 12:25 PM)Serious Sam Wrote:  

Because everything we write runs contrary to their society-murdering beliefs. In the short term, it's hard to see how a Criminal Minds episode can have a long term effect, but it does. It's one of many seeds being planted by those who control the media.

Fictional media works to elicit an emotional response from the audience. There is a reason they dropped so many manosphere terms: they want to elicit an emotional response that then becomes connected to those words. Now, the next time dried-up Susy reads about a pro-rape group coming to her town--some group from the dreaded "manosphere"--she will feel a stronger emotional response because her mind has already connected the manosphere with psycho-killing and now rape.

Exactly this. It's the long lasting effects trash TV like this has on society that worry me. Not to mention 15 years from now when this shit show is playing on syndication and ol' Susy tells her grandkids about the "manosphere rapists and their hatred for females."

[Serious Sam]

(03-02-2017 03:53 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

]Can you debunk any myths about popular boys?

We have stereotypes that the highest social status boys are having the most sex. And that they're having a particular kind of hookup--that they don't have heartbreak and only have random hookups, that they use girls. And that's not the case. Nor is it the case that lower social-status boys are sitting there hoping a girl hooks up with them. Adults make assumptions that, for example, the theater people are geeky, and they're not getting it on. In my experience, that's 100 percent not the case. Those people are very active, shall we say.

I brought this up with a male friend in his 30s, who completely disagreed. He still says the popular guys got all the girls.

No, they don't. Ask him if the guy in high school who played his acoustic guitar got any hookups. Really, the theater and band people are spending all their time together. It's a tight-knit group. Some of them will be good friends and some of them will hook up. The athletes, on the other hand, are spending much less time together. When the football team goes to an away game four hours away on the bus, that's a single-sex activity. When the band goes, it's co-ed.

As a mother of two boys, what have been your biggest surprises?

There's something every day. Here's one from this morning. My boys love to play hard-to-get with me. When I say "Come here and kiss me before you go to school!" my 10-year-old will run away to his bike, as fast as he can, laughing the whole time. For me, in that moment, I wonder: Why can't I just have a kid who wants to kiss me goodbye? But I have to realize that from the boys' perspective, that was the bonding. The bonding wasn't the kiss; it was "I'm going to run away from Mommy."

So we need to be more attuned to the ways they express themselves?

Exactly.

That interview is hilarious, and shows just how detached that woman is from reality. Yes, band and theater people fuck one another, but who's getting the most pussy? It's the guys at the top of the food chain within that circle, not the geeky losers. My best friend was in the band and is now a band director. He is 6'6" tall and athletic. He pulled a lot of the hotter band girls and color guard girls. The fat dorky guys around him? Not so much. Hell, he even connected me with several of the hotter girls within that circle, and I connected him with girls from my circle, which made college life a blast.

For the theater group, it's not the pimple-faced dweeb with side roles getting all the ass, it's the smooth talker who lands the big roles. The same dynamics play out within every circle, and the same rules apply across the board.

She also failed to mention that the cheerleaders traveled with the football team, and the color guard wasn't far off either. There is plenty of co-mingling, and guess what? The studs of the team usually pull more ass than the guys riding the bench (unless the bench rider has good looks and great game).

[Delta]

The problem I have with many of the responses here is that they imply the entertainment media is putting its financial interests (i.e. creating whatever content would earn the highest ratings) on the back burner to focus on some sort of long-term indoctrination campaign. Is it realistic to believe the majority of an industry would be unified in acting outside their own immediate best interest? Do you literally picture the writers sitting around discussing how best to convince people that the manosphere is icky, rather than how best to make the story alluring to their target audience? Just some food for thought.

[Conscious Pirate]

She's a narcissist too, if she reckons her 10 yr old boys are bonding over not wanting to kiss her goodbye at the fucking school gate.

[Kona]

(03-01-2017 10:03 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Are we really concerned with what old women who haven't naturally-lubricated since the late 1980's watch?

That's what I was thinking.

Or their other target audience: people that watch A&E between 4-6 a.m.

Aloha!

[greekgod]

(03-02-2017 06:31 PM)Delta Wrote:  

The problem I have with many of the responses here is that they imply the entertainment media is putting its financial interests (i.e. creating whatever content would earn the highest ratings) on the back burner to focus on some sort of long-term indoctrination campaign. Is it realistic to believe the majority of an industry would be unified in acting outside their own immediate best interest? Do you literally picture the writers sitting around discussing how best to convince people that the manosphere is icky, rather than how best to make the story alluring to their target audience? Just some food for thought.

NYT and WaPo haven't been profitable in decades.

Different medium but same idea..Control the narrative above all else.

Media can be a loss leader for all they care.

Anytime you have questions about the media's mendacity or the lengths they are willing to go to, just ask yourself "Who is Haven Monahan?"

Writers are foot soldiers. Exec producers are sergeant. Studio head is general. You don't become the general by being maverick.

Humans are highly programmable. Especially after a long day of work. Tiredness errodes your discernment and mental preferences.

Another data point to consider on upholding the narrative. Free streaming porn. It's like 30% of all internet traffic. Who is paying for that infrastructure, hosting, etc? Is it that profitable? Data on neclbeards and undersexed men?

Very plausible.

[Mercenary]

(03-02-2017 06:31 PM)Delta Wrote:  

The problem I have with many of the responses here is that they imply the entertainment media is putting its financial interests (i.e. creating whatever content would earn the highest ratings) on the back burner to focus on some sort of long-term indoctrination campaign. Is it realistic to believe the majority of an industry would be unified in acting outside their own immediate best interest? Do you literally picture the writers sitting around discussing how best to convince people that the manosphere is icky, rather than how best to make the story alluring to their target audience? Just some food for thought.

You need to see things long term.
Rather than looking at the business prospects of a single TV show, you need to look at the overall false narrative they keep pushing over and over and over again in the course of say 10 or 20 or even 50 years.
Then it makes a lot more sense that it is deliberate and planned.
Also, remember the people who have final say on what ideas get financed and aired is actually still a very small minority.


I would also refer you to this article by roosh and this 25 page thread:

Does The Hollywood Elite Use Rituals And Sexual Blackmail To Keep Its Stars In Line?

http://www.rooshv.com/does-the-hollywood...rs-in-line

Is Hollywood run like a Satanic cult?

thread-53191.html

[Roosh]

Quote:

on the back burner to focus on some sort of long-term indoctrination campaign

It's a long-term depopulation campaign. Read here: http://www.rooshv.com/the-end-goal-of-we...population

Almost all messages in the media converge to one goal: reducing the birth rate.

[Mercenary]

(03-02-2017 07:34 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

on the back burner to focus on some sort of long-term indoctrination campaign

It's a long-term depopulation campaign. Read here: http://www.rooshv.com/the-end-goal-of-we...population

Almost all messages in the media converge to one goal: reducing the birth rate.

Roosh, there is even more to it than that.

It is also ensuring that those children who are born are as physically weak or ill or disabled or sexually corrupted as possible so they themselves do not reproduce.

The amount of mentaly or physically unhealthy children today compared to only 20 years ago is frightening.

[LeeEnfield303]

Quote:

the manosphere as a bunch of bitter social rejects who hate everyone that's able to get laid.

That's the segment that IS getting laid

[LeeEnfield303]

(03-02-2017 06:48 PM)Kona Wrote:  

Or their other target audience: people that watch A&E between 4-6 a.m.

   

[Paracelsus]

(03-02-2017 03:53 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 12:25 PM)Serious Sam Wrote:  

The mainstream despises everything we are about. That's why for years, in every movie and TV show you see, the jock is the asshole and the sensitive loser is the salt of the earth (and a lot of times the jock "comes around" and becomes a sensitive little pussy as well as part of his "redemption"). Have you ever been out with people who see a muscular guy and automatically label him a douche even though they've never talked to him? That comes from somewhere, and a lot of it has to do with the tiny seeds being planted all throughout the media, both fictional and non-fictional. Similar-looking guys were total dicks in every movie and TV show they watched, so their minds automatically attached negative feelings towards that person simply because he reminded them of other bad people, even if those bad people weren't real.

It's a battle of the minds, and it's a reason why I believe the manosphere needs to set some of its sights on fictional media. It has a heavy influence on our culture, and right now it's controlled by those who oppose us.

Yes.

There has been a big push by the media henchmen to portray jocks/athletes as rapey assholes and "douchebags". It's basically in every movie/TV show you can think of. They are almost always white and blue-eyed as well.

I think this is a relevant excerpt from an interview with Rosalind Wiseman, an "educator" on masculinity and on raising boys:

Quote:

]Can you debunk any myths about popular boys?

We have stereotypes that the highest social status boys are having the most sex. And that they're having a particular kind of hookup--that they don't have heartbreak and only have random hookups, that they use girls. And that's not the case. Nor is it the case that lower social-status boys are sitting there hoping a girl hooks up with them. Adults make assumptions that, for example, the theater people are geeky, and they're not getting it on. In my experience, that's 100 percent not the case. Those people are very active, shall we say.

I brought this up with a male friend in his 30s, who completely disagreed. He still says the popular guys got all the girls.

No, they don't. Ask him if the guy in high school who played his acoustic guitar got any hookups. Really, the theater and band people are spending all their time together. It's a tight-knit group. Some of them will be good friends and some of them will hook up. The athletes, on the other hand, are spending much less time together. When the football team goes to an away game four hours away on the bus, that's a single-sex activity. When the band goes, it's co-ed.

As a mother of two boys, what have been your biggest surprises?

There's something every day. Here's one from this morning. My boys love to play hard-to-get with me. When I say "Come here and kiss me before you go to school!" my 10-year-old will run away to his bike, as fast as he can, laughing the whole time. For me, in that moment, I wonder: Why can't I just have a kid who wants to kiss me goodbye? But I have to realize that from the boys' perspective, that was the bonding. The bonding wasn't the kiss; it was "I'm going to run away from Mommy."

So we need to be more attuned to the ways they express themselves?

Exactly.

So they are basically trying to detach men from their masculinity and push them into being soft faggots.

The hilarious part of that interview is that she agrees with the sentiment that we need to be "more attuned" to the way boys express themselves, having just expressed herself that she thinks her 10 year old boy is playing hard to get. With her. She follows this up by the absolutely insane assertion that this is how the 10 year old shows love towards his mother (we'll get to that).

The barometer for how far we have fallen as a society is that we think the assertion that "this is how a boy bonds with his mother" is weird and the assertion that a 10 year old can "play hard to get" is passed over as unobjectionable.

Consider: would a male "educator" ever be permitted to say that he thinks his 10 year old daughters play hard to get? And if he was, how would you look at a guy who said that about his preadolescent kids?

Like most female typists for Salon (the magazine for people who use the word "inappropriate" and know there are no wrong answers), she has male sexuality completely fucked up. This springs out of the fact that, like many "educators" on sexuality (for example big-tits, hypocritical idiot Laci Green on Youtube), she has no education in psychology, psychiatry, or counselling: her degree (undergraduate) is in fucking political science, for Christ's sake. Her main claim to fame comes from her book Queen Bees and Wannabes being picked up and turned into the film Mean Girls.

Even Manosphere 1.0 guys like Steve Biddulph (who is a psychologist) noted that from about the age of 7 or 8 a boy starts to separate in identity and emotionally from his mother. He also starts to refuse emotional intimacy with his mother. When he doesn't do so, it's called an Oedipal Complex - because emotionally separating from your mother is a natural part of growing up. Wiseman doesn't see it because she's either (a) a paedophile or (b) is utterly ignorant of male psychology, which is understandable since she has a vagina, a liberal arts degree, and makes money by saying that boys are essentially fucked up.

[Conscious Pirate]

Thank you for articulating what I couldn't in my reply to this thread due to the anger & contempt I feel for this woman wanting to spew itself on the page.

Great post Para.

[Delta]

(03-02-2017 07:27 PM)greekgod Wrote:  

Another data point to consider on upholding the narrative. Free streaming porn. It's like 30% of all internet traffic. Who is paying for that infrastructure, hosting, etc?

Like every other free Internet site, advertisers.

(03-02-2017 07:34 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

It's a long-term depopulation campaign. Read here: http://www.rooshv.com/the-end-goal-of-we...population

Almost all messages in the media converge to one goal: reducing the birth rate.

I read that article awhile ago, and have wondered how you reconcile this theory with the MSM push for mandatory paid maternity leave and government funded daycare.

[Thrill Jackson]

(03-02-2017 10:57 PM)Delta Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 07:27 PM)greekgod Wrote:  

Another data point to consider on upholding the narrative. Free streaming porn. It's like 30% of all internet traffic. Who is paying for that infrastructure, hosting, etc?

Like every other free Internet site, advertisers.

(03-02-2017 07:34 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

It's a long-term depopulation campaign. Read here: http://www.rooshv.com/the-end-goal-of-we...population

Almost all messages in the media converge to one goal: reducing the birth rate.

I read that article awhile ago, and have wondered how you reconcile this theory with the MSM push for mandatory paid maternity leave and government funded daycare.

For the women who do have children (mostly minorities) they want the father out of the picture as much as possible.A strong family unit who doesn't depend on the government is what they fear most.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-02-2017 10:57 PM)Delta Wrote:  

(03-02-2017 07:27 PM)greekgod Wrote:  

Another data point to consider on upholding the narrative. Free streaming porn. It's like 30% of all internet traffic. Who is paying for that infrastructure, hosting, etc?

Like every other free Internet site, advertisers.

(03-02-2017 07:34 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

It's a long-term depopulation campaign. Read here: http://www.rooshv.com/the-end-goal-of-we...population

Almost all messages in the media converge to one goal: reducing the birth rate.

I read that article awhile ago, and have wondered how you reconcile this theory with the MSM push for mandatory paid maternity leave and government funded daycare.

Those are just things that appease the feminine imperative like the corporate sponsored egg freezing.

The globalists can offer them maternity leave - leave of what? Work! Because women who don't work have more kids if husbands make more money because there is less female work-place competition.

Depopulation is the goal, but the White Westerners are their biggest enemies.

They claim that there are too many people and that Whites should stop having children.
But when they do stop having children, then they suddenly claim that we need tens of millions of non-White immigrants to pay off the debt.

Of course they are playing a double-game here. They want uniform White Western countries gone, they are not afraid about China staying Chinese or Nigeria staying 100% black. Tells you all you need to know who their biggest enemy is.

[Steve McQueen]

If your looking for a long term view of where this is all headed and why they would do this on purpose check out the book Brave New World.

They havent destroyed the family unit completely but a few more generations of indoctrination and amping it up slowly we are not far off.

Heres a summary of the book

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raqVySPrDUE

[scrambled]

(03-02-2017 07:34 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

It's a long-term depopulation campaign. Read here: http://www.rooshv.com/the-end-goal-of-we...population

Almost all messages in the media converge to one goal: reducing the birth rate.

How do you know that isn't just a fringe-benefit of their main purpose for immediate power?

[Dan Woolf]

It would be mildly interesting if the writers actually took time to understand the concepts and the thoughts behind them before writing the scripts. Now it comes off more like: