A serious discussion. You need to drop the 'us' versus 'them' bullshit (specifically, the Republicans v Democrats part, and more of it being the common people about common sense and common decency versus those who want neither).

Education reform is pointless as education is dictated by government and filtered/distorted by teachers (a lot don't like Trump).

Points to consider:

There's no one universal classification for even a politician (even if they sign up to a particular party), which is why you get hardliners, moderates, centrists and the like.

Parties often don't represent the views of their voters. I know people who were opposed to the TPP from the left of the aisle and people who supported it from the right. These days it's been inverted, for some reason.

The TPP was a monster to the common people, who, regardless of political alignment (if they had read the TPP or the breakdown) knew it was a bad idea. Democrats tried to sign it into power, even as left-leaning activisit organisations openly opposed it's signing.

These same activists won't acknowledge Trump did a good thing by killing it off, even though it's obvious no-one wanted it in the first place.

Far-left and far-right are both critical of israeli's policies and treatment of palestinians.

People from both sides of the aisle also openly support freedom of speech, even as the Democrats etc erode it. I've spoken with a transsexual - often the target of Alex Jones rants - who supports Alex Jones freedom to speech *even if they disagree with what he says*.

The right to freedom of speech, the opposition to corruption, and outside influences, is practically universal.

I feel like all other issues should be dissolved to the state level to decide. So instead of having universal gun laws or universal abortion, it's devolved to a state level, that way, people can move to the state that best suits their own ideals.

I think pretty much everyone else agrees on freedom of speech, freedom from oppression etc.

So, unite people by:

Only federally enforcing laws everyone agrees on, and

Devolving all laws people disagree on to the state level (so the people can have more local debates on the issue).

Other than that, I recommend people stop calling everyone a 'typical liberalist' or 'typical far-right' or whatever political stereotype, and work on refuting the argument or policies they put forth.

When Republicans take power (I'm anti-privatisation), I don't get salty, I just write up effective proposals for reducing costs on public spending (without harming it's output).

I work with both political parties, as and when necessary, and so should, on some level, everyone else. Be careful in how you help or what you help with, but people can be swayed with effective arguments.

the left pretend to better than the right

the right knows, this behavior gives bad people the shadow to hide

as long the left is not able to get the dirt out of their own house, as long they throw a blind eye on all the shit happening on their site, clinton and what not, nothing can be done.

Agreed, I thought to help the division we could just eliminate the sides…Most people I have talked to seem to think this whole party opposition is nuts.

This leads me to believe there is a group of radicals that voice their opinions for EVERYONE (others just correct them). The problem I see is there is hardly any civil discussion on topics that would greatly benefit the country (guns, abortion, death penalty, immigration/border security to name a few). For example, every time I bring up a controversial topic like the ones listed there is a period of "hmmm ok" and then "okay we should stop there!" which forces me to talk about these issues only with a small group of people I know VERY WELL. Not everyone wants to discuss topics in great detail, fair enough. But it makes it very difficult to live off of a few talks a month or so as i'm quite young and interested in them (hence why i'm here).

In my 4 years of highschool, I never really saw a discussion about controversial topics (politics, religion and alike). I mentioned education reform because I figured a class requirement could entail a discussion of the topics talked about in class (about 20 mins or so) at the end of the week. Essentially everyone would be required to voice their opinion once a week for a significant portion of their grade. This would force other students to listen to the differing views of their classmates and possibly lessen the effect of echo chambers. IDK some food for thought in the long term for future generations.

This along with project based learning, which some schools already have, could get adults to work with each other as it was shown in their earlier years. I suppose i'm trying to correct the culture in the end but eh not really sure…

Something has to be done eventually though I would think…otherwise it would make passing laws, running the country and etc. very difficult (even impossible)

I don't like the idea of a civil war but isn't that the worst possible scenario?

>>2623521

I agree with what you've said here and here.

>>2623640

Keep up the good work.

Let the Matrix rule us.

>This leads me to believe there is a group of radicals that voice their opinions for EVERYONE

I can confirm this.

I'm apolitical (I don't fit neatly into any political category, you'll find policies from across the board), so I befriend all types, left, right, centrist (although I'm mildly wary of extremist viewpoints because they call for blood and I'm not comfortable with that being perpetuated against innocents), don't really care what your political alignment is, if we agree, I'll try to help you.

Often get attacked by shills ('group of radicals') trying to pigeonhole, at which point my friends from all sides of the aisle are quick to point out I don't fall into a box (or even worse for the radicals, that they agree with me). At which point, shills ('group of radicals') turn on them, try to pigeonhole - even if some of those people are far-left, left, doesn't matter what aisle or position, radicals deem them the enemy.

I've not yet encountered one genuine person in favour of censorship. I've encountered a few that disdain 'hate speech', but when I ask them to define, consider how easy that is to distort (if I critique you, is that hate speech?) they often agree it's vague - what they imagine is it will be used against violent types who organise to kill, but what they discover is it's used to stifle criticism, silence dissent.

Being open to all political viewpoints, I've seen the good and the bad in all sides I've encountered, but none are so zealous as the political parties, that seem to be a voicebox onto themselves. Conspiracy theorists come from all sides of the political spectrum, and yet these are the kinds of people Media Matters want censored, which alienates the liberal conspiracy theorist, and the centrist who has no real beef, and merely antagonises the right even further.

Having spoken with many members of the public, conspiracy theory is a widely regarded thing (whether it's as simple as believing pharmaceutical collusion all the way up to deep corruption across the globe), in-fact, I would say most people believe in at least one conspiracy theory, or have doubts to that effect. Most don't research it to the level we do, but attacks on conspiracy theory, censorship, is tantamount to attacks on the public.

I've seen political parties time and again do things that their voter base asked them not to. Obama signing the DARK act (anti-GMO labelling law), TPP into power. Labour going to war in Iraq. Tories bombing parts of Libya and Syria. Republicans initially not wanting to support Trump even though the voters wanted him in power. Even the media tries to tell you, the public, what to do, to think, to believe!

We are not these corporations. We are human beings who care for each other very deeply.

We shall not be divided so easily along partisan lines.

We shall unite!

>>2624272

Ah so i'm not crazy! I mentioned this idea to an acquaintance of mine (not friend as I found out he's a literal communist who silences anyone who speaks to him) and he basically said that it was ridiculous.

Another thing that drives me nuts is this _insert group here_ matters group thing…OK YES EVERYONE MATTERS WE GET IT! Could we please talk about issues of importance now? But the culture we live in seems so centered on groups mattering (race, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation) that the individual falls to the wayside and isn't addressed. I understand individual identification is only part of the overall picture but the focus seems a bit off nowadays. Black lives matter, police lives matter, media matters and etc.

Why is it not self evident that people matter at least a little? Couldn't people just ask themselves why they're getting attacked/oppressed or silenced instead of creating these groups? They all seem redundant to me…Hell why not advocate for solutions to the problem instead of holding protests and rallies, what do these gathering even do to help people? I guess it's all about feeling needed or having a purpose? Not entirely sure on that one

>>2623521

Thank you for posting. Love and peace, anon.

Remember you are on the chans posting this. (white space is considered rude here, and you will get called out / yelled at for it). It's hard to read and very distracting.

>>2624501 this is mostly targeted @ zammy but also to >>2624272 as well. I think one of the issues is actually partially how you worded that last post, i.e.

>an acquaintance of mine (not friend as I found out he's a literal communist who…

I think it's possible to be friendly toward everyone, even if friendship is sometimes difficult. Don't worry, I know this very well, I lost my gf over my own political beliefs, and I tried my very hardest to never express them unless directly asked. All the same, it may be somewhat comforting to know that similar conversation are taking place on the left, within the left. Even the left is recognizing its own hysteria and seeking to find common ground among each other, and also potentially the other side. Obviously this is not as much happening on different chans/boards/sites/msm dedicated to one or the other political echochamber, but it is happening within academia at least, and it's visible on twitter if you're following people from around the political spectrum. For example, here is one guy from the left (some psychologist lecturer based out of Ireland I think – or anywhere somewhere in the UK). Searching around twitter followers starting from academic twitter will get you a lot of folks at least interested in hearing alternative viewpoints, alternative hypotheses, data and evidence, and generally less tolerant of ad hominem as a valid debate tactic. For example, one kind of interesting guy (very much a lefty) are folks like @MurphPsych (find him on twitter). I don't think he's very famous in the academic world of things (just a lecturer not a professor), but he's active enough on twitter. He wrote an article about how the left needs to reevaluate the left and come up with some type of workable positive philosophy instead of rallying around the negation of political opponents. I mention him because of an article he wrote on how to fix the left, find it here: https://sahjournal.com/index.php/sah/article/download/123/113 . I think it's actually fair and balanced and very reasonable. I also think there is literally no reason whatsoever to think that those ideas are NOT endorsed by the RIGHT also. If you have folks in your life that it's hard to talk to because of political divisions, have them take a look at that article. It comes from a lefty, and it's supported mostly by his lefty twitter followers. But I support it too and I'm not a lefty at all. It might be useful to help spell out the areas where there actually is common ground.

(Also, he's very very critical of the left. So it might be hard to hand them that as someone who is not on the left yourself. If they get that from a lefty though, it's great, and then it's easy to help move from that type of thing to something like: OK, now, how can we go about accomplishing those things? what should we do? And then the debates that are actually worth having are about which policies to implement, and how to go about implementing them.

Without something like that, some type of spelled out common ground, everyone is just screaming at each other all the time.

I think it used to be we could all at least point to the constitution as something everyone pretty much rallied around, but for some reason even that right now carries emotional overtones and specific associations in the minds of lefties to "radical alt-right" or "uber-conservatives" / associations with Sen. Cruz, or other "constitutional conservatives", and tends to emotionally charge the debate before it can even begin. smh. Wish we had more civics classes in high schools, that type of thing might not happen as much.

>>2628518

Also, something that I would personally find very helpful – and perhaps others would as well – are more articles spelling out positive political philosophies that are written by , endorsed by lefties, and that people on the right could also reasonably endorse. The other way around is sometimes harder in my opinion, but then again, it's always harder to take seriously information when you think it's written by someone representing "the other" (because, those barbarians! etc. type thoughts start warping your ability to rationally consider the information). Here's the one I mentioned again:

>https://sahjournal.com/index.php/sah/article/download/123/113 (written by https://twitter.com/MurphPsych , lefty, academic, psychology lecturer)

Please do contribute more stuff like that / twitter handles of rational type lefties like that if know of any and have them.

>>2628095

White space as in spaces between sentences and etc? I thought it was easier to read than my paragraphs tbh but mabye that's just me

>>2629020

It might just be my personal viewing patterns but I find it difficult to explore left policies and philosophies. There aren't many grounded lefties that aren't saying OPEN ALL THE BORDERS and EVERYONE IS EXACTLY THE SAME. I feel as if they're hidden as they don't support the mainstream "hate them if they're a republican" thing. That's another issue I have, the media, they aren't even attempting to report without a strong political bias (regardless of the political leaning though I feel the left news org. do it more often). Problems with too much information I suppose…

But I like the idea of some new left articles explaining their ideas, especially if they're reported on in the daily news cycle!

>>2628518

Yes, so i've tried taking various different stances when talking to people of drastically different beliefs (political or otherwise). I attempted a sort of "ya you're probably right" approach but then I can't voice my own opinions as well. Then there's the passive and simple "I agree or disagree" but then the conversation stops and he/she doesn't ask me why I disagree/agree with their ideas. It may also be the people I talk to as my current summer job is a lifeguard (not a place known for its' talkers of political issues). It seems like people are taught to ask less questions and just accept the ideas presented to them as it's just more convenient. That's how I used to be before someone taught me to actually think for myself.

Also thanks for the lefty references :P

I'll end up reading that 'how to fix the left' at some point I imagine

>are more articles spelling out positive political philosophies that are written by , endorsed by lefties

They don't exist. Left-leaning largely endorses 'positive discrimination' (adding 'positive' to it is meaningless: it's still discrimination) or socialism type digs that free market capitalism types don't generally approve of.

I find most people will agree on renewable energies, but not climate change (climate change is bullshit, from everything I've seen). Most agree on an element of environmentalism (EG recycling, cleaning up the oceans) but not to the level it's detrimental (EG banning cars).

Personally speaking, I find both sides agree on largely what a reasonable person would agree on. It's the more polarised policies that neither side can agree on.

>>2630754

It is easier, although chans use a wall of text for some reason.

>>2628095

>white space is considered rude

Perhaps, but I've refined my writing style so it retains maximum readability. Walls of text are rarely properly or thoroughly read, and even as an avid reader myself, having no spaces is difficult to process.

Don't mean to be rude, but I'm disinclined to change my style (proof I'm an old hand from 'elsewhere' and not the chans, per my first introduction to Qresearch).

>>2630938

>but I find it difficult to explore left policies and philosophies

I'm not going to kid here, but a lot of left-leaning ideologies are poorly thought out. As in, they haven't even been given a basic logical consideration.

I also find the mill for terrible ideas appears to originate in younger people coming out of university where idealism is an overwhelming driving force. These people have not encountered the harsh reality of evil or how their own ideas could be distorted, and you'll often find a lot of left-leaning types turn into conservatives as they get older and actually experience the world.

Naturally, due to the lack of experience, they don't know to scruntise bad policy proposals which are packaged as being left-leaning but actually aren't. Remember when the left were opposed to globalism? Now they support open borders, which is a globalism initiative - the globalist types simply repackaged their message and claimed 'something something tolerance' when in reality it's 'something something world citizen/no borders/dissolving national identity'.

There soon won't be a 'culture to appropriate' because if globalists succeed, there will be no distinct cultures period.

My first suggestion is to re-examine at what point did the left go from opposing the TPP and opposing globalism to supporting the TPP and supporting globalism.

I would say it happened within the last 20 years, maybe less.

>>2623174

All the problems in modern society stem from two, originally opposite forces, right liberalism and left liberalism.

Right liberalism is the ideology par excellence of the bourgeoisie. It glorifies the omnipotence of capitalism and how necessary and wise it is to surrender ourselves to the iron laws of economics, portrayed as fundamental as the forces of nature. As the bourgeoisie has been able to pin down the working class by exploiting the opportunities provided by globalization, right liberalism – the ideology of capitalism – has been busy contributing to the destruction of the material basis of life for the working class. While left liberalism has been pulling down what it has considered traditional, authoritarian and reactionary, left liberalism has also freed the individuals from their responsibilities and duties towards their community. Left liberalism is only concerned about rights, never duties. It believes that the reasons for dysfunctional behavior come from the outside, thus one cannot be expected to have any kind of self discipline. As right liberalism – the ideology of the bourgeoisie – had first destroyed the material basis for a decent living for the working class, it is no wonder that left liberalism was able to break the moral fiber of the national community.

The middle class tends to accept all the actions of the capitalist class aiming to strengthen its own position, thinking that this will benefit the middle class as well, but the capitalist class can always rely on the middle class’s support when it tries to bring down national borders in order to let the tide of cheap labor and foreign sweatshop products come in and to deregulate all controls on the movements of capital and production.

The Party will fight on two fronts: it will fight both against the capitalist class which at the moment holds both political power and economical power and against the extremist fractions. The Party will win because of the blindness, greed, short-sighted extremism and lack of analysis of its enemies. The Party is basically the violent reaction of the middle class and of the upper working class that have been cornered by liberal capitalism. Their desperation is the secret of the Party’s victory. After the Party has won the confidence of the middle class, it will launch a war of total destruction against the enemies of the people.

It used to be the left and the right represented two different, but equally valid, points of view. The right stood for upholding individual rights and freedom and making sure things work efficiently, and the left stood for taking care of collective concerns together and making sure everyone is taken care of. Reaching a compromise that takes both into account is necessary to govern a nation properly.

But this all changed when the cabal hijacked the left and turned it into a tool of subversion and destruction. There are two main reasons they chose the left for this:

1. The left is basically about caring about everyone, whereas the right is mainly about caring about yourself (guarding individual rights is good for the whole too, but that's more of a happy side effect). Both perspectives are needed, but it's much easier to paint the left as "good" (empathic) and the right as "bad" (selfish) than the other way around. The cabal needs a cover for their evil deeds, and what better for a wolf to mask his real intentions than wearing a sheep's skin? There is a lot of hypnotic power in pretending to be good, which is why all these evil people run "charity" foundations, and constantly pretend to care about the weak.

2. Women are naturally drawn to the left, whereas men instinctively lean to the right. This is of course because men and women have different natural roles: women take care of children and elders and manage group relations, whereas men are concerned with productivity and defense. The cabal knows that women will yield and adapt to any change to keep their children alive, whereas men will fight to defend their culture and nation. This means, men must be emasculated and kept down, and women must be "empowered". And the political left must always dominate the political right, because only the political right is capable of wielding male power.

Honestly, people need to read more. Every single interpersonal communication and success book I have read makes the argument that in order to build good relationships with people, you need to focus on similarities rather than differences. As someone who makes a living by interacting with others, I am hyper aware of just how little people know about interactions. The advent of social media and technology is much to blame, face to face communication is so rare that most people are uncomfortable with it. It shouldn't be like that, humans are very social creatures by nature. An astounding number of Americans simply don't really see other people as human beings with feelings and stories of their own.

John Maxwell discusses the Lens Principle which is somewhat similar to projection, but the basic idea is that you see the world through a lens that is tinted with your own personality. If you see other people you don't know as good people who just want to help, then you're probably a good person who wants to help others. If you think everyone is evil and out to harm you, then you are probably someone who is evil and would harm others for personal gain given the opportunity. It makes sense when you think about it fundamentally, no one has ever "been" someone else. The only information you have about what is going on in other peoples' heads is what goes on in your head.

So the only way to really heal the divide is to realize that there isn't even a divide, it has all been fabricated. We need to come together as a society and celebrate our similarities and shared triumphs instead of driving wedges between ourselves. It is apparent to everyone here that the whole "Left vs. Right", "Democrat vs. Republican" is just a total ruse to get people focused on things that don't matter so that they forget about the real battle: Good vs. Evil. If everyone is so hellbent on fighting the aforementioned battles, then the cabal is free to operate without scrutiny. They want us divided. Americans. Divided. The greatest nation the world has ever seen is tearing itself apart because people are apathetic, lazy, and don't care about the Constitution anymore. I mean dear God the idea of the government controlling the education system is not only extremely un-American, but it's also unconstitutional. Same with social security, medicare/medicaid, ANY gun law, ANY drug law, the list goes on.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty." -Ida B. Wells

>>2679797

hm, interesting…

I've thought about the left and right for a while and had all those pieces but never put them together quite like you did.

I felt as if the left had been corrupted as many intelligent/aware people who originally inhabited the left ran to the right to escape the new Oppression narrative (intense group identity politics and many other distasteful things).

It seems there aren't many reasonable people around on the left. The ones that still support the failing left either don't understand how broken it is, are part of the problem themselves (ie. buy into the "logic is a social construct" BS), or are attempting to fix its' problems without much success. It feels like the left has become nothing but mindless fools and I couldn't really point to anything aside from the the indoctrination of young people in schools combined with the convenience of our culture eliminating the doubts of any and all information being false.

It makes sense that men and women tend towards different political sides based on their societal roles and general differences. I've noticed a new set of males being produced tho, semi-beta males. They support all the women's rights organizations and fall heavily on the left and hold noticeably less masculine characteristics. I suspect this is due to parents (or singular parent) treating boys like defective girls or wrongly thinking that male characteristics are too violent and attempt to remove them all together. If you raise a boy like a girl then it's likely they will lack alot of male traits but I don't know the long term negative effects of this (i've only seen the result of it, which one could say is bad but eh who knows). These men submit and relate to women enough for me to notice but don't bow down like a beta-male would so…not sure what else to call them. It seems like they're more like women than men but I don't know…

>>2670821

>>2669143

ah yes, the left and right or 2 opposing groups (whatever you want to call them)

I've read a bit of Jordan Peterson's 12 rules for life (was sitting in my brother's boxes so I picked it up) and he speaks quite a bit about chaos and order. Various religions talk about this as a snake, ying and yang, "walking the path between the 2 lions" and etc.

Now I wouldn't go calling the left chaos and the right order or vice versa, but it does seem there has been an imbalance of the 2 lately. I feel as if there's been an increase of Chaos because of the fear of order. These new gender pronouns, identities, black lives matter, anti fa and alike all seem hell bent on destroying the order to replace it with their own "order". People don't like the current world order, fair enough. But I don't think people are going about it the right way imo…

IDK food for thought lol

>>2670821

Ya idk where the people are coming from but it seems there is a group or groups that work between the lines to support both sides to their own benefit. I would compare them to the gun manufacturers who profit off of wars between nations when they sell to both sides. Left or Right, they don't care it seems…

>>2680543

>>2669143

>proof I'm an old hand from 'elsewhere' and not the chans, per my first introduction to Qresearch

HAH, I think I should have put this thread in /politically incorrect or whatever it's called but I think this works just as well

This is also my first time/thread on 8chan

>>2680392

I like the idea of the John Maxwell lens Principle. It seems to make alot of sense, but I do find myself asking something. People develop the thought of "everything that could go wrong will go wrong" from being in situations that generally go south. For example, the people in the bottom 10% of wage earnings who basically live on nothing (think of it as the economic ghetto I suppose). They have to expect the worst of people in order to survive in the environment they live in as loyal friends are rare. Would that make them inherently evil then? I think as a consequence of their dog eat dog world life, which could be thought of as evil, yes but not of their own choice.

On the other hand, people with wealth to spare tend to have opportunities approach them constantly because of their surroundings (much like the bottom has evil approach them constantly). Would this then make them good? Mabye subjective good for an individual…just a thought

To your, "heal the divide": Yes it would be great…unfortunately humans also naturally point out things that are different and tend to fight them at a young age (dont' know why). ie. A bully who attacks the nerd who is smarter than everyone else and acts different to hide his own difference. Mabye the bully is gay, likes to watch the wrong shows or is abused by his single dad but the point is he's also different. It seems to me that the only way to get people to realize there "isn't a divide" is for them to explore the differences themselves and then see there are more similarities than differences.

And yes the tech centered society we live in does have the massive drawbacks that you mentioned :- BUT AT LEAST WE GET DRONE DELIVERY BEER!!

>>2680426

Concerning the new breed of "semi-beta" males as you call them…

Nature is inventive, and there is more than one potentially successful breeding strategy. As everyone knows, men will try to compete for the top dog position, so they can get all the ladies.

But what about those who know they are too weak to ever win that fight? Do you think they are going to just admit defeat and give up all attempts to ever get to spread their genes? Of course not!

There are other ways… One of them is to be so weak and useless all the other men laugh at you and don't even want you around for hunts and war parties. Then you act feminine, taking on feminine behaviors and doing jobs associated with the women. Take care of kids, fetch water, give grandma her meal. Blend in with the women.

And then when the strong men are out hunting or fighting, make a move on the women and try to get your dick wet while the women are unguarded. It's a pathetic life, but Nature doesn't judge how you get results, it only cares about getting them.

Being a pathetic feminized male could work. In fact, it's bound to work SOMETIMES, which is better than NEVER, which is the alternative for the weak male. And that's why this is a built-in strategy option that young men can develop, if they think it's the only chance they got.

The reason we have so many of them right now, is because our schools have been severely feminized, and boys are beaten down for showing any trace of male traits. This triggers the switch in them that says "seems like you're a loser mate, let's skip this male competition thing and try to blend in with the girls instead! Maybe you'll get lucky!"

The cabal has done IMMENSE damage to our societies. Our cultures are broken, and our young men and women are dysfunctional to the point where it's uncertain if we can undo the damage before our civilization collapses.

>>2680986

ah ok

I found myself leaning more towards the beta-male than others in high school and realized my error once I got burned enough. The idea of it sounds quite horrible so I turned the opposite way and ran!

But I saw that there was a drastic increase in the number of young men who acted this way. I figured it was their upbringing and education (and feminism too)

Men and Women are the same -cringe-

My point was more that these men were more than capable of leading the hunting party, which you pointed out as well. But they simply don't because of how they are raised and taught the "ways of the world". It's a little terrifying that people my age (18-20 though i'm 20) don't see the damage.

Also…this thread is the first I've heard of "the cabal"

a single search suggests it's similar to the Illuminati but based on the way the world is going it sounds more real than that.

Where did everyone first hear of this group?

>>2680503

It is doctrinaire Marxism.

The intent is to break down the system (Superstructure) hierarchy so it can be rebuilt from scratch from the pieces

>>2681323

I've heard of Marxism and looked into it a bit but not very much. It's mentioned quite a bit by Jordan Peterson and other intellectuals, guess I need to look WAY more into it then

Will be my new little project ty:P

>>2680986

And you all thought it was a clever "new" term.

The word cuckold derives from the cuckoo bird, alluding to its habit of laying its eggs in other birds' nests.[2][3] The association is common in medieval folklore, literature, and iconography.

English usage first appears about 1250 in the satirical and polemical poem The Owl and the Nightingale (l. 1544). The term was clearly regarded as embarrassingly direct, as evident in John Lydgate's "Fall of Princes" (c. 1440). In the late 14th century, the term also appeared in Geoffrey Chaucer's "The Miller's Tale".[3] Shakespeare's poetry often referred to cuckolds, with several of his characters suspecting they had become one.[3]

One often-overlooked subtlety of the word is that it implies that the husband is deceived, that he is unaware of his wife's unfaithfulness and may not know until the arrival or growth of a child plainly not his (as with cuckoo birds).[3]

The female equivalent cuckquean first appears in English literature in 1562,[4][5] adding a female suffix to the cuck.

A related word, first appearing in 1520, is wittol, which substitutes wit (in the sense of knowing) for the first part of the word, referring to a man aware of and reconciled to his wife's infidelity

>>2681652

huh, so when I call my friend a cucklord I know where it comes from now :)

Well there's the Alpha male, the strongest wolf in a pack

Then we assumed there was a Beta male, weaker wolf

Different words but the origin of cuckold explains it much better than the term "beta-male"

Here's a strategic initiative: co-opt identity politics.

Don't try to eliminate it; I doubt that can be done. Too many manipulators know of its power for that to happen.

Instead, co-opt it! If dignity and meaning can be seated in ways in which we humans are all demonstrably already alike, not different, then the various real and imagined differences that do exist will lose most of their punch.

Why would you want political parties?

They have never worked. They dont present honest argument or alternative option. They're like teams, or nations, you must support them regardless.

Or off team.

Ideas are what we are talking about and the contest is not between the men who hold them but the ideas themselves. Ideas dont have or belong to political parrties and neither should we.

>>2623174

Mass arrests.

Fix the divide? Sounds like commie shit to me. In all seriousness though, the only way to cause people to stop arguing, is to make them all the same. I for one am not only not interested, but I would actively oppose that.

So there is no political divide that needs fixing. Battle builds character and good arguments. A life unquestioned gets you Berkley.

Get outta here with that sillyness.

>>2681726

Human sexuality is a bit more complex than the sexuality of wolves though. Humans depend on cooperation in the group to survive, and all contributors must be rewarded for their contribution, or the cooperation breaks down. The alpha can't take it all for himself, because then the rest of the men would just leave the group. So it's more like this:

1. Alpha. The strongest and most capable man. The one who leads. The one who can speak his mind freely at all times, and who can interrupt anyone. Gets free access to all the women at all times.

2. Beta. A pretty strong and capable man whose contributions are essential to the survival of the group. Follows the Alpha's orders. Gets limited access to some women when he does something especially impressive.

3. Gamma. A relatively weak man who just barely pulls his weight. Never raises his voice in the group, defers both to the Alpha and the Betas. Only gets access to women if he pays them for it, in cash.

4. Omega. The loser man who is a dead weight. Defers to Alphas, Betas, and Gammas. Also defers to women, in the hope of a pity fuck, which he is sure to get at least once in his life.

Any man can pinpoint where he is on this scale if he is honest with himself. I'm a Beta myself.

>>2670821

>All the problems in modern society stem from two, originally opposite forces, right liberalism and left liberalism.

Going to disagree.

Politics isn't a linear spectrum (that's George Orwell tactics right there: 'you're either us or them'). It's more like a 2-dimensional panel, and a lot of people fall into four major categories:

1) Liberal Libertarians (they support socialism ideals, but they are aware of the abuses of the state and actively seek to curtail government powers. They believe socialism should be community driven IE locally owned).

2) Liberal big government (they support socialism ideals, but believe the government is a trustworthy instrumental driver of those ideals).

3) Conservative Libertarians (they support free market capitalism, and believe government regulations impede entrepreneurial businesses)

4) Conservative big government (they support capitalism, but only if it's funded by or supported by the gravy train of the government EG bank bailouts, pro-GMO laws, TPP. What I also call 'Capitistic Socialism' [socialism applied to 'welfare' big corporations])

You will find most people fall into those four major categories.

Conservative and Liberal Libertarians are largely united in their views (for example, the BDS movement against israel is using boycotts - free market capitalism - to trigger social change).

The only difference is Liberals aim for active social change, but conservatives believe in it occurring passively via supply and demand. In reality, price fixing, corporate collusion prevents true free market capitalism, and such things need regulation to prevent.

In contrast, Liberal and Conservative big government types are NOT united. Liberal types believes in a 'common good' type goal, where-as the conservative big government types believe that anything is fair game - including stealing money from taxpayers if they lobby government hard enough (something that all three other categories oppose).

These are the major types, but there are nuances. I actually do not fall into any of the categories (I genuinely believe there is no one universal solution and you have to apply nuanced solutions to problems, EG regulation against price fixing, corporate abuse, but curtailing government power over the average citizen wherein reasonably possible).

It's unwise to pigeon-hole across right-left because the categories I've specified include an 'up-down' and I'd argue the political classification is more like a 3D cube.

So avoid pigeon-holing. They've been trying that George Orwell shit for centuries and it's never worked. That's why you've got voters who voted both for Obama and then Trump (Liberal Libertarians).

>>2679797

>This is of course because men and women have different natural roles

Isn't about roles.

From all my time in analysing people, women appear to be biologically hardwired to favour socialising (conversation, group discussions, chats etc), and they utilise a pretty unique methodology for problem solving, which I can only call 'social problem solving'.

Instead of trying to directly solve a problem themselves, they query their immediate local group for people who have the resources to do so (a 'lateral search', you might say).

Men on the other hand try to solve the problem themselves, or learn the skills themselves in order to solve it, instead of delegating. They may inquire with people they *know* have the skills to possibly solve it, but they never do a 'general broadcast'.

I believe it's because men are hardwired not to show weakness (which is why men see a doctor far less often). Kinda in the same way a cat will try to hide it's pain from view. And thus they must actively exhaust all of their own resources trying to solve it themselves before they ask for help (I behave this exact way to an insane degree).

As a result, men will favour conservative libertarianism (IE practical independence), where-as women will favour liberalism [either kind] because it's more about group problem solving.

Making social inquiries for problem solving purposes can actually be ridiculously powerful, and I've actually learned something from the ladies on how to solve problems more quickly by both inquiring laterally (asking other people) and vertically (trying to solve it myself).

>>>2680426

I've noticed a new set of males being produced tho, semi-beta males.

Alpha-beta is bunk. Think of all the women that have a thing for gay men.

'Semi-beta' (low masculine) types aren't due to parenting, because family ties have been weakened in the recent decades on numerous fronts:

1) Longer hours at government controlled schools

2) Higher divorce rates

3) Encouragement for more 'flexible' relationships (IE unmarried, non-engaged)

4) Encouragement for single-gender dominated households (single parents, gay couples)

5) Weakening of gender boundaries (EG encouragement, adoption of 'gender fluid' bullshit, trans)

6) Higher availability of corporations seeking to profit from expensive gender altering surgeries, and thus actively encouraging the adoption (paid for, no less, by gravy train government)

7) Teachers in schools being extremely liberal (I've read numerous reports from multiple nations of teachers forcing their own views down pupil's throats when it comes to politics)

8) Universities promoting liberalism (either banning conservative, or promoting political correctness). People who graduate with degrees for teaching are then already indoctrinated ready for education (and so the cycle continues).

We can easily prove this - most conservative libertarians were school dropouts, or only did the equal to high school. Those who weren't, classically found flaws within liberalism (at least big government version) and switched sides (the equal to being freed from brainwashing).

From a tactical standpoint, schools spend more time influencing children than their parents do (because once the kid gets home, they're then bogged down with homework or they end up going to sleep).

By not spending time in the presence of role models or people with differing political views, they adopt the norm of what they're told.

Basically soviet, Nazi re-education camps in a nutshell.

Quote got borked, for some reason, in above post.

The line " I've noticed a new set of males being produced tho, semi-beta males." is from another post.

>>2680543

>Ya idk where the people are coming from but it seems there is a group or groups that work between the lines to support both sides to their own benefit.

Correctemundo. Massive ding.

They've been doing this for centuries, note. Corporations are the 'nobles' and 'super-nobles' of Henry the 7th's day (hint: to Trump types: I already dropped the solution years ago along with 'social responsibility': look up how Henry 7th managed the super-nobles, and then you'll see a way out).

Addressing your point directly: various organisations co-opt both sides for their own malicious goals. You could say the 'evil' versions of those ideologues. Smarter organisations are 'apolitical' (IE they back whichever side supports their goals). This is why sometimes the political parties behave similarly.

Your biggest issue is cash donations, gift giving in politics (United Citizens ruling involving no actual citizens was a big mistake: corporations are 'legal persons' who can lobby, give gifts to politicians, according to a corrupt judge. This is a much bigger issue than Roe v Wade, surprisingly enough).

Most voters act either partisan (vote for one side), or apathetically (vote for no-one, give up).

Strategically, you should all strive to become like the Obsidian Order. Influence both sides. Being apolitical and throwing money isn't enough to win the day: sometimes, ideas are so powerful you can change the entire course of politics.

BUT, and there is a caveat here: you can't just throw out ideas willy-nilly to any party. Parties don't have time to sift through your bullshit, work out what works, what doesn't - YOU, must thoroughly research, test, critique, analyse your own ideas before publishing.

It should be fully workable by the time it hits the ground, becomes public. Your ideas won't be adopted at first, but establish a record of credibility, good talent, skills, (can take months, years) and you will see your ideas stolen by everyone.

You must acquire the King's Ear:

https://www.italki.com/question/248685

https://www.undergroundthomist.org/putting-bugs-in-the-ear-of-the-king

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_the_Crown#History

Sometimes, you must play as the Jester, to get the King's Ear:

https://www.historyextra.com/period/tudor/playing-the-fool-tudor-jesters/

I hope I am being plain to you.

Just told you all how to win the battle.

Good luck. : )

>>2720185

That strategy work fine if you have a Henry VII with nearly total authority ( like most Kings, to varying degrees.

However is fall apart in a representative democracy which is designed to diffuse power away from "key individuals"

Hard to get elected with 'great ideas" and that isn't you job.

Yuor job is to administer the activities of the State (i.e. CEO) at the direction of the stockholders (constituents).

Your great idea are only valid id they align with a majority.

The short answer - No it doesn't tell us how to win the battle

You gave us a very vague history lesson (oversimplified to make your point) and not direction other that come up with a great idea the public will buy into

You neglect to mention that others will be trying to do the same and neutralize your efforts.

The fact that his "competition" ( Richard III) was killed in battle may have given him a little advantage?

He married a daughter of the "other side" (Elizabeth of York) - classic royal behavior, bloodlines win

Machiavelli would have been a better choice for strategic advice to "win the battle"

Shrewd, lucky but not considered brilliant or great among English kings

>>2686363

Post: "Alpha-beta is bunk. Think of all the women that have a thing for gay men"

Do they marry them or have sex with them or just find that they are men that act like women?

Alpha - beta is still applicable (unless you get in to packs, which don;t apply to man-women relations).

Prize women don't marry beta males

Women who can't compete settle for betas as "leftovers"

>>2720185

How would you impose "social responsibility" on corporation ( by their cooperation or coercion)

What is the chose not to "cooperate" because it might be unprofitable.

They can't be forced to be "more responsible" in legally conducting their affairs in pursuit of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness just because they are acting in unison.

Would that also be applicable to individuals

Your theories are juvenile and poorly thought through (and clearly you don't own an incorporated business?

Wage slaves have fewer options by their choice

>>2720687

Correct. Corporations are well-oiled profit optimization machines. As they should be. All the immense good corporations provide to society comes from the fact they must be efficiently optimized to make a profit.

You can't ask a corporation to be "more responsible", expecting them to leave potential profit on the table in favor of some intangible and immeasurable "greater good". It just makes no sense to the way a corporation operates, and would in fact lead to it being destroyed by any competitor who didn't embark on such folly.

What you CAN do however, is regulate corporate activity through law. This skews the competitive field equally for all actors, so there is no competitive disadvantage for a corporation that follows the law.

Doing this wisely is how you tame the goose that lays the golden egg and make it work for you. You can get corporations to take all kinds of "greater goods" into consideration, if you force them to do so through law.

But you must never regulate corporations so hard you kill the golden goose! All successful societies are corporation-friendly, or they wouldn't be successful.

>>2720769

regulate through law = coercion by govt

if you force them to do so through law = coercion

Kill the Golden Goose is appropriate since you think their purpose is to provide public gold

I notice you dodge the question on individuals since it would expose your socialist agenda.

I didn't start my company "for the common good" I did it to provide value top my customers and a living to me

I don't owe any further efforts to the common good unless you are willing to match me dollar for dollar

Income redistribution through the government is how we got in this mess - the needs of the many always kills the Goose.

The move off shore was a defense against the greed of government to regulate their health care among other things "for the common good

I run when I hear that justification since I have seem it in action increasing unchecked over decades

>>2720856

>I didn't start my company "for the common good" I did it to provide value to my customers and a living to me

You're completely missing my point.

I already acknowledged that corporations provide immense value to society, and that no society will be successful unless it is friendly to corporations. I already acknowledged that regulating corporations must be done carefully, so as to not kill the economic engine they provide.

But corporations MUST be regulated, because they run on the simple equation of maximizing profit, and that is just not a sufficiently sophisticated decision making process to take all important facts into consideration.

You are also in the business of maximizing profit, and pretending otherwise is futile. "Providing value to your customers" is not a moral statement of virtue, it is simply how you make your customers give you money; your company couldn't exist if you didn't provide value for your customers! And if didn't make a profit doing so, then you wouldn't earn a living for yourself. Your company is therefore also a profit optimization machine, just as I stated.

The reason profit optimization machines can't be allowed to run hog wild without adult supervision (government regulation), is because they don't see the big picture. There are many things both you and your customers and everyone else on the planet need that simply don't enter into your company's balance sheet.

Environmental protection is a good example of something corporations will ignore completely unless forced to care through regulation. We all need air to breathe, water to drink, and healthy top soil where food will grow. And yet a corporation will quickly destroy all of these essential resources if there's a buck to be made in the process. Appealing to corporations to care about the common good is futile, only regulation will work.

The role of corporations is to create wealth for their owners. As a happy side effect, they also create wealth for society as a whole, so corporations MUST be allowed to operate smoothly. People who don't realize this are called communists. They're very dangerous, and I'm not one of them.

The role of governments is to set the rules corporations have to play by, so that the results are acceptable to us all. We want the economic growth corporations provide. We want the products and services, we want the inventions, and we want the efficiency of resource utilization. But we do not want things like destruction of the environment that supports life on the planet. So we band together and form governments to regulate economic activity. To safeguard the common good.

This is done in EVERY nation around the world. There is no lawless nation anywhere, there never has been, and there never will be, so you might as well accept it.

The idea that government is evil and must be abolished is just as retarded as the idea that corporations and private ownership is evil and must by abolished. What you need is COMPETENT and LIMITED government that stays within its proper boundaries. Government that makes sure the golden goose can lay its eggs in peace, only without destroying the farm in the process.

And that's where perpetual vigilance of well educated citizens enter the picture. Because we always get exactly the rulers we collectively deserve.

>>2720567

>That strategy work fine if you have a Henry VII with nearly total authority

Define Executive Order.

Do you think the Democrats actually listen to their voterbase?

Why was DARK act passed (such a blatant name, too!) when so many were opposed?

You're not in a real democracy, never have been.

>Hard to get elected with 'great ideas"

You clearly did not read my post.

Are 'Jesters' elected?

I bet you still quote George Carlin. Did he run for office somewhere? No?

>>2720590

>Do they marry them or have sex with them or just find that they are men that act like women?

Why do you think the 'Bi' category exists?

>Alpha - beta is still applicable (unless you get in to packs, which don;t apply to man-women relations).

It really isn't. You already have the example of feminine men, but are purposefully excluding the data because it doesn't fit your theory.

> Prize women don't marry beta males

You haven't defined what a prize woman is (so the goalposts on this argument are wide). I hope it isn't duckface and fake beasts because I would consider those types a burden.

>Women who can't compete settle for betas as "leftovers"

Am I detecting a hint of bitterness from a previous experience there?

Lets bitchslap the alpha-beta model harder: it's flawed because it's subjective. Lets assume, for some absurd reason, it works - it relies on the subjective knowledge (and judgement) of the woman in gauging what is 'alpha'.

So say you have 100 men, all perfectly ranging a score incremently of 1 to 100. If the woman only knows the first 10, she will, under your model, pick the 10th man (ignoring 1 to 9 regardless of traits).

That means there are 90 'much better' men out there that she isn't aware of, and she just settled for a 'beta' because subjectively she thinks that guy is the alpha of the group.

This is ignoring, of course, value judgements. Lets say she judges on something we can objectively measure, like money. We have three guys, one has money, another has gold, and the final has cryptocurrency. Lets, for sake of argument, say they have amounts worth *exactly* the same as each other.

Which one do you think she is going to value highest? Well, you can't answer that because it depends on her judgemental abilities on finances (if she's ignorant, she'd likely go for cash, if she's a survivalist, gold, and if she's tech-savvy, crypto).

See how flexible and bullshit this theory is? It's all relative value judgements, and I think people foist it out there as an excuse that they fall into some beta category so boo-hoo we need some special attention.

Psychology is complex, people don't just fall in love with you because of one particular factor. Stephen Hawking had several wives, and he was wheelchair bound! Crippled! He was poor, he used the NHS (socialised healthcare)!

But toss out the counter-example, it doesn't fit into such a small neat theory.

>>2720687

>How would you impose "social responsibility" on corporation ( by their cooperation or coercion)

Feedback loop.

Social responsibility is basically a manifold statement: clean up your act or we'll make you clean it up. They can either implement their own solution, or the government implements their own if they're unwilling.

So, for example, a lot of stores, pubs sell alcohol in the UK. They kept dropping the price, but it was putting demands on policing, clean-up crews, emergency services, especially by running late into night.

They didn't rectify the issue, so the UK gov issued a levy where they got charged for the costs of cleaning up the shit punters left when they got drunk (including policing due to criminal behaviours, and medical costs due to illness, doctors' time being wasted).

It was called the late night levy, and you guessed it: they only got charged if they stayed open late at night.

McDonalds adopts an element of social responsibility. They clean up the litter outside their restaurants. No action required.

Stores kept giving out plastic bags for shopping, so the government mandated a small fee on bags. The fee was to go to charities (of the store's own choosing). Plastic bags in trees, streets are basically all but non-existent.

Essentially, corporations need to include social responsibility into their costs. This is an approach that should not need government oversight, but often does because corporations don't care about the real costs they are causing.

By refusing to charge them for clean-up costs, means you instead get charged (via tax increases), and that isn't either socially responsible or fair. You don't pay their tax bill, so why should you pay theirs?

>They can't be forced to be "more responsible" in legally conducting their affairs in pursuit of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness just because they are acting in unison.

Their lack of responsibility infringes on other people's liberties and rights.

Fracking companies don't get a free pass to pollute your drinking water (which you have a legal right to consume, regardless of what craziness California is trying to pass) simply because 'muh freedoms'.

You don't go into their offices and piss into their water fountain, so they don't get to piss into yours.

>Would that also be applicable to individuals

Individuals are already made to be socially responsible via the application of law (IE police officers).

You break someone's window, you go to court. You dump a load of waste, you get arrested and hauled before a judge.

Corporations aren't a physical thing that can be arrested. But they are beholden to the same requirements. Being BP does not mean you get a free pass to pollute the ocean.

If you break a window, you're expected to pay for it's replacement.

If Monsanto dumps poison somewhere and it costs $1 mil to clean up, then Monsanto should pay for it.

>>2720856

>regulate through law = coercion by govt

Let me know when you're free to break other people's windows.

It's common decency really.

Anyone opposed just wants a free pass to do evil. Shouldn't need regulation in the first place if what you're already doing is moral.

Going to argue being socially irresponsible, dumping waste, fueling alcoholic teetotalers and wasting taxpayer's money is a good thing?

We'll let you live next to a nuclear plant for a few years, say, Fukushima, see if you still think corporations have a freedom to be reckless.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom to do anything.

Liberty does not mean liberty to infringe on other people (including polluting their drinking water supplies).

Unless you mean to say being evil is how you find happiness?