Traditional marriage is socialism

as we all know in modern online dating the top 10% most attractive men get all the matches/messages/etc. this is the free market at work and it mirrors ancient societies where powerful men kept harems of thousands of women. so-called traditional marriage where each woman is paired off with one man is an artificial socialist system designed to benefit undesirable men who should ideally be eliminated from the gene pool. if you support traditional marriage but are against socialism then explain yourself

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/103152204/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>socialism
>workers collectively own the means of production
really activates my almonds

Thanks for engaging my enchilada buddy

national socialism is pretty cool desu

You're looking too far into it OP. Ancient societies thought that the earth was flat, we have evolved past being subhuman morons.

thanks for the (You)

figured I could return the favor

So what do we do noaw?

Go to college.

Panic.

no worries, all yours man

Don't trigger the cuckservatives. The second they don't have the ability to control something, they scream UNFAIRNESS and demand the government to fix it for them. It's what the beta faggots do on this board because they lack the skill to get laid. And now they did it with Trump because they're too fucking stupid to participate in a competitve market. LEL.

people who can't attract a mate will die without reproducing thus improving our species and reducing overpopulation. stop advocating for traditional marriage and monogamy, which is a cultural construction. every man knows they want to fuck every attractive woman regardless of whether or not they are in a relationship, monogamy is against human nature and people should stop pretending otherwise.

this is true, though civilization will deteriorate into bankruptcy but it must be done

>someone as moronic and subhuman as OP actually made this thread
i laff'd

very
interesting
theory
are laws and prison
so someone doesn't murder you
socialism too

Isn't socialism an economic system of governance, not a religious one? Especially since socialists push secular society?

The more time passes, the more I realize that capitalism is the source of all our problems anyway. Degeneracy is promoted as a way of selling new products and opening new markets. Hyperconsumerism cannot coexist with national identity, so capitalism discards the latter as a means of preserving the former. In such a system, there doesn't even need to be a conspiracy: merely create an upper class of people for whom profit is above everything else, and they'll do it all themselves without needing to conspire. Calling myself an outright communist in the traditional sense would be a lie, but I am increasingly a fascist, a National Socialist.

>Beta males should not reproduce

Remove the high IQs from your society and you get countries like Zimbabwe. Our American ancestors knew monogamy was the only way to keep the producers producing and society flourishing. Today we see the opposite happening and we are in a depression.

contrary to Sup Forums opinion most beta males aren't smart and the ones who actually are like the startup CEOs should have the money and power to no longer be beta and attract lots of gold diggers.

traditional marriage is autocracy

Consider your family, its communist. You don't trade, you don't ask for money to clean the dishes or use a coffee mug, even if you didn't buy it. Often times the person who brings the most resources it the father, and he is the person who gets to spend the least of what he earns. Instead, his children, who earn the least, or nothing at all, spend the most, or have the most spent on them. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need in full power.

family operates as a communist society


Consider your family as a nation.
Probably your dad works the most, but your mom spends the most.
Probably when you were young you didn't bring any money nor help much at all, but had food, shelter, clothes and so on given to you. You were educated from your parent's money.
You probably don't have your spoon, your chair, your TV. These are shared, they are used by whoever needs them at the time.

Your family is a communist structure, without anyone forcing you to be like that, there are no armed gunmen telling your dad that you should be able to use a fork, even if he paid for it.

>beta males are high IQ
Whatever helps you sleep, Wojack.

I've written white papers for the United Nations, the Trilaterial Commission, and for the cosmetics industry on replacement migration and population integration.

First, the idea that "the global agenda" is leftist or communist or somehow related to the neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt school is misguided. The organizations I've worked for over the years see the number one priority as the maintenance of global economic integration and open markets.

In collaborating with the intelligence community, I've found their goals to be extremely anti-left and very concerned with maintaining global commercial institutions.This is the reason the CIA worked so far to defeat communism; it was a threat to a unified global market.

What many of you have picked up on is the New Left elements of the global agenda. But this is a misunderstanding. The system apparatus from 1945-1980 was the Keynesian welfare state, which successfully integrated potential opposition from the left and right into the system. The New Left (born out of the Frankfurt school) strongly opposed the welfare state, which they correctly saw as a method of ensuring the working class did not succumb to revolutionary tendencies, and mobilized identity activism against it (Women's Liberation, Black Power, etc.).

The solution to this threat was the co-optation of identity politics, and the movement of economic administration to supranational institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank, EU). That way this new mobilization would not threaten the global economy but could be allowed to manifest without state repression (as Nixon tried from 69-73).

archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/103152204/

Actually, it's not. The reason the top 10% get all the matches is because they currently DO NOT HAVE TO PAY. Instead the taking care of women and their spawn has been cast upon all of society. Women are allowed to run up massive debts over their life which the rest of society HAS TO PAY.

If this wasn't the case, if women were actually forced to pay for themselves or find someone to do so they could not afford to give out sex and other activities for free while chasing after a relatively small group of men because they would be left hanging and starve to death in the long run. They simply cannot afford to do it without massive government sponsored redistribution of wealth enabling them to do so. Traditional marriage was their "locking down" a guy to pay for their shit while giving access to sex and reproduction in return. By having removed the financial and safety aspect of the equation forcing men to provide both either way the dynamic between the genders has massively changed.

>telling consenting parties what contracts they can't enter

Sounds like you're the socialist.

Lmao americans are fucking retarded. Cry and whine whenever they hear the word socialism but stand still while their nation turns non white and women get buttfucked by BBC.

That's how proper brainwashing works, the establishment has build up a good boogeyman in the form of evil, evil socialism.

You should brush up on r/K selection theory and why you are plain wrong. Especially since you are happily redistributing wealth and resources in large quantities to allow people with worst long term capabilities for planning aswell as the worst understanding of actions and their consequences to overbreed in massive numbers as you force others at gunpoint to support it.

According to your own argumentation, this should not be the case. I.e no wealth redistribution, no massive government support for women and so on and on. Which hilariously enough would end up with women desperate to lock down someone to provide all of this for them and monopolize their provider.

family is not communistic like that
there can be rich and poor dynamics in a familial structure, not in communism.
personally my dad worked the least and my mom busted her ass my entire childhood.

i agree women would not be chasing the top 10% most attractive men if there were no govt redistribution, instead they would be chasing the top 10% richest men, the ultra wealthy would command harems of hundreds of thousands of women while the bottom 90% would not have anyone, my overall point remains the same though