>> There's a very interesting website called "<redacted> Contributions" which details how much <redacted> have contributed to the shaping of Western society. Feminism, hardcore porn, relaxing immigration policies, and many more progressive changes have been driven by <redacted>. People can debate whether those changes were for good or ill, but it's undeniable how much <redacted> have contributed to driving those changes.
> Knowland Knows
> Nobody was forced to accept any of them.
Are you saying that men in the West should be more cognizant of policies and positions that aren't actually in their own best interest? If so, perhaps it'd be good for the few who do recognize associated pitfalls to help educate their brethren. E.g., they could warn about the negative consequences and point out how to identify when an argument is couched in terms of Western values but actually intended for the benefit one particular minority group. It might also be good for men of the West to broaden their understanding of history--to understand that the subversion of a people doesn't always have to be militaristic in nature. Those in the West could be encouraged, to actively resist their cultural, financial and political overthrow. They could be deprogrammed from accepting the outcomes of prior campaigns against them as eternally binding and legitimate. Why should the men of today accept servitude to a chain (extending back at least to the mid-1700s) of financial/inflationary schemes against them if we're capable of building a society independent of such dynastic fraud? Should we not cast the self-sanctificating globalist bankers off and re-kindle the will to live like our ancestors as sovereign nations on the world stage?
> Nobody was forced to accept any of them.
The first step in rejecting such 'contributions' is to learn to recognize positions that are anti-independence / anti-national. Recognition is significantly helped when the true beneficiaries of such positions are 'named'.
Topic hijack: referencing discussion from YTube (https://knowlandknows.substack.com/p/the-cardinal-virtues/comments?s=r) in more open SubStack forum...
>> There's a very interesting website called "<redacted> Contributions" which details how much <redacted> have contributed to the shaping of Western society. Feminism, hardcore porn, relaxing immigration policies, and many more progressive changes have been driven by <redacted>. People can debate whether those changes were for good or ill, but it's undeniable how much <redacted> have contributed to driving those changes.
> Knowland Knows
> Nobody was forced to accept any of them.
Are you saying that men in the West should be more cognizant of policies and positions that aren't actually in their own best interest? If so, perhaps it'd be good for the few who do recognize associated pitfalls to help educate their brethren. E.g., they could warn about the negative consequences and point out how to identify when an argument is couched in terms of Western values but actually intended for the benefit one particular minority group. It might also be good for men of the West to broaden their understanding of history--to understand that the subversion of a people doesn't always have to be militaristic in nature. Those in the West could be encouraged, to actively resist their cultural, financial and political overthrow. They could be deprogrammed from accepting the outcomes of prior campaigns against them as eternally binding and legitimate. Why should the men of today accept servitude to a chain (extending back at least to the mid-1700s) of financial/inflationary schemes against them if we're capable of building a society independent of such dynastic fraud? Should we not cast the self-sanctificating globalist bankers off and re-kindle the will to live like our ancestors as sovereign nations on the world stage?
> Nobody was forced to accept any of them.
The first step in rejecting such 'contributions' is to learn to recognize positions that are anti-independence / anti-national. Recognition is significantly helped when the true beneficiaries of such positions are 'named'.
Please use the Q&A thread for this.