Search Results: is it real

Actually, neither is a real truth. Both are opinions. In some societies, you are just brainwashed to believe it, so it seems like a real truth.

White supremacists are notorious spineless sh*t***ds who will do everything they can to maintain their image of "toughness" and "strength." Without it, they're just the losers they always were, are, and always will be.

This is one of the main reasons why demonstrations are so important to them: they provide an opportunity to appear strong and generate publicity by doing absolutely nothing beyond standing there, as though they're hoping to be discovered by a failed real-estate agent turned talent manager who can finally help them fulfill their collective life purpose of becoming third-rate army surplus mannequins.

Nazis taught them well: the more controversy they generate, the more people talk about them, and the more "strong" and "serious" they appear. For this to work, however, they must keep their cool and present themselves as peaceful, upstanding citizens. With a little luck, some immature, boisterous leftists will show up and scream at them while they stand there like discarded d*ldos, allowing them to look "good" by comparison.

So what do you do?

• You can't fight them, because then you become the aggressor disrupting a "peaceful" protest. They'll milk the martyrdom they've supposedly endured for years to come.
• You can't throw water balloons at them because that's legally considered assault, and gawd knows they'll eagerly press charges and parade their boo-boos before the world while crying, "Look what the radical left did to me!"
• You can counter-protest, but that can backfire, making them look "good" and you, look bad.

The best way is to turn their protest into a f*cking joke. Because, we often forget that this is what they are. The seriousness and strenght is entirely superficial and it's always hanging by a thread.

Steal the attention away from them, letting them stand there like the tools that they are while something much more interesting happens.

But with what?

Think about it: the number of votes cast doubles (which is a massive difference), yet the vote shares of political parties remain the same. There is no real change in party platforms or campaign messaging. In other words, women vote for the same candidate their husbands support. It is certainly a step forward for democracy, but not a revolution; it could be compared to an indirect electoral system.

If we are going to talk about what a revolution actually is, then a better example would be the extension of voting rights to the working class in Britain in the 1860s. A large mass of people enters politics and, through its struggle, turns the established order upside down. Political parties are forced to adjust their promises and programs. Likewise, the enfranchisement of Black Americans can also be cited as an example.

If women had only gained the right to vote today, then we could probably call it a revolution, considering that they make up the core of the SJW movement.

That for a couple dating and in love the real bonding is in the bedroom