Counterpoint to traditional gender roles?

Pandora

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
988
Reaction score
635
I was having dinner with my two females friends. One is a rabid feminist type. The topic of traditional gender roles vs feminist ideology was brought up. Of course I told her my RedPill views. It was a respectful convo and she brought up a good counter point that I had no answer for.

She said the reason she will never give into traditional gender roles of the wife staying at home is because what if the man decides to suddenly leave. The man will leave her with no marketable skills and possibly children to feed. This is a good counterpoint against having a traditional society. I wonder how they regulated men leaving their families in the more traditional era of the United States. Maybe they used social shaming to keep him there? Or maybe it was incredibly rare for the men to leave. Even today I don't know too many men that just abandon their children. Either way it was an interesting point.
 

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
1,613
Age
26
Location
Sweden
It wasn't "regulated" except in the sense of "sucks to be you". Women were largely dependent on their men not leaving them and this power dynamic is also why society quieted down and accepted domestic abuse. This is still the case in cultures where women are socially beneath men and made dependent on providers, and one tactic of abusers is to make the woman dependent on them. Fixing this was part of the social democratic movement in countries like mine and connected to the temperance movement, as a subset of general women's lib, that also implemented other things like universal healthcare, tuition-free university, public infrastructure, taxing wealth more than work, and so on (although the limited social democracy began to be dismantled in the 1970s-80s).
 
Last edited:

Julian

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
4,620
Reaction score
1,047
Actually then she can apply for welfare like every other single mom out there as well as child support from the male plus she will still be working so at the end of the day shes got multiple safety nets, governmental and legal.

Women got scammed hard..traded being able to chill all day do whatever you want to be being a wageslave cuck at some job that doesnt give a fuk about them. Its just double the taxes the gov can get now. Also destruction of nuclear and tribal families
 

Epic Days

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
835
Age
35
Biology accounts for this. What do they do when their husband gets killed? Which was the most likely scenario.

They can get a new man to care for them. There will always be cuckables available. They have sex as their bargaining chip.

Today, they get fat and unserviceable. It makes it harder. Plus they have been inheriting the estate for years in the event of death.

What do men do when the woman up and leaves? This is the most likely scenario today. She takes at least half of everything he has. If the man leaves now, she still gets half of everything he has. In the event she doesn’t know who the father is or he’s a broke gangster, the state takes care of her.
 

How This "Nice Guy" Steals Women from Jerks

Did you know a woman can be totally UN-ATTRACTED to you...

And she'll still sleep with you?

If you've ever seen a girl go home with some asshole she didn't even LIKE, you know this is true.

But how is this possible?

Because deep inside her brain, sexual desire has nothing to do with what you LOOK like...

And everything to do with how you make her FEEL.

Matt Cook knows this all too well.

Matt is a nice guy... but he steals women from JERKS all the time.

In this free video training below, he'll show you how he does it:

How to Control Her Emotions and Make Her Chase You

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
880
It wasn't "regulated" except in the sense of "sucks to be you". Women were largely dependent on their men not leaving them and this power dynamic is also why society quieted down and accepted domestic abuse. This is still the case in cultures where women are socially beneath men and made dependent on providers, and one tactic of abusers is to make the woman dependent on them. Fixing this was part of the social democratic movement in countries like mine and connected to the temperance movement, as a subset of general women's lib, that also implemented other things like universal healthcare, tuition-free university, public infrastructure, taxing wealth more than work, and so on (although the limited social democracy began to be dismantled in the 1970s-80s).
They are literally no statistics to support your theory. If there were mass numbers of men leaving women in most generations prior, we'd never have reached the point that we're at today. It is these types of misguided notions that further this victimization narrative that most women today employ.

Men literally had to work their a$$e$ off to support their women and children in past generations. The vast majority of any wealth produced by a man went to women and children. This narrative of women being abused, raped and mistreated by the vast majority of men is utter nonsense and simply not true. Were there men that acted badly? Sure, was this the majority? Hell no, that's silly to even say.
 

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
880
Biology accounts for this. What do they do when their husband gets killed? Which was the most likely scenario.

They can get a new man to care for them. There will always be cuckables available. They have sex as their bargaining chip.

Today, they get fat and unserviceable. It makes it harder. Plus they have been inheriting the estate for years in the event of death.

What do men do when the woman up and leaves? This is the most likely scenario today. She takes at least half of everything he has. If the man leaves now, she still gets half of everything he has. In the event she doesn’t know who the father is or he’s a broke gangster, the state takes care of her.
Society was balanced until the draconian state in the west decided to wade themselves into the marriage contract and enforce compliance from men. As "progressives" always do, they take the outlier cases and try to paint this as the norm. They use these "horrible" men, ala the burning bed Farah Fawcett movie to normalize this idea of most men being monsters who abuse their wives to justify implementing these "laws" that essentially enslave the man and empower women to behave badly.
 

taiyuu_otoko

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,379
Reaction score
2,498
Location
象外
That sounds like a strange argument, considering a career takes a long time to create.

Meaning she'd have to go to college, get a marketable degree, get a job, work on her career, just in case, the guy she ends up marrying later leaves her.

Sounds more like one of those post-facto arguments.

She can't get a high quality dude, so she goes feminist, has a career and then pretends that was the plan all along.

Had I been in that situation, I'd say it was a personal choice. If you want to be a housewife, then be a housewife. If you want to have a career, then have a career.

Then I'd argue that's how people choose lifelong mates, based on overlapping views of things like gender roles.

Unless she secretly wants to pass laws forbidding women to be housewives if they choose.

As far as historically, it is pretty rare for a guy to "just leave" without any reason, especially with kids involved.

Insurance would cover things like death or inability to work.

Nothing in life is ever guaranteed, part of being a grownup is understand risks and decisions and responsibilities.
 

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
1,613
Age
26
Location
Sweden
They are literally no statistics to support your theory. If there were mass numbers of men leaving women in most generations prior, we'd never have reached the point that we're at today. It is these types of misguided notions that further this victimization narrative that most women today employ.

Men literally had to work their a$$e$ off to support their women and children in past generations. The vast majority of any wealth produced by a man went to women and children. This narrative of women being abused, raped and mistreated by the vast majority of men is utter nonsense and simply not true. Were there men that acted badly? Sure, was this the majority? Hell no, that's silly to even say.
It's not necessary for something to be a pandemic for people to be concerned for themselves. The sense of dependence, and the possibility that it could happen and they are exposed to it if it does, is enough. That's why people don't want to live in areas with higher crime even if it's still small scale. It's why you locked your door when you went out today even though you most likely won't be burglarized. It's why you may be recommended to scout for other jobs or self-employ even if you already have a job, in case you lose your job or your manager starts disliking you. It's in fact also why you are advised to get an education, even if you might be able to scrounge by or even make a lot of money without one. It's a precaution and autonomy.

Men and women have both worked doing what they could (and in womens' case, and low-born peoples' case, what they were allowed to do) for the vast majority of history. The time of "housewives" baking pies and being bored out on the lawn waiting for the milk boy, was a brief and isolated stage of a few places that achieved a high surplus of productivity together with reactionary gender roles. In low surplus societies you can't afford to have 50%+ of people to not perform subsistence work.

There were women who sneaked into the swedish army back when this was a warmongering country. Guess what? they weren't allowed to be in it, and if they were found out, they were punished. Same thing with how they were raised and lived. They didn't choose their circumstances for themselves.

Here are some pictures from Sweden in the 19th century:

2929

1563472674626.png

2932


Does it look like these women are getting ready to sit around on their @ss?

And guess what? women wanted to be free to work like men did. That was part of women's lib. That doesn't really go together with your narrative of spoiled, infantile, ungrateful women who were out to sabotage civilization. But then, I know you have that perspective because of emotion rather than research and fact so I am not even typing out this answer for you but for anyone else who might read it.

No one is arguing that the vast majority of men have been evil sadists out to abuse women historically. It's OK, you don't need to attack that windmill or put up those strawmen. It was a social system that made it easier for abusers to abuse and limited womens' autonomy (again, like lowborns in general).
 
Last edited:

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
880
It's not necessary for something to be a pandemic for people to be concerned for themselves. The sense of dependence, and the possibility that it could happen and they are exposed to it if it does, is enough. That's why people don't want to live in areas with higher crime even if it's still small scale. It's why you locked your door when you went out today even though you most likely won't be burglarized. It's why you may be recommended to scout for other jobs or self-employ even if you already have a job, in case you lose your job or your manager starts disliking you. It's in fact also why you are advised to get an education, even if you might be able to scrounge by or even make a lot of money without one. It's a precaution and autonomy.

Men and women have both worked doing what they could (and in womens' case, and low-born peoples' case, what they were allowed to do) for the vast majority of history. The time of "housewives" baking pies and being bored out on the lawn waiting for the milk boy, was a brief and isolated stage of a few places that achieved a high surplus of productivity together with reactionary gender roles. In low surplus societies you can't afford to have people who don't work.

There were women who sneaked into the swedish army back when this was a warmongering country. Guess what? they weren't allowed to be in it, and if they were found out, they were punished. Same thing with how they were raised and lived. They didn't choose their circumstances for themselves.

Here are some pictures from Sweden in the 19th century:

View attachment 2929

View attachment 2931

View attachment 2932


Does it look like these women are getting ready to sit around on their @ss?

And guess what? women wanted to be free to work like men did. That was part of women's lib. That doesn't really go together with your narrative of spoiled, infantile, ungrateful women who were out to sabotage civilization. But then, I know you have that perspective because of emotion rather than research and fact so I am not even typing out this answer for you but for anyone else who might read it.

No one is arguing that the vast majority of men have been evil sadists out to abuse women historically. It's OK, you don't need to attack that windmill or put up those strawmen. It was both a social system that made it easier for abusers to abuse and limited womens' autonomy (again, like lowborns in general).
Look dum dum, women were incapacitated for a good portion of their lives due to pregnancy. Someone had to take care of them and provide resources for when their were carrying babies and could not work. For f*ck's sake, look how many kids are in each picture. Who the f*ck carried them, the guys?

A few pictures doesn't prove anything, yes, they worked just as much as the men. Women are exactly the same as men, can do anything that men can do. Isn't that the mantra that you liberal "progressives" (read communist, fascists) always trot out?

Count the number of kids in each picture, then add 4-5 months for each one, that's how long each woman that had any number of kids couldn't work. Geez, it's not that difficult.
 

AttackFormation

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
2,317
Reaction score
1,613
Age
26
Location
Sweden
Look dum dum, women were incapacitated for a good portion of their lives due to pregnancy. Someone had to take care of them and provide resources for when their were carrying babies and could not work. For f*ck's sake, look how many kids are in each picture. Who the f*ck carried them, the guys?

A few pictures doesn't prove anything, yes, they worked just as much as the men. Women are exactly the same as men, can do anything that men can do. Isn't that the mantra that you liberal "progressives" (read communist, fascists) always trot out?

Count the number of kids in each picture, then add 4-5 months for each one, that's how long each woman that had any number of kids couldn't work. Geez, it's not that difficult.
Yeah, women can be incapacitated by pregnancy. This is a point in favor of them being dependent on providers, which was the original subject, not against it. If they didn't work when pregnant it was because the mother was too weak to work or the fvcking baby and mother could die, not because they were evil witches out to cuck men like your wife is cucking you right now. And guess what? it was either the man's choice or his choice also to make her pregnant. And when women started being educated - because they started being allowed to be, as common men also started being allowed to - they were no longer as dependent on men providing for them during pregnancy. Gee, it's almost like your own right wing tradcuckism might have been a good thing for all of society to move on from.

Lmfao, "liberal fascist-communist", that as hilarious as my favorite "liberal judeo-nazi". That's 3 terms that all contradict each other, I never thought I'd be called something close to Uncle Ruckus's insult of a "muslim communist antichrist" in real life. This serves the point of revealing you are either a moron, argue in bad faith when it suits you because arguing is just a power game for you much like your view on gender relations and your own marriage, or both.

It's kind of funny to read what emotional, overheated, frustrated morons like you actually believe, but this is enough for me. When you sympathized with conspiracy-theoretical white supremacism/neo-nazism (whatever that "documentary" was, I don't remember, and funnily enough those terms contradict each other too since Hitler hated the concept of white supremacism, being an aryanist) I overlooked it because I thought your posts about your cuckold life were funny and interesting, but now it's on to the ignore list. Thank god I wrote this stuff for other people who might otherwise believe your bullsh!t, rather than for you. I do understand your personal life probably contributes to your current mental-emotional state so I can sympathize to some extent.
 
Last edited:

Epic Days

Master Don Juan
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
1,049
Reaction score
835
Age
35
A few pictures doesn't prove anything, yes, they worked just as much as the men. Women are exactly the same as men, can do anything that men can do. Isn't that the mantra that you liberal "progressives" (read communist, fascists) always trot out?
Nice. Your getting pretty good at finding that embedded political bias.
Men like that will never be free of the feminine imperative. They will spend their whole lives trying to reconcile women’s biological nature with their political disease.

It literally is irreconcilable. An unsolvable situation for which a solution is being demanded.
Write them off. They are gone.
 

Trump

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 12, 2011
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
1,486
She said the reason she will never give into traditional gender roles of the wife staying at home is because what if the man decides to suddenly leave. The man will leave her with no marketable skills and possibly children to feed. This is a good counterpoint against having a traditional society.
OK fair enough.

If he agrees never to leave you and will feed the children, you agree to

- have sex on demand
- keep the body in good shape
- never nag / cheat / put him down
- be wise and logical with money
- cook / clean / laundry
- if you initiate divorce, you want a small one time lump sum payment.
- if you not loyal, you agree to be shunned by friends and society

Those are traditional gender roles, aren’t they?
 

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
880
Yeah, women can be incapacitated by pregnancy. This is a point in favor of them being dependent on providers, which was the original subject, not against it. If they didn't work when pregnant it was because the mother was too weak to work or the fvcking baby and mother could die, not because they were evil witches out to cuck men like your wife is cucking you right now. And guess what? it was either the man's choice or his choice also to make her pregnant. And when women started being educated - because they started being allowed to be, as common men also started being allowed to - they were no longer as dependent on men providing for them during pregnancy. Gee, it's almost like your own right wing tradcuckism might have been a good thing for all of society to move on from.

Lmfao, "liberal fascist-communist", that as hilarious as my favorite "liberal judeo-nazi". That's 3 terms that all contradict each other, I never thought I'd be called something close to Uncle Ruckus's insult of a "muslim communist antichrist" in real life. This serves the point of revealing you are either a moron, argue in bad faith when it suits you because arguing is just a power game for you much like your view on gender relations and your own marriage, or both.

It's kind of funny to read what emotional, overheated, frustrated morons like you actually believe, but this is enough for me. When you sympathized with conspiracy-theoretical white supremacism/neo-nazism (whatever that "documentary" was, I don't remember, and funnily enough those terms contradict each other too since Hitler hated the concept of white supremacism, being an aryanist) I overlooked it because I thought your posts about your cuckold life were funny and interesting, but now it's on to the ignore list. Thank god I wrote this stuff for other people who might otherwise believe your bullsh!t, rather than for you. I do understand your personal life probably contributes to your current mental-emotional state so I can sympathize to some extent.
Liberals have long since adopted the Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals playbook, which follows many of the Marxist radical rules but hey, why should you know any of that with your smug, "It's funny" comment. So no, no contradiction at all but I'm not surprised that you have any knowledge outside of your dumb f*cking liberal echo chamber. Get outside, read something other than Stalin's memoir comrade, you might actually learn something.

And it's extremely lmfao that all you liberal morons immediately go to the white surpremacism/neo-nazi nonsense. That's like saying a conservative fascist, what a tool for you to put those words together. You do know that the nazis were the democratic socialists party right? You do know the party of record for Jim Crowe laws in the US were the democrats right? It seems like your history is a tad askew, again, perhaps some light reading on the last couple hundred years or so of history might set you straight but I'm guessing with your feminine tendancies, perhaps straight is the wrong word to use, as you might play for the other team.

My main point, since tools like you are unable to read, is that men are not the bad guys that white knight morons like yourself seem to want to make them out to be. Society would have collapsed without men to carve things out of the wilderness. Women are more suited towards traditional gender roles, seems to have worked out well for a couple thousand years and naturally gravitate towards those roles. Multiple studies have shown this. Please though, continue with your regularly scheduled idiocy.
 

Alvafe

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
2,139
Reaction score
633
Age
35
I was having dinner with my two females friends. One is a rabid feminist type. The topic of traditional gender roles vs feminist ideology was brought up. Of course I told her my RedPill views. It was a respectful convo and she brought up a good counter point that I had no answer for.

She said the reason she will never give into traditional gender roles of the wife staying at home is because what if the man decides to suddenly leave. The man will leave her with no marketable skills and possibly children to feed. This is a good counterpoint against having a traditional society. I wonder how they regulated men leaving their families in the more traditional era of the United States. Maybe they used social shaming to keep him there? Or maybe it was incredibly rare for the men to leave. Even today I don't know too many men that just abandon their children. Either way it was an interesting point.
you could argue then the state force the guy to pay for her and feed the children even if he don't want to if he have any children with her, with is even worse since if she decide to leave him he would be forced the same way, with mind I tell you, is what happens most of the time, plus there is always suckers who will jump up and support a single mom, she could complain about it but in the end her reasoning is pretty faulty, if she came up with to feel like she matters and help with feeding the kids, or even she prefer to work because she love her work is one thing, but there also the problem of feminist not letting other woman choose and shame then if they prefer to take care of they kids.

with in retrospect I do remember a news piece I read some years ago in japan (why always there?) woman there would prefer to stop working and be a housewife on the very first day they marry, when the guys don't want her to stop working and letting all the money making burden to him, but to let woman fears nothing most guys also would not complain or divorce if she stoped working


It wasn't "regulated" except in the sense of "sucks to be you". Women were largely dependent on their men not leaving them and this power dynamic is also why society quieted down and accepted domestic abuse. This is still the case in cultures where women are socially beneath men and made dependent on providers, and one tactic of abusers is to make the woman dependent on them. Fixing this was part of the social democratic movement in countries like mine and connected to the temperance movement, as a subset of general women's lib, that also implemented other things like universal healthcare, tuition-free university, public infrastructure, taxing wealth more than work, and so on (although the limited social democracy began to be dismantled in the 1970s-80s).
that is so faulty, I woldn't even bother someone already did so
 
Read the 22 Rules for Massive Success with Women. Everything you need to know to become a huge success with women. And it's free!

Spaz

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
6,731
Reaction score
5,052
Location
Somewhere where's it's none of your business
@AttackFormation,

Even being gifted with a brilliant mind u r still very much a tool which women finds utterly unattractive.

Men like you empower women to think that men are actually stupid since a brilliant man such as urself is so easily manipulated and compromised.

This is why I called you a virgin last year and it seems this year u r still very much a virgin.

If you have fvcked more women you wouldn't be thinking along this lines of thoughts.
 

mrgoodstuff

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
10,008
Reaction score
5,061
Location
DFW, TX
OK fair enough.

If he agrees never to leave you and will feed the children, you agree to

- have sex on demand
- keep the body in good shape
- never nag / cheat / put him down
- be wise and logical with money
- cook / clean / laundry
- if you initiate divorce, you want a small one time lump sum payment.
- if you not loyal, you agree to be shunned by friends and society

Those are traditional gender roles, aren’t they?
You cant legally enforce that.
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
5,313
Reaction score
1,451
You do know that the nazis were the democratic socialists party right? You do know the party of record for Jim Crowe laws in the US were the democrats right?
This is tangential, but it's easy to get bogged down in semantics with party names and ideologies. The Social Democratic party in Germany were left-wing (considered Jewish-controlled). National Socialists were right-wing in some ways and left-wing (socialist) in others, for example their opposition to capitalism and democracy, and preference for state-controlled industry. They were also opposed to Enlightenment-era liberalism (your classical liberalism). They did start out as a worker's party but eventually supported abolition of trade unions. I'm not sure exactly how the transition took place but the Nazis were on the extreme right, with some leftist collectivist b.s. mixed in. But don't get me wrong, anyone of any stripe can wipe out tens of millions of people (See Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.).

As for the American Democratic party and Jim Crow, it's true what you said, but it's meaningless now. The Democrats used to be the conservative party in this country, at least when it came to race relations. The GOP was radically liberal in its support of abolition and suffrage for blacks. This has flipped and the transition began in the mid 20th century. Lyndon Johnson was a southern Democrat and a segregationist but he eventually signed the Civil Rights Act. Richard Nixon was an honorary member of the NAACP, but he sealed the GOP's transition when he courted southern voters in '68 and licked Strom Thurmond's nuts. It always baffles me that Republicans don't make a play for black votes. It would be an easy sell if they would stop acting like morons for five minutes.

/tangent
 

highSpeed

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
880
This is tangential, but it's easy to get bogged down in semantics with party names and ideologies. The Social Democratic party in Germany were left-wing (considered Jewish-controlled). National Socialists were right-wing in some ways and left-wing (socialist) in others, for example their opposition to capitalism and democracy, and preference for state-controlled industry. They were also opposed to Enlightenment-era liberalism (your classical liberalism). They did start out as a worker's party but eventually supported abolition of trade unions. I'm not sure exactly how the transition took place but the Nazis were on the extreme right, with some leftist collectivist b.s. mixed in. But don't get me wrong, anyone of any stripe can wipe out tens of millions of people (See Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.).

As for the American Democratic party and Jim Crow, it's true what you said, but it's meaningless now. The Democrats used to be the conservative party in this country, at least when it came to race relations. The GOP was radically liberal in its support of abolition and suffrage for blacks. This has flipped and the transition began in the mid 20th century. Lyndon Johnson was a southern Democrat and a segregationist but he eventually signed the Civil Rights Act. Richard Nixon was an honorary member of the NAACP, but he sealed the GOP's transition when he courted southern voters in '68 and licked Strom Thurmond's nuts. It always baffles me that Republicans don't make a play for black votes. It would be an easy sell if they would stop acting like morons for five minutes.

/tangent
It's not though. Labels matter, definitions matter, words matter. What we have done in this country is blown out the definition of so many words, that many of them are literally meaningless now because they encompass so many ideas, some of them even competing ideas. Any group that embraces liberal ideas of any sort will eventually become socialist and communist in nature, it is inevitable. Socialists never stop. They don't say, hmmm, I got most of what I want, I think I'm good here. They continue to agitate and work towards the exact opposite of the system that they find themselves in.

America was started as a conservative principled place. The values were conservative. The ideas on social constructs, economies, government size, the role of banks, they were all conservative in nature. It was only after decades and centuries that the socialists, the liberals, the "progressives" have winded and worked their way into government, media, education and pop culture that we now find our society on the precipice of ruin due to their warped sensibilities on equality, social norms and other cultural bedrocks of American principles. Have there been any changes that were good? Sure there were, some things have needed to be updated to something more agreeable to everyone. But what we are currently witnessing is the going over the cliff moment that liberals, socialists and communists always agitate towards. The goal of these groups is never a more equitable society but one that is truly horrific in nature.

Socialism and communism always fails, period because it always progresses towards fascism eventually. The Nazis, The Bolsheviks, Pol Pot, The Maoists in China, they always want to enforce their will and domination over the people in their country. Even in this country, originally, we tried socialism and it failed. Check out the diaries of the Mayflower governor Bradford. They tried collectivism and it failed. That's why that initial period was so tough, because they tried socialism and it failed miserably. It was only when they went to capitalism that the colony flourished.

Republicans are what they are, conservative in nature. If the blacks want to come along, come along. Why change the group, because once you've perverted your principles, who cares what the label is anymore? Conservatives want small government, low taxes and control in the hands of the people, which is where it was originally and should be. Those other groups, they want collectivism and that is why it is so tough for republicans to court the vote of those groups, because those other groups want collectivism. To really court the vote of those other groups, they'd have to abandon their base and screw those people over, essentially becoming democrats in the process.

Americans making themselves a minority in their own country was a truly foolish move, one that everyone in this country will regret. Of course if I'm a non-conservative, no skin in the game, I'm happy to vote for free stuff for everyone because I'm not paying for it. When there are no more tax paying horses or not enough of them anymore to pull the wagon for the rest of the people freeloading in the US, that's when it's really going to hit the fan but it's almost too late to change at this point anyway. Might was well enjoy Rome burning as Nero would say.
 

samspade

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
5,313
Reaction score
1,451
It's not though. Labels matter, definitions matter, words matter. What we have done in this country is blown out the definition of so many words, that many of them are literally meaningless now because they encompass so many ideas, some of them even competing ideas. Any group that embraces liberal ideas of any sort will eventually become socialist and communist in nature, it is inevitable. Socialists never stop. They don't say, hmmm, I got most of what I want, I think I'm good here. They continue to agitate and work towards the exact opposite of the system that they find themselves in.

America was started as a conservative principled place. The values were conservative. The ideas on social constructs, economies, government size, the role of banks, they were all conservative in nature. It was only after decades and centuries that the socialists, the liberals, the "progressives" have winded and worked their way into government, media, education and pop culture that we now find our society on the precipice of ruin due to their warped sensibilities on equality, social norms and other cultural bedrocks of American principles. Have there been any changes that were good? Sure there were, some things have needed to be updated to something more agreeable to everyone. But what we are currently witnessing is the going over the cliff moment that liberals, socialists and communists always agitate towards. The goal of these groups is never a more equitable society but one that is truly horrific in nature.

Socialism and communism always fails, period because it always progresses towards fascism eventually. The Nazis, The Bolsheviks, Pol Pot, The Maoists in China, they always want to enforce their will and domination over the people in their country. Even in this country, originally, we tried socialism and it failed. Check out the diaries of the Mayflower governor Bradford. They tried collectivism and it failed. That's why that initial period was so tough, because they tried socialism and it failed miserably. It was only when they went to capitalism that the colony flourished.

Republicans are what they are, conservative in nature. If the blacks want to come along, come along. Why change the group, because once you've perverted your principles, who cares what the label is anymore? Conservatives want small government, low taxes and control in the hands of the people, which is where it was originally and should be. Those other groups, they want collectivism and that is why it is so tough for republicans to court the vote of those groups, because those other groups want collectivism. To really court the vote of those other groups, they'd have to abandon their base and screw those people over, essentially becoming democrats in the process.

Americans making themselves a minority in their own country was a truly foolish move, one that everyone in this country will regret. Of course if I'm a non-conservative, no skin in the game, I'm happy to vote for free stuff for everyone because I'm not paying for it. When there are no more tax paying horses or not enough of them anymore to pull the wagon for the rest of the people freeloading in the US, that's when it's really going to hit the fan but it's almost too late to change at this point anyway. Might was well enjoy Rome burning as Nero would say.
What I meant was the labels can mean a lot of things and have over time. Maybe America started out "conservative" by our standards, but Washington, Jefferson, et. al. were extremely liberal for their times and also in comparison to autocrats today like in Iran, Korea, etc. Most Republicans today are relatively liberal compared with large swaths of the world. And it's a fact that the Republicans courted the votes of racist Southern Democrats (whites); so as you explain maybe they perverted their principles and abandoned their base once already.

Also, just my two cents, but the GOP hasn't been about small government in a long, long time. They're the other big government party. Both are in collusion and they use things like race to distract and anger voters while they laugh all the way to the bank.

Anyway, I'll peace out, I don't want to derail the thread.
 
Top