houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

What really gave it away was the same politicians who were against the "Trump vaccine" were suddenly onboard with the exact same mRNA bullshit once they secured power for themselves. Anyone who was properly paying attention should have caught on to the inconsistencies.

In fact, Trump supporters showed that they thought for themselves more than the "you're in a cult" faggots when they booed Trump for promoting the clot shot.

Another thing, I recall in the early days of the vaxx being released the pathetic psy-op that was "we are giving non-whites the shots first! You can wait in the back of the line to get your shot, whitey!"

Meanwhile, anyone who was already suspicious was not going to worry about who would get priority in taking that poison, but rather correctly assessed that there was no rush to get the clot shot. In the end, they wanted to force everyone to get the shot, so the theater was just stupid.

Doing my recon on state propaganda NPR, they are bringing up how "complicated" it is to figure out who and who does not need Covid "vaccines." Here's a simple answer that those faggots will not say: no one needs or should have them. And if you argue against that, I guess you can go ahead and get boosted. Because I cannot save you if the shots indeed are meant to kill or shorten your lifespan.

https://youtu.be/hNJ2zLbMuq4?t=1080

Perfect example of a TradCon who does not realize that he moved with the Overton Window when talking about universal suffrage. The idea that we should be more restrictive overall with who should vote does not cross his mind (not just women). Also, a great example of someone who does not have equality as his most critical value just accept a lot of the talking points from those who do value equality (not uniquely him but an example).

Whenever there is a bad outcome as a result of someone else's decision (often a politician or other member in power), I do not give a free pass to those who had supported the decision maker just because "I didn't vote for this" or "it was not me who made that call."

Rather, I ask the question: if it was you who was in charge, would you have made different decisions? If you would have made the same choices, then how can your proclamations have any validity?

The response on top illustrates exactly what I am talking about. Men who have no motivation to sacrifice will simply not do so. And I don't see a way to motivate such men into fighting FOR the country when it's own government has nothing but shaming tactics left (like a bitter harpy).

The only way to get men to fight for it is to give them a better deal. Otherwise, we may see them fight AGAINST it. And if it comes to that, well, the powers that be reaped what they sowed.

But now that men do not have much families to call their own and the breakdown of their existing extended family structure, there is far less motivation for men to answer the call to serve in the military.

And this is really where the powers that be screwed up. They thought they could muster men to have patriotic fervor to fight if they just flipped the propaganda switch. While part of a series, here is an example of a shill appealing to the family.

What family? Men don't have that anymore.

And then we add war on top of all that. I do not mean civil war (though that may come) but a conventional war.

In the past, men by and large had motivation to fight, even if much of it was propped up by our government lying to them about the justification for the war. Men back then had a strong motivation to fight: their families.

This applies even to bachelors, who would have extended family they would care for or future aspirations to have a family.

And why does this happen? Because women have become unmarriageable from a combination of policies and loosened social pressures. There are just far too many women who are far too risky of a prospect to start a family with, so there is no motivation to even try for the men.

But given the number of fields of work that are critically necessary for a society to function, this could really become disastrous if the number of men who just gave up reaches critical mass.

If men do not have a strong motivator to go out there and achieve something, many of them will opt for a more minimal sustenance approach. Just work hard enough to support themselves, and little more than that. Men who live like this can do any job, even low paying or low hour jobs. After all, if they are not even caring about impressing women, why work harder than you have to?

Men are the ones who are most screwed over by this destruction, as the government favors women in many aspects of life. Sure, you can screw over men as a whole and still have things operating for a time, but the slow decay will start to set in. We already see men less motivated to get married and have a family. Sure, women can technically have a family without a man present, but this also does not make for a functional society. Men are critically necessary for society to actually function.

I don't think that the powers that be thought through some of the long term consequences of the decisions that they made in destroying the family unit. Whether each aspect of the destruction was deliberate or unintentional, those in power should realize that their policies are destroying families (whether it is biased family courts/divorce laws or welfare policies).

The destruction of the family will mean the downfall of a functional society and instable government.

Since NPR has been a good barometer for whatever the government wants people to think (because it really just is the government itself, let's not kid ourselves with their supposed "independence"), I do see this as a "we are starting to back down at this point," and I will take any sign as a good one.

They can always push messaging to their midwit audience that "Covid is really bad guys!" once more, but they are at the very least hedging their bets for now.