Liberalism and Feminism can only work on a global level

That is why they are globalists!

I have been thinking very hard about ideologies these last few years and my mind's worst enemy unfortunately is liberalism. I had intended it to be my friend when I was a young idealist, but have watched it go from madness to madness and seen how it is destroying the West because it can't work unless everybody is doing it. If the whole world were feminist, consistent with liberal feminist ideology then our population would decrease as a world and there would be no fear of loss of one's culture by numbers, just the slow loss of our species until women were forced by circumstances to be predominantly breeders once again.

Feminism is of course turning women away from the "breeding machines" identity they had classically. I do not blame them. I have thought about this and if I was a woman in this age I too would not want to breed in all this insecurity. I would no longer want to expose myself to sexual activity that might lumber me with a lifetime of having to put another human being before me in a society that is getting to be very hard work economically. If any woman feels these emotions then you certainly are not wrong for thinking like that. This is why many women are beginning to avoid men sexually in the West, opting for same sex relationships and other alternative forms of relationship and sexual expression. Some of the guys I know have been urged by their women to get "the chop" or more medically correct "the tie" and they are in the older group where feminism is not so prevalent.

For the individual woman feminism will give her freedom. At the same time she will no longer want generally to have to be a breeding machine. Hormones are a powerful trickster, but I bet women consciously have the strength to control and resist certain impulses that they know will completely change their lives forever. For men, traditionally this of course has not been quite the intensity of experience.

With all this freedom female emancipation will have devastating consequences obviously for any society in which it is put into mainstream practice. In evolutionary terms this will give the kinds of cultures and societies that have many children and keep their women under the thumb that way a mighty "leg up" in terms of interests by numbers. Those who still keep their women as the "breeding machine" would eventually and very quickly begin to outnumber the cultures where feminism and female emancipation are the usual order. Feminism proves to be a tool of population reduction and a means by which the breeding culture gets to win the day and get the trophy as evolution's latest greatest.

Remember, evolution is never working in the interests of intelligence and civility alone. It is working mainly on the premise of who gets to be the most successful breeder. Feminism is no way going to help if you are interested in maintaining and further progressing your own immediate interests and culture. It is like slowly applying the most crude and insidious form of eugenics ON YOURSELF.

Globalism is by no means global. Feminism is by no means global and has no chance of being so for a very long time. During that time it will kill its own power and culture. See how the Western women are having abortions as a normal fact of life. In a sense the anti-abortionists do have a point.

Breeders of the world, the world is always yours "with a little patience". I am wondering whether the Western authorities are deliberately wanting to destroy the Western cultures and at the same time encouraging breeding culture immigrants to replace them for some strange political motive? They could not have implemented a better, slowly orchestrated and snide "Final Solution" even if they had tried. Ultimately, they too are destroying themselves. The very foundation they are built on will crumble this way. Up will creep the breeding culture's political influence until it has enough power to manipulate the old order. I see this happening before my very eyes actually. They usual order are destroying their own interests on an evolutionary level.

I feel like some insane eugenist writing this, but my observation appears to be very factually assumed. If they owned the whole world and put all their globalist liberalist agenda into universal practice we would quickly decrease in population volume (and so would the wealthiests' bank account balances and profit opportunities accordingly). If they put it into practice only in certain places it will only aid the competitor who does not practice it.

It may be not a deliberate and conscious political agenda at all, but I might actually be tapping into what evolution is up to with us. Perhaps evolution is arming me with the foresight to notice this. It is bringing it to my Western consciousness as one of its many "jouney of the sperm" attempts to survive? May be all the right wing politics and populism is another "jouney of the sperm" too? I think it is.

Feminism and same sex relationships/politics are destroyers of civilizations. It has happened the same many times before. It can't work in a competitive world. The breeder wins. Sorry, but that is the truth of the matter. Arm yourselves with that if you are interested in survival. I said before that I am just a regular survivalist.

a reply to: Malak777

What crap did I just read? Equal rights, justice and freedom are the only way forward if we want to survive as a species.
Everything else is just a rabbit population on an isolated island. They too breed until the island can't sustain them anymore. If they are lucky the island regenerates and the circle starts all over. If they're unlucky this takes longer than the last rabbit can endure.
Is that your vision for the future of mankind?

I agree with your thread title 100% but the OP kinda lost me.

The Wests insistence on promoting inclusion, diversity, equality etc etc sounds great on paper and I dont see how anyone could be against it, at least on paper.

Sadly reality gets in the way and when you import people who dont share these ideals you are inevitably going to lose because you will continue to make concessions in the name of inclusivity and cultural differences until you have nothing left.

An inward focus of liberalism and feminism could work, when projected outward to the world youre just asking to be f*****d and its exactly what we see happening

a reply to: Malak777

This op is way too long to read this early in the day.Also,I am
down to a half a mug of coffee.
I used to swear up and down there was not a man breathing
on this planet man enough to dominate me! We will celebrate
our 17th anniversary tomorrow.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Malak777

What crap did I just read? Equal rights, justice and freedom are the only way forward if we want to survive as a species.
Everything else is just a rabbit population on an isolated island. They too breed until the island can't sustain them anymore. If they are lucky the island regenerates and the circle starts all over. If they're unlucky this takes longer than the last rabbit can endure.
Is that your vision for the future of mankind?

Dream on, Baby!

That is why the richest dudes on the earth are cut throat ruthless men who love power and wealth, lol!

That is what they think about all your noble equality stuff. Ho ho, seen the wealth gap lately? Go look for yourself. The "Google Oracle" will tell you all about it as it has done me.

If I was a woman I would be a feminist too. I told you that. It means something is very wrong and this West is going nowhere fast.

Really rude of you by the way to call my carefully worded thread all thos savage names, don't you think? Is that how you conduct your debates my liberalist rainbow friend, lol? I think you are a contradiction.

Sorry, but your political vision will not win out. It is like a bow and arrow against the lightning. Yes, we are completely at political odds. We can be civil or hostile about that. I would rather be civil, but I bet I could do hostile a lot better than you.

I have NO VISION of mankind! Curious you use the old name for humanity that feminists hate - "mankind". I leave it to nature. My vision all comes from the Bible personally.

On a personal note - I am not your enemy. I am stating our problem and our weakness. This is too serious to worry about bruised ego and hurt feelings. We need to get real now about the future as it is becoming rather an emergency. I see all the tell tale signs that it is an emergency. It is "yellow alert, Captain"!

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

An inward focus of liberalism and feminism could work, when projected outward to the world youre just asking to be f*****d and its exactly what we see happening

Yes, but you would not be able to allow anyone in except that they obeyed you totally in your ideology. It would not be liberal. It would be a feminist dictatorship.

Also, you would have to rely on outsiders, surrogates, et c to keep your population going. Women are shying away from wanting to be breeders as feminism makes them free of the confines of their biology.

What outside culture would want to be so oppressed by a liberal agenda who only wanted them as population fodder and be colonised upon arrival? Would we want to be such a person who moves into such a feminist dictaorship of ideology?

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Malak777

This op is way too long to read this early in the day.Also,I am
down to a half a mug of coffee.
I used to swear up and down there was not a man breathing
on this planet man enough to dominate me! We will celebrate
our 17th anniversary tomorrow.

Yes, you are true nature. The future will always belong to you, universally. Evolution will assure us of that. If not your cultlure, then another!

When we can make babies in test-tubes, keep them in incubators as embryos and develop super duper genetically enhanced and biologically stable folk then we will be able to have true feminism. I actually think that is a really terrible idea and probably not really possible. I think they will be weaker and unnatural which means the traditional breeding culture will still win out because they are stronger and nature already gives us the most convenient way of continuing our species, all considered. It gives us the nuclear family, the community and society.

My liberal chums, mess with that at your peril. Truly, it will be at your peril one way or another. It is what is fuyndamentally insane about this globalist agenda.

TLDR

On a global level....meaning those that live in the sticks of Africa, South America or Australia would also endorse said dumbass ideologies? I'm guessing they don't have those problems, but, then again I have not studied any of those cultures that would not be considered modern by today's lofty standards.

originally posted by: wdkirk
TLDR

On a global level....meaning those that live in the sticks of Africa, South America or Australia would also endorse said dumbass ideologies? I'm guessing they don't have those problems, but, then again I have not studied any of those cultures that would not be considered modern by today's lofty standards.

Along came a spider...... Saving the weak and sick is only weakening the species.

Really, saving the sick insures our species' survival. Whenever we treated the weaker ones like dirt we ended up with hell holes fit for nobody. The way we treat our elderly, our weak and our sick is a measure of our civility. Getting rid of them all is not possible as we all must become sick in the end. Think about that! At the best we must get old and weak. Many of us will get diseases in our lives because of our polluted lifetsyles and environment.

Will you apply this same ideology when it is your turn? You better hope when you are old there is a nice caring face to wipe your bottom and keep you clean. Just getting real with you.

originally posted by: Malak777
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

An inward focus of liberalism and feminism could work, when projected outward to the world youre just asking to be f*****d and its exactly what we see happening

Yes, but you would not be able to allow anyone in except that they obeyed you totally in your ideology. It would not be liberal. It would be a feminist dictatorship.

Also, you would have to rely on outsiders, surrogates, et c to keep your population going. Women are shying away from wanting to be breeders as feminism makes them free of the confines of their biology.

What outside culture would want to be so oppressed by a liberal agenda who only wanted them as population fodder and be colonised upon arrival? Would we want to be such a person who moves into such a feminist dictaorship of ideology?

I reckon that if a feminist dictatorship did ever happen we would have a population explosion.
An ideology that focused entirely or even primarily on the feminine would very quickly reward feminine qualities with giving birth being the pinnacle of these.
I imagine the rewards would be both material and social, tax incentives or cash payments as well as the respect and adoration of society in general.

Would also reduce the need for men to protect and provide, reducing us to menial labourers and breeding studs.

I guess looking on the flip side you could say that women would leave us alone to get # done and only bother us when they needed something fixed or to make babies.
A feminist dictatorship might be worth looking into

a reply to: Peeple

What crap did I just read? Equal rights, justice and freedom are the only way forward if we want to survive as a species.

Come on over to the US and enjoy (if already here , enjoy anyway)

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Malak777

This op is way too long to read this early in the day.Also,I am
down to a half a mug of coffee.
I used to swear up and down there was not a man breathing
on this planet man enough to dominate me! We will celebrate
our 17th anniversary tomorrow.

I kinda like having my wife to tell me how to do stuff at times .
Sometimes deductive logic does not work as well as inductive logic
41 years this year
(yes , to the same person)

(This thread is partially about feminism)

Happy Anniversary to you

a reply to: Malak777

I wish I could believe that women will be willing to "carry the can" as they are given complete social and political freedom. Was there an evolutionary purpose behind women being controlled? I think there was. It was not just some pesky male conspiracy. It actually comes from nature herself.

(Persephone) becomes the queen of the underworld through her abduction by and subsequent marriage to Hades, the god of the underworld.[1] The myth of her abduction represents her function as the personification of vegetation, which shoots forth in spring and withdraws into the earth after harvest; hence, she is also associated with spring as well as the fertility of vegetation. Similar myths appear in the Orient, in the cults of male gods like Attis, Adonis, and Osiris,[2] and in Minoan Crete.

Yes, that abduction myth is very present. Even down to "Beauty and the Beast". We concentrated on trying to encourage young girls to develop an interest in the males by use of myths of explanantion, stories and rituals. We encouraged them even to be sexual towards males and ways to stimulate that behaviour. Feminism is taking all that away. Feminism is actively encouraging men and women to split sexually. They want men to be gay and want to have same sex relationships and even an inner circle of woman based civilization with the male as the hanger on and fashion accessory. I see those attitudes prevalent every day in the MSM, particularly in the Guardian and other liberal MSM and editorial agendas.

May be in the West we think we are the big deal this time, that we can do somehow what has never been done and put all our chips on that bet? May be we arrogantly think that liberalism has answered every issue of the human condition. I think it the most pompous and arrogant self defeating ideology ever to be inflicted on a civilization.

This is what happens when we play G-D with our own nature and vital social structures. Too much meddling will destroy us fundamentally and is doing. There is no way the whole world will be convinced of the liberal Dystopia. It will have destroyed itself long before it gets a chance of turning the world into its ideological play thing.

I want the West to survive, but only if it has something worth maintaining. As it stands it is destroying everything that made it something worth preserving. There are many others who will take its place because they stick to the basics of society. Evolution will be the Winepress relating to this matter. We can all be sure of that.

We can't make the world conform to our own imagination and Utopian dreams. That is the behaviour of a control freak. Evolution can't actually be controlled. It has its own protection mechanisms to insure it gets to live and fight another day. There is no escape from that for us humans.

Can I end my input into this thread here politely. Do with it what you will. I must keep thinking on. I don't like being held down wriggling with something I have communicated. The communication aspect and some helpful post-post explanation is the best I can do.

May I leave you with this chilling reality. Same sex partnerships are the surest way to discontinue your genes and personality type, your politics and interests and your "label" in the long run. Globalism has this cancelling out of itself fundamentally at its very self defeating heart. It must recognize this and tone down, falling back into the mainstream of majority self interests of fundamental necessities like continuation of species, local economy and welfare importance over International globalist investor interests when one is in contradiction to the other, et c. The rarer you become as a minority and "sub species" the more dictatorial you would have to be to impose your version of what is at the end of the day just another extreme and outdated political ideology, if you happen to be the powerful one enforcing an extreme ideology onto the masses that has to do with the lessening chances of your own ability to survive in such a self slaying way. We have to probe this deeply to see what our interests are made of and where they are at.

Deviation should not be encouraged. It will just destroy itself in the mainstream arena. Keep it a little kink and tolerated quirk that nature and evolution has a use for in its natural minority state. You must admit with the political movements of minority based liberalism has come some nasty side effects that will only continue and get worse, because you are killing yourselves off and inviting the very antithesis of your argument in at the encouraged survival expense of those who tolerated you and allowed the little kink of your minority label.

I would protect you with my life, but I would never encourage you as mainstream purpose and agenda. That is how you will become the victim of a war. The majority will get angry with you in the end when you try to destroy them so and interfere with such important areas of our collective survival, even as a civilization. It is the "breeder" of kinds of civil war, another sure sign your culture has become insane that your civilizatyion can't stand up to the challenges of its own self and makes itself its own enemy.

It is only "natural" the "breeder" gets to live and fight another day and the non breeder gets to be the next statue of history to be destroyed by the invading army and ideology. Always been that way. It is so simple to comprehend even a "cave man" understood this essential ingredient of survival of he and his fellow community. Community and society were always the helpers, never the foe. Look what we reap because we forsook them. The same and much worse will happen to us if we forsake the nuclear family as a civilization. We will be "taken out" just like Sodom, just like Babylon, just like Egypt, Greece and Rome and the other parts of the torso of Daniel's idol vision of moribund empires "with a little patience". Where there is no family there is only a gang. Gangdom is not civilization. Making non breeding lifestyles the norm is not survival. It is the quickest root to self extermination and genocide. That's nature for ya, folks!

a reply to: Malak777

Interesting (LOL!) premise... but as I have learned recently, not all feminism is the same. I won't pretend to understand the different factions -- "LibFem" and "RadFem" and "Third Wave" and so on -- but even the different feminists don't agree on everything, so it's impossible to make such blanket statements about "feminism" as a whole.

However, I will say that as a stay-at-home mom in the 80s and 90s, I was pretty put off that there was absolutely no support for moms, and especially stay-at-home moms. We were dismissed (and insulted) as either too dumb or too lazy to work, as exemplified by Hillary's oh-so-infamous "Well, I guess I could have stayed home and baked cookies all day" comment. Like that's all I did!!! Sure, I baked cookies... and cupcakes for class birthdays and sopapillas for Cinco de Mayo and I also volunteered at my kids' school, both in their classrooms and in the reading room. I served on committees and volunteered for events and fundraisers and went on field trips and taught kids to read and write. Things that I taught my own kids before they even started kindergarten!

But society said moms like me were just too dumb or lazy to hold a real job. (And I did it anyway, because I knew it was the right thing to do.)

And I do believe that this attitude has adversely affected our children into adulthood, and therefore our society as a whole. When we devalued mothers and mothering, we also devalued our children and their best interests and well being.

So to a great extent, I do agree with the spirit of the OP. But I won't reduce people -- especially women -- to mere "breeders." Being a parent and giving of yourself and your heart unconditionally is a very fulfilling and gratifying experience. It's a crying shame we don't value and appreciate this gift. Done right, it benefits ALL society. Ignored and neglected, it just drags the whole of society down.

one "paragraph" in and i have a headache.

I believe its a fallacy to call them liberals. Those against liberty should not be called liberals. They are leftists not liberals.

There was a day/time in our country when women would take care of the home/children and men would work to help support their home/women/children. It now takes 2 incomes to raise a family instead of 1 & Government is seen as the new father figure by the majority of women/children instead of men. Men are now considered as dumb idiots only useful as manual labor.

In the 1960s the CIA created the women's liberation movement. They did this because our country was going bankrupt & they needed more tax revenue to maintain/increase our large socialist government. Nixon took us of the Gold Standard in 1971 with a promise that we'd return to it. Now it takes 2 heads of a household's income to raise a family & every dollar one makes today is worth less tomorrow thanks to Congress violating the constitution.

Congress is supposed "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;" and "To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;" Congress is supposed to do this and also makes sure that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;". Congress has not done any of this since 1913, when the Federal Reserve Bank was illegally established. Now instead of Congress regulating money (gold/silver), we have the Federal Reserve counterfeiting unconstitutional fiat money out of thin air. People blame capitalism for the ongoing wealth gap. Its the devaluing of the dollar which is actually causing the wealth gap through fiat (counterfeit) currency.

The OP is right that cultures who have the most children will rule the future. Right now its mainly Islamists/Africans & Latinx who will be controlling the future, since they have the most children per couple. Most Caucasian men and women are staying single and don't have kids. If white people do have kids it's usually only 1 or 2 children, which cannot maintain the population size of white people.

President JFK was considered far left in his time. Imo, Trump falls on the same point on the political spectrum as JFK. Trump is considered far right in today's time. This is how far the political spectrum has shifted left. If Trump were president in the 1960s he'd be considered far left. What the leftists consider as far right is actually moderate centrist or liberal in the grand scheme of things.

a reply to: Malak777

The idea of globalism is not a bad word to everyone.
It's just that a group within the right has tried to make it one.

Globalism for many is all about world peace with most imagining a world governed under a document similar to the united states constitution. ---at least for those in the west.


How do I feel about it?

I'm not sure. I know that any form of government can lead to the masses being controlled by the few.

In my heart I want real freedom. Though I understand that I am in the minority feeling that way. And even I understand that true freedom comes with a price that most of the people I love couldn't pay.

True globalism would mean no more wars. No more armies . On a truly globalists and free world there would be no need for military weapons to even be made in the first place. Only personal defense weapons like guns would be needed. No military soldiers, only police officers . And a well regulated citizen militia. If those police officers where NOT connected to the hub government and still put in place by the community the way they are now, that would be ok with me.

I think even if we all govern under one set of ideas we should still keep our borders though. I don't want a globalist society where the central government has control over all the land. We still need local governments in order to make sure the most amount of voices from the people can be heard on the world stage. One of the big draw backs to a global government is that the "regular citizen" can get lost in the crowed.

Culture would have to be defended as well because it maters. For example: I wouldn't want everyone to mix up so much that we forget who the japanese peoples and culture ever were. Somehow we have to come together more while still keeping our individuality.

So I guess with me it depends on what kind of globalism are we talking about?
No mater what I am for sensible change. We need to change. This world needs to change.

a reply to: Malak777

Corporations are global. Corporations ARE the government.

I think the battle of wealth inequality spans and unites ALL liberal groups, classes, and races.

The problem of wealth inequality is so far much worse than anyone imagines or any other problem:

a reply to: Malak777

consistent with liberal feminist ideology then our population would decrease as a world and there would be no fear of loss of one's culture by numbers, just the slow loss of our species until women were forced by circumstances to be predominantly breeders once again.

You have a vast misunderstanding of what feminism is.

What your describing is hard hard nazi type feminism. That is not the majority but they have a loud voice in right wing circles.

Wow...it's just too early for this many words!

I'm a man, and I only know a few words before Lunch...

**phart**
**scratch**
"C'mere, woman!" **grunt**
"Sex!"
"Sammich!!"
and
"Remote!"