We all know of the stereotype of the “Soy Boy;” the effeminate male with the most progressive possible views who smiles with his mouth open. An internet meme, the Soy Boy embodies so much about the stereotypical liberal male. He is physically weak, he allows himself to dominated by females, he is ultra-Woke; he is low in testosterone. But is this really the case? Most stereotypes contain at least a grain of truth, and a growing body of research indicates that this one contains very much more than that.
As I have discussed in my book The Past is a Future Country: The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution, a great deal of Wokeness involves being extremely socially conformist. Left-wing people are high in anxiety (as are females compared to males) [Mental Illness and the Left, By E. Kirkegaard, Mankind Quarterly, 2020], which means they fear a fair fight, so they attain status covertly via virtue-signalling. In a leftist society, this means competitively signalling their adherence to liberal values; concern with “Equality” and “Harm Avoidance.”
In fact, more general research has found that in religious societies “extrinsic religiousness” (outward religious conformity) is associated with anxiety [Primary personality trait correlates of religious practice and orientation, By P. Hills et al., Personality and Individual Differences, 2004]. With its Pride Month, emotional public displays, dogmas, martyrs (such as George Floyd) and dominance of all institutions, it can reasonably be argued that Wokeness is a kind of replacement religion.
We would, therefore, expect the Woke to be low in testosterone. Testosterone makes you confident and assertive. High levels of anxiety, unsurprisingly, are associated with low levels of testosterone according to recent cutting edge research [Interplay between hippocampal TACR3 and systemic testosterone in regulating anxiety-associated synaptic plasticity, By M. Wojtas et al., Molecular Psychiatry, 2024]. And what do we find high levels of social conformity are associated with? You guessed it. Low levels of testosterone.
A study in the journal Social Psychologi cal and Personality Science argues that minority positions — that is, standing-up against the opinion of the majority — are perceived as risky options and so, in that testosterone is positively associated with status seeking and risk-taking, it would be likely that people who were high in testosterone would be more likely to be brave enough to adopt minority positions. In two studies, a total of 250 participants were read messages that:
. . . were supported by either a numerical majority or minority. As hypothesized, individuals’ levels of basal testosterone were positively related to susceptibility to minority influence. In contrast, susceptibility to majority influence was unaffected by basal testosterone. Given the importance of minorities for innovation and change within societies, our results suggest that individuals with high levels of testosterone may play an important role as catalysts of social change.
Testosterone also militates against conformity at the group-level. My research group has found that when you control for a nation’s average IQ — and no matter what the critics say, national IQs strongly correlate with other national level indicators of intelligence — then the big predictor of per capita science Nobel Prizes — major, boat-rocking, vested-interests-shattering innovations — is national-level testosterone [National-Level indicators of androgens are related to the global distribution of number of scientific publications and science Nobel prizes, By D. van der Linden et al., Journal of Creative Behavior, 2020]. This is discerned by a number of markers including prevalence of specific forms of a gene, number of sex partners, regularity of sexual intercourse, prostate cancer prevalence, the masculine shape of the hands (2D:4D ratio), hairiness and, in a separate study, the testosterone markers of autism and left-handedness [Why do high IQ societies differ in intellectual achievement? The role of schizophrenia and left-handedness in per capita scientific publications and Nobel prizes, By E. Dutton et al., Journal of Creative Behavior, 2020].
Low testosterone, then, means high conformity, as reflected in Woke males; who are evidently hyper-conformists in a Woke culture. In fact, a different study found that the mere administration of testosterone is sufficient to make people more right-wing in our current leftist society.
A study of males found that when weakly-affiliated Democrats were administered testosterone their support for the Democrats fell; in other words a “Red Shift” was induced, with their feelings of warmth towards the Republicans increasing by 45%. They also reported markedly improved mood, which would make sense because their levels of anxiety would likely have decreased. Before the testosterone administration occurred, the strongly-affiliated Democrats had lower testosterone levels than the weakly-affiliated Democrats, as we might predict.
It’s unclear why testosterone administration did not induce a significant Red Shift in the strong Democrats. Possibilities may include that their leftism is motivated by different aspects of the personality trait Neuroticism (negative feelings). They are not left-wing because they are anxious but, rather, because they are angry and resentful of those whom they see as having power over them. Testosterone, in making them more aggressive, is only going to strengthen these feelings. Leftism is associated not just with anxiety but also with low Agreeableness and poor impulse control; that is psychopathic traits or traits related to psychopathy [Corrigendum to ‘The nature of the relationship between personality traits and political attitudes’ [Personal. Individ. Differ. 49 (2010): 306–316], By B. Verhulst et al., Personality and Individual Differences, 2016].
As I have noted elsewhere, in a Republican or strong Democrat, psychological and possibly genetic factors are so robust that testosterone is less influential. However, the psychological make-up in moderate leftists is more environmentally plastic and, thus, testosterone is more influential. Alternatively, testosterone increases risk-taking, which might cause weakly affiliated Democrats — who are similar in testosterone levels to Republicans — to “risk” a “Red Shift” for which they might normally feel guilty given prevailing societal attitudes.
But, overall, the stereotype is cautiously confirmed. Compared to conservative males, liberal males are weak and effete. They are low-testosterone Soy Boys, and this explains their anxiety and their thoroughly cowardly behaviour of virtue-signalling to attain status: The boys who were bullied in the playground are now dictating the social rules in many Western countries.
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Okay, I’ve only glanced at this, but that’s enough to tell me it’s all nonsense. Post-weaning, stay off anything dairy. Be a soy boy or soy girl. Be a dairy-free vegetarian with iron supplement or just dairy-free meat eater with no need for iron supplement.
With all the shit in our water, air and food, it is surprising that Western males have any testosterone at all.
Zealous leftism is motivated by sadism and a desire to dominate. That they have such feelings so strongly without testosterone is weird, but boosting test will only make these feelings stronger.
There might also be a bimodal distribution, with very low testosterone leading to very high leftism, and a second population of psychopaths. The first brings down the test average, the second responds to more test by going even further left, erasing the [average] red shift.
Put another way, the weak demoncrats are true believers, while the devout leftists are just lying. The greater test makes wokism less credible, but they already didn’t believe in it.
Finally there might be reverse threshold effects. There’s a level of [enough] testosterone beyond which nothing much happens except an increase in prostate cancer. Likewise there might be a minimum threshold. A partial one at least, knowing that even trace test can uncomfortably masculinize a woman.
—
Wokism is extremely feminine and functional males cannot believe in it. Lift weights, get reasonably levels of test, and several woke tenets simply vanish, as the host is no longer a viable environment for them.
Left-wing men have less testosterone and are less masculine than their right-wing counterparts. To right-wingers, this is a pleasing truth, since it discredits the other side.
But it’s just as true that right-wing women are less feminine than their counterparts. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had lower estrogen levels. Now this is not so pleasing to right-wing ears, is it?
In truth, the same principle applies across the board.
Masculinity is right-wing, femininity is left-wing.
Left-wing men and right-wing women are a little androgynous.
I don’t think so, at all. But it’s only a hunch.
I’ll explain:
I’ve read papers on Feminism (digit ratio studies) and nowadays being a left-wing woman and a feminist are very much strong correlates.
Feminists are strongly masculinised women. Just like lesbians.
(Being a lesbian and a feminist are positive correlates, as well.)
Yes! Irony of ironies!
Feminists, the women who claim to know what women really should do, want and need… in fact, do not think like women do – but rather like men more-or-less would!
I love reading Dutton; some silly albeit common-sense question then a whole bunch of buckshot scattered research (some of it by his friends and very probably peer reviewed by him) and finally a confirmation of his thesis.
Look I am a right-wing conservative thus sympathetic but, unfortunately social science research is not quite that simple. Usually, in social science when you find that everything fits (and with Dutton everything does indeed fit every single time) that only means you’re doing something wrong. Life is complicated. When you find what you want to find you get Freud and Mead and Wilhelm Reich and Jung and… and look where that got us.
Furthermore, this time the article was barely readable. He really needs to work on clarity (among other things). He writes a lot of books and writes a lot of articles, thinking that by sheer quantity he’s going to be acknowledged as some sort of expert on something but the problem is that this article is the result of writing a lot.
Thanks for your informative ” review “. Another point about this author : the habit to never point to the real ((culprits)) but to point instead to highly fantasist subjects such as : testosterone, fluor in the water, color of your pillow, etc..
Ok, there is some truth in this, but… How convenient for this low testosterone cuck…
( Accusatory inversion as usual )
This kind of article may appear extremely insightful, but in fact it simply leaves out what matters most. If woke men are socially conformist, what are they conforming to? If they are submissive, who are they submitting to? Are there woke masters and woke slaves, so to speak? Are the woke masters high on testosterone? Are they “rightwing”? Does that terminology even make sense?
In women, higher oestrogen is associated with greater right-wing behaviour.
For numerous reasons, surveying a woman’s beliefs – especially by verbally asking her about it – is an exercise in futility.
It’s not really about reductive chemical markers, but health wholistically. Eating better and sleeping better are also anti-leftism agents.
The primary cause of communist rhetoric is being unable to work for one’s dinner. Stalin and Lenin quoted [don’t work, neither shall he eat] precisely because communism is about eating, less the working.
Wokists foment communism because they genuinely cannot survive without it. (And think they’ll be best buddies with Lenin or Stalin 2.0.) The more capable an individual is of supporting himself or snagging a supporting man on her own merits, the less susceptible and supportive they are communist ideas and policies.
The type of woman I’m attracted to is: the blue-haired “I’m happier when I’m sad” whom the Right calls a ‘harpie’.
That’s because my brain leans Left-Wing (although, not extremely).
My brain is full of those mental illnesses that allow me to “think outside-the-box”, as E. O. W. Kirkegaard has corroborated: That has helped Jews to be overrepresented amongst geniuses.
P.S.: I happen not to be Jewish.
.
.
.
Having such a brain makes me a preservationist (which’s a Left-Wing value), hence I want to preserve every Race of Man, including the White Race.
Also, it’s just logical and rational to support the White Race preserved: if Whites wane, Asians won’t be their equals, as Asians are less creative.
In fact, Satoshi Kanazawa concoct this argument above. He is right. Even if he is wrong, that merits attention and inspection, as the mere fact of such an argument being able to be cogently stated (with so much evidence to substantiate it) is omninous for the future of Civilisation.
Paper on Kanazawa-Miller’s ‘Asian Creativity’ Debate: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00547/full
Except Kanazawa is a bit like Dutton; poses an interesting question but then he finds affirmation almost immediately by cherry picking research and then he moves on to an another question, finds affirmation by finding something in the tons of social research that is done and moves on…and on…and on.
This kind of research has been done before by Freud et al. and is pretty much useless. Furthermore, even quite rigorous social science research has trouble being replicated. The validity of anything Dutton and Kanazawa state is really in doubt even though readers of Unz, by the very nature of being Unz readers, have a certain sympathy to what they say. I certainly do even if I think Dutton and Kanazawa are going about it the wrong way.
“Are Liberal Males Low in Testosterone?”
I don’t think that you can explain the sociopathic, callous, unethical beliefs and behaviors of conservative males on high testosterone levels. There are plenty of highly masculine men that are good peoplel What is wrong with conservatives is in their hearts, not necessarily in their testicles.
In all seriousnes, your saltiness is understandable. You have insulted liberals/progressives multiple times, calling them mutants and now soy boys. At the heart of your spite is your realization that liberals far outnumber conservatives among elites: among the higher socioeconoic classes, among professsionals and intellectuals. At the core, your hate comes from the fact that you realize that liberals hold power over you, and that you are powerless to change it.
The “coming conservative revolution”? Please…conservatives can’t organize even a caucus properly, let alone a country. A country where conservatives dominate will basically be Mexico that speaks(broken) English.
Liberals, for the most part, are just flat out smarter and more competent than conservatives. And this is why you hate them so much.
No, no, no, communist countries were extremely intolerant of freeloaders-they had hard criminal penalties for parasites who loafed and did not work. There was welfare but it was largely limited to handicapped or expectant/young mothers with the mom expected to return to work. They provided employment but the person who was employed was expected to work, if not one could end up in jail or an actual work colony where…you had to work or starve. Communist countries were actually much harder on welfare leeches than capitalist countries.
That communist countries were somehow tolerant of freeloaders and that communism encouraged freeloading and that the whole system was developed by freeloaders is a bizarre libertarian myth that developed due to fact libertarians had no idea how communist countries actually functioned day-to-day and thus created artificial mind worlds as is the case of most libertarian thinking.
In fact if you look at the lives of Ayn Rand or Nathaniel Branden for example you are struck by the fact that these people never actually ran a business or produced a material good. They wrote books and film scripts about fictional happenings or wrote stupid essays creating artificial worlds. They more less loafed living off residuals or speaker fees with transportation provided, a nice gig if you are smart enough to game the system.
Branden chose to be a psychotherapist thus a non-productive pseudoscientist leech and Ayn Rand was a script writer which is nothing really productive, at most slightly interesting and at worst again a leech. Interestingly enough Rand was a script writer back in Soviet Russia. The film industry in Soviet Russia being an exception to the general rule (in the real world there are always exceptions). The Soviet film industry being notorious as highly unproductive utilizing thousands of scriptwriters, laborers etc. with an actual small output of films to the resources utilized compared to almost every other film industry.
Ayn Rand was a smartie able to game the system in any society to support her lazy ass.
There seems to be truth in the meme, but I don’t find this method convincing at all as it’s laid out here.
The obvious question is, isn’t there direct data on this ? I’m sure there is somewhere. At least for Western countries about T levels. It would be a lot more impressive than a bunch of stupid ‘indicators’, but still the question being answered is incredibly tangential, really very divergent actually, to the proposition Dutton starts with.
Instead of getting to the truth of the soy meme, this appears as a way of flattering scientists who probably don’t have particularly high T themselves, by pointing to populations they may or may not have sprung from. It’s very misleading nonsense and tells us nothing at all.
And I would certainly guess a proportion of Nobel Prizes are for incredibly boring things that don’t require so much risk taking as a relentless plodding interest in the subject.
So if IQ were equalized across the world then SS Africa should be full of Nobel Prize winners
This is taking Communist propaganda at face value. They claimed to have penalties, yes, but did not apply them. Strategic credulity, or genuinely this gullible?
Ah, strategic credulity. Just liar things.
Two Communists pretending to be libertarian.
Projection: Communist deliberately misunderstands libertarianism, so that they can present strategic misunderstanding as normal, so there’s nothing unusual about lying about Communism.
No actually the commies were very rigid in penalizing people who were lazy and tried to live off the dole or not work. Yeah the commies were notorious having laws on the books that were not enforced but parasitism was not in the same league as human rights laws. Communist human rights laws were there for cosmetic reasons to impress Western intellectuals but parasitism laws were strictly enforced.
Factory managers had incentive to enforce these laws since if their factory did not meet a quota, their jobs were on the line or, in Stalin’s time, worse.
Now in every society, people figure out how to game the system. I mentioned the Soviet film industry-thousands of scriptwriters, costume makers etc. who were not doing anything but still getting payed monthly. Interestingly, yes Ayn Rand gravitated towards scriptwriting knowing fully well that that’s any easy job.
Now why was the Soviet film industry like this- it being a giant dole? Hmmm which ethnic group predominated in the Soviet film industry?….hmmm the same ethnic group known for its high literacy rate and historic ability to game the system, no factory labor for them.
Look when the Eastern European countries joined the EU they all had to change their approach to Gypsies. They all had the old commie system where gypsies were send to dig ditches or harvest potatoes in order to qualify for family support. The EU was shocked by this and often sued the East Euros with the result is the East European gypsies now live off welfare just like in the West.
Modern Western communists since the sixties (people like Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman) were indeed lazy drugged-up bastards who liked talking instead of working but in actual commie countries welfare leeches were actively persecuted much more than in Western countries where welfare leeches are seen as a source of votes. The point is that Western leftism and Eastern leftism were culturally different in their approach to freeloading the system.
Look we can debate this forever but the point is that historically commie countries actively persecuted freeloaders much more than in the West. The point of confusion is that in the West freeloading is associated with crazy left-wing causes which is true enough but all societies are different-commies in power put the boot on freeloaders. That might be surprising due to a cultural misunderstanding of seeing what Western lefties campaign for, but its the truth.
Thinking about this where Libertarians (who are in the main an honorable bunch if we discard the Rand worshippers) are a bit confused about that the commies encouraged freeloading is that they remember the Cold War reports of Soviet factories being idle and full of workers doing nothing.
How did these reports come about in the first place? In these reports, a Western journalist visits a factory and sees workers just doing nothing. Fair enough but seriously do you think any Soviet factory manager would allow Western journalists to actually visit his factory? It’s not like being a Michigan journalist and just calling Ford and asking for a tour of the Edsel factory. It’s 1965 the height of the Cold War and you are the manager of the Moscow Zil plant and you get a phone call from the resident Washington Post journo asking for a tour. Hell no! The guy is a westerner so working for the CIA and your factory is half civilian and half military production.
Evan today imagine this situation-you are the head of a Apple software lab and a Tass reporter calls up “hello comradski, I from Tass, I want tu si yur lab., I be by on Friday” Hell no! The guy is from the KGB and he’ll place bugs in the lab.
Yet weirdly enough, throughout the Cold War we have reports of western journos touring Soviet factories and seeing idleness. On principle this would have never happened. No manager would allow westerners who are likely spies to tour a factory that makes armed forces things (like almost all large factories in Russia did). Even if you wanted to, you knew that if the news that you allowed a westerner to tour your factory came to your superiors they would fire you.
Remember also throughout the Cold War these same journalists who got to go on impossible tours of factories also reported that Russian women were man-like and ugly. Now these journos lived in Russia and obviously knew this wasn’t true yet they reported a falsity.
You can prove Communism is about riding free in two steps. Money was invented so long ago it’s evolutionarily relevant; written into the human genome. https://nakamotoinstitute.org/library/shelling-out/ If you’re okay with getting stuff without free riding, you can just pay for it like a normal person. “To each according to his willingness to pay,” doesn’t have a ring to it because it’s like explaining that the sun rises in the morning. Many true things are obvious, which stops them from sounding profound. Conversely, it is sufficiently easy to sound profound if you start by lying. “There must be some deep reason black is white, up is down, and slavery is freedom.”
Communism is particular is such an obviously bad idea that the Owenites couldn’t convince the famously gullible American public to buy into it. Everyone since Robert Owen learned from his mistakes. They know that you have to lie about Communism to get anywhere. Lying works great, as it turns out. Ref: Jaques Ellul.
My favourite was Stalin claiming that Hitler wasn’t a Communist, and Hitler adopting that lie wholesale. Yeah, it’s Socialism, that famously right-wing political form. N.B. It was guaranteed that Hitler would lose, because Communism is ontologically committed to internationalism, in direct contradiction with particularisms like nationalism. If you’re not a
catholicuniversalist, Communism doesn’t even occur to you.My favourite local lie is the idea that, in the year of our lord 2024, you believe Communist anti-slacking laws were any less hypocritical than anti-racism laws. Yes, hello, welcome from under-rock-land. We have TV and cookies, you’ve probably never seen those either. (Maychance they’re just lying. Either or.)
To first order approximation the laws in Communist countries like America or the USSR don’t mean anything.
—
Refining my point about misconstruing libertarianism. Communists have to promote upside down clown epistemology, because if you look Communism straight on it disproves itself. If they can get you taking clown world conclusions for granted, they can twist your thinking and get you analyzing Communism backwards, thus accepting it.
Most [[libertarians]] promote a free market because they believe it produces the fairest, most equal, most [[democratic]] outcome. They don’t do it because they like freedom or anything silly like that. They notice Communism produces startlingly unfair results and think they can get true Equality by doing the opposite or whatever.
Check: adults do not care if things are fair. Fairness is an obsession for children.
Not coincidentally, children cannot reasonably support themselves. They can’t simultaneously be healthy and pay for the things they need. Have to be Redistributed to According To Their Needs. Governments have a very long history of trying to usurp the rights of parents by arrogating parental duties to themselves…
Check again: true freedom is having the freedom to sell yourself into slavery. True freedom is being able to alienate your [[inalienable rights]]. Libertarians don’t go for that, because it produces [[unfair]] distributions. That and some superstitions. What if I want to have a king? What then, libertarian? Most self-proclaimed libertarians are fundamentalist believers. They wouldn’t use the phrase [false consciousness] but they would certainly speak as if they’re thinking it.
When Communists use upside-down logic on (allegedly) non-Communist things, you can safely predict they’re using upside-down logic on Communist things too, and comfortably assume they believe the opposite of what they’re saying.
You already told that lie. Repeating it doesn’t make it any more credible.
Even Communists admit that if fraud was endemic to the uSSR, then Communism is self-refuting. “It has never been tried…but we admit it got close enough.”
It is true that the losers of the free-riding competition would be subjected to slave labour. Stalin and Lenin get to free ride off the slave labour of the less politically deft Russian. Insofar as anything got done in the USSR – i.e. insofar as they didn’t starve to death – it was the result of successfully whipping the slaves.
Also, this line of argument is off-topic. I spoke about Communist rhetoric and Communist ideas, not about the prevalence of successfully enslaving Russians. The bit of being Stalin and Lenin’s buddy is in there precisely because the lumpenproles can’t successfully ride free the way Communism promises.
Here [different] means in the west they pretend gypsies can’t work, and in the east they pretend the gypsies do work. So [different].
Is this wordcelibacy? “I’ve said the words, why aren’t you believing the words?”
It’s because they’re lies! Also the lack of any sort of evidence or reasoning supporting the words. My condolences, browbeating doesn’t work on me.
Fun fact: beatings don’t cause morale to improve.
Strategic gullibility.
This yobbo just admitted they deliberately chose a non-representative example to represent [most libertarian thinking].
Bro don’t walk it back so easy. You’re supposed to pretend to need convincing and cajoling, otherwise it reveals you didn’t need convincing.
“Oh yeah the Potemkin Villages were real but they were trying to convince the West the USSR was impoverished and dysfunctional.” “No no they made a fake factory but nobody thought to pay the actors to pretend to be busy.”
“Never question Stalin, Comrade. He’s always right, after all.”
“They said yes anyway, of course, which is how so many factories got toured.”
Next we’ll see the Communist walk back from the idea that anyone believes what western journos say.
http://libertarian.co.uk/2021/08/22/personal-perspectives-019-eastern-eyes-how-i-learned-first-hand-about-the-realities-of-socialism-2003-by-peter-saint-andre/
http://izrailit.blogspot.com/2009/11/wall.html
Fun fact: useful idiots know they are idiots.
Oh get off it-I’m not praising Communism I’m saying life is complicated with societies and cultures basically adapting to the conditions they are historically dealt with. That is different from “real communism hasn’t been tried”. This I do not agree with, I feel they tried real communism and found it wanting since actual communism has actual limits. And no, you ain’t gonna get a better communism next time you try.
Nevertheless, I feel if life gives you lemons you make lemonade-societies sometimes get lemons but societies don’t just curl up and die, they adapt to conditions the best they can, although, for some reason, that is a point that you can’t comprehend.
To this I’m just going to point out one thing you said; communism is internationalist, in practice communist regimes were highly nationalistic, that is why Eastern European states are largely monoethnic today unlike Western European states. The Eastern Euro states paid lip service to internationalism but underneath they thought Africans and Asians were beneath them, while the North Koreans, the craziest commies are ultra, ultra, ultra-nationalistic. Oh jeez if we can’t agree on this there is no point to continue.
Another things that the USSR was a giant Potemkin village is Western propaganda, they really did build large factories, shipyards etc. that did put out products, real products, although they always had shortages due to the inherent limitations of the communist system. The shortages are a real world fact but that doesn’t mean commie products like trains, ships, truck, fridges, typewriters etc. didn’t exist. I can point out that they beat us to space with real rockets, satellites and space capsules and you’ll say it was filmed in a studio. Oh jeez if we can’t agree on this there is no point to continue.
Another thing…well I skimmed some of your diatribe and you basically are a fanatic, no need to continue. I will say one logical thing and you’ll say it was an illusion. Historically it is a fact the commies were tough on slackers, often tougher than the West and you’ll say no. In fact, bizarrely you for some reason keep insisting on this. Oh jeez if we can’t agree on this there is no point to continue.
Look this debate will not go anywhere, yes, you are a Libertarian fanatic. One can talk to Libertarian and indeed learn some things but not to a fanatic. It’s like talking to a Mormon; me: no God was not a man and Jesus Christ and Lucifer were not brothers and when you die you don’t get a planet to rule overs as god with several ever-pregnant wives at your side. Him: but what if you do? me: no you don’t, him: but what if you do? Will a Mormon and a normal person ever come to an agreement in a theological debate? No, see it’s no use.
There is no point in debating a man who thinks Ayn Rand was a crypto-communist send out to destroy Libertarianism. That is the very definition of being a fanatic. In real life, Ayn Rand was a Libertarian and an anti-communist but a nut, you can be several things at once-she was two nice things but still f…ed up as a person as well as a lazy-assed slacker who avoided real work. If you think she was a communist agent you are a fanatic. No she wasn’t and your interpretation of her is strange but then again most of your interpretations are strange. Feel free to explore Scientology, you’ll feel right at home there.
Buh Bye.
“When my lies are exposed, I make a virtue of necessity.” Social posturing in lieu of, like, argument. Classic cluster B gaslighting.
That’s nice, I don’t care.
“I’m not a Communist, I’m just an anti-anti-Communist.” Uh huh.
Is that you, Noam Chomsky?
Ah yes, “Communism works on paper.” lool
“Not paying for stuff is a great idea, but it turns out real life has scarcity…”
Realize these characters are clowns. You’re supposed to laugh. Sure they killed tens of millions of slavs (the bulk of them Ukrainian…sound familiar?) but if Russians couldn’t fight back, didn’t they deserve it?
Darwin awards the best rewards.
Oh, it’s you, Walter Duranty! Can’t make omelets without breaking a few eggs, lmao.
Ann Rand was right about a few things, such as the fact that Communists are anti-life, and all the death makes them like Communism more, not less.
In fact Stalin regularly persecuted the ethnic Russian in favour of immigrants in exactly the same way wokists persecute the legacy American. This bait-and-switch brought to you by the fact Stalin’s immigrants happened to be similar in colour to Russians rather than as different as possible.
“The goal was to deplete the population of those areas with a large concentration of certain ethnic groups who had a distinctive lifestyle, as well as who spoke, raised their children and published newspapers in their ethnic languages.”
https://www.rbth.com/history/333112-stalin-forced-relocation-nations
Ethnic Russian behaviour was not excused. He couldn’t use [deportation] on the majority, so importation was used instead. The only Moscow minority community that didn’t grow under Stalin was the Jews, ha.
Again, leaping to the defence of Communism. (With conscious falsehoods.)
Exactly like Lincoln.
Speaking of the Koreans, they were [[deported]] from places near Korea to all the way west, next to Afghanistan.
Nope.
Ironically it wasn’t the Soviets who did that, it was some ethnic Germans. Moved there in the 1800s. Stalin also had them making his weapons. In other words Hitler would have beaten America to space too if he’d been allowed to exist.
It’s America that does things in studios.
Still an off-topic discussion. I spoke about Communist rhetoric, you’re still on the slave labour factories.
Yes, so that Stalin can ride free, others have to be slaves. You can’t be a free rider if there’s nobody to ride. That’s why the wokist believes they’ll be best buds with Lenin 3.0 or Stalin 2.0.
Clearly didn’t read the other posts either. Got too emotional to finish, I suppose.
Yes, I’m the classic pro-slavery pro-monarchy libertarian, kekekek. So median I’m downright basic.
I wonder if his judgment on other matters is just as unreliable, lol?
I see. Yes, that makes sense. Most Americans are fundamentalist fanatics of their anti-god religion.
“I’m saying the words, why aren’t you believing the words?!?”
“I’m repeating the shibboleths, and you’ll say they’re outgoup. How illogical!” rofl
Yeah those fanatic racists are such losers, right? Down with heretics.
“Yes, most libertarians are ingroup Communists to me.”
I wonder if he’s still speaking about Randians or if this is another bait-and-switch?
Err, there are no non-fanatic Communists.
P.S. Jesus was Lucifer’s grandchild, not brother. Also immortal family trees aren’t like mortal family trees, and these ones are related more like mitosis than like sexual reproduction.
He’s aware that what he’s doing is invalid, he just does it anyway and tries to browbeat you into pretending he isn’t doing it. Very Stalinist.
Remember, to Communists black is white and up is down. This statement means he fully believes Rand was a Communist.
Ah, so if I never said or implied Rand was in the employ of the KGB, you’re ontologically committed to admitting I’m not a fanatic.
Neat.
Takes one to know one, and I’ve been excused from the club.
you’re insane
Soft-Leftism is the path of least resistance for people born into contemporary Western society. So-called “wokism” intrudes into Soft-Leftism but “wokists” who aren’t rich are by necessity highly discontented people. Hard to see them as being well-adjusted.
It’s hard to know what Dutton actually means when he speaks about “Left” and “Right.”
People who feel they are in control going to feel more content with the current system, but may worry that “the Left” (like Biden letting in huge numbers of migrants one of whom rear-ended Hunter Wallace’s car) is going to interfere in their lifestyle.
Other “highly successful” people may be totally socialized into a milieu where left-wing ideas are completely taken for granted and the opposition is considered beneath them.
One thing is for sure: the promotion of androgenic injections in the popular culture is intended to atrophy the testicles of the white race. That’s the PURPOSE.