Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 1415161718192021222324 LastLast
Results 331 to 345 of 354

Thread: 2018 Toronto Van Murders

  1. #331
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,835
    This thing with Incels and manosphere in general is a deep social and cultural problem and it shouldn't be viewed as "inability to get laid" phenomenon. It is a much much deeper and serous thing than that. As for me, I still stand on the position that it is one of many forms of communist attack on the West and US in particular and that it should be seen as a threat, from multiple perspectives and angles. The communist directive goes as follows:

    1. Empower women, by showering them with grants, programs, free money in essence and abolishing them from responsibility.
    2. Destroy masculinity in the name of patriarchy oppression.

    This is the gender policy that serves as an weapon to destroy family nucleus.

    Without family and without guidance principles, youth is left on its own and prone to ideological indoctrination aka communist brain washing. Thus you will get leftist voters, antifas and sjws. Than impose thought control and censorship trough political correctness.

    3. Introduction of migration, especially from the most radical and lowest IQ population, which ensures votes and serves as buffer against domestic population in the case of rebellion. Without values to uphold and without guidance from parental care, the K type people will vanish and replaced with heard like, r type collectivist groups/societies ensuring the communist rein forever.
    Last edited by Versus; 19 May 18, at 18:48.

  2. #332
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,835
    Quote Originally Posted by XLAdept View Post
    Hi Versus,

    I'm glad you're back!
    Thanks, I will post more as the workload reduces on the home front.

  3. #333
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,835
    The thing is, this is the crisis of the society. It shows deep cracks within it and those cracks are created by leftists and communists aka liberals. Their destructive policies will continue to erode the very foundations of society until society collapses. Their embrace of violent groups and culture is normal, communists have "natural" affinity with the criminal and anti social behavior in general, but not because they are rebels and believe in the cause and/or ideology. Being r selected, the morphology of their brain is such that amygdala is smaller. This means that their capability of recognizing threats is severely reduced and their desire for novelty seeking is higher than normal. Conservative societies that stick to their rules and paths, don't offer much divergence from the path and that makes leftists oppressed, because their brain cannot cope with it, due to smaller amygdala. They literary cannot understand rules and with them, the order.

  4. #334
    Regular
    Join Date
    01 Apr 18
    Location
    Pasadena,CA
    Posts
    32
    But, how do you explain the fact that they are control freaks and want always more regulations?

  5. #335
    Senior Contributor Red Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Oct 11
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Versus View Post
    This thing with Incels and manosphere in general is a deep social and cultural problem and it shouldn't be viewed as "inability to get laid" phenomenon. It is a much much deeper and serous thing than that. As for me, I still stand on the position that it is one of many forms of communist attack on the West and US in particular and that it should be seen as a threat, from multiple perspectives and angles. The communist directive goes as follows:

    1. Empower women, by showering them with grants, programs, free money in essence and abolishing them from responsibility.
    2. Destroy masculinity in the name of patriarchy oppression.

    This is the gender policy that serves as an weapon to destroy family nucleus.

    Without family and without guidance principles, youth is left on its own and prone to ideological indoctrination aka communist brain washing. Thus you will get leftist voters, antifas and sjws. Than impose thought control and censorship trough political correctness.

    3. Introduction of migration, especially from the most radical and lowest IQ population, which ensures votes and serves as buffer against domestic population in the case of rebellion. Without values to uphold and without guidance from parental care, the K type people will vanish and replaced with heard like, r type collectivist groups/societies ensuring the communist rein forever.
    The world's biggest Communist powers were far from being pioneers of progressive gender role liberalization, and the evolution of modern feminist theory is heavily grounded in Western philosophy, so I don't understand how the feminist movement is Communist, at least in the sense of the Soviets. The remaining Communist nations in the world continue to disadvantage women to higher degrees than their Western counterparts.

    Your fear of a Communist takeover using feminism as a "Trojan Horse" just does not make sense from a view of parsimony either. Hypothetically if I were a Commie, I would have a much, much, MUCH easier time exploiting wealth inequality and race relations as a way of spreading my ideology because these concepts are much less abstract than feminism. Everybody can instantly relate to the dilemma of having no money. Everybody can instantly relate to people judging you solely on the stereotypes of your race/ethnicity. The relatively abstract concepts behind modern feminism make it inherently harder to communicate to the masses, specifically the 50% of people that aren't women, so it is not an ideal movement to found a literal shooting revolution under.

    You describe the "death" of the nuclear family to be the doing of Communist ideology, when it is more a hybrid of Capitalist and Malthusian theory. Simply put, the more people there are in a country, the most expensive things get. The more expensive things get, the less likely people of younger generations will have big families, or even consider the idea of conventional families at all. Ostensibly, the resulting population decline would lead to lower overall resource consumption, which would follow a universal drop in expenses. A generational self-correction, in the face of increased natural resource strain.
    "Draft beer, not people."

  6. #336
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,835
    Quote Originally Posted by XLAdept View Post
    But, how do you explain the fact that they are control freaks and want always more regulations?
    It is a paradox of cognitive dissonance that plagues their thinking. Being unable to recognize threats, aka to distinguish them, they have two options, either everything is a threat or nothing is a threat. So the paradox accrues, because in order to make utopia where there are no threats, they need to control everything. Their control freakery is freedom to their way of thinking, because they see themselves as good and if everything is controlled by the good, than everything will be good and thus utopia will be achieved. Since the primary object of their interest is the lowest common denominator, they always need more and more laws because the lowest common denominator always get pushed lower the minute it gets regulated and it is always out of the reach.
    For example, if you want to make men and women equal, you do so and they are equal. Two sexes two laws. But than you have problem with men and women whom are straight and gay, so you make another division and you have four laws, for straight and gay men and straight and gay women. But than there are trans gender men and women, so laws multiply like crazy in order to cater to every whim and pathology that human mind can conjure and like a black hole formation theory goes, once the the matter is crammed to Schwarzschild radius, its game over man.

    There is a threshold, limit to things and leftist cannot grasp the notion of threshold and thus everything they create is doomed from the start.
    Last edited by Versus; 20 May 18, at 09:45.

  7. #337
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Team View Post
    The world's biggest Communist powers were far from being pioneers of progressive gender role liberalization, and the evolution of modern feminist theory is heavily grounded in Western philosophy, so I don't understand how the feminist movement is Communist, at least in the sense of the Soviets. The remaining Communist nations in the world continue to disadvantage women to higher degrees than their Western counterparts.

    Your fear of a Communist takeover using feminism as a "Trojan Horse" just does not make sense from a view of parsimony either. Hypothetically if I were a Commie, I would have a much, much, MUCH easier time exploiting wealth inequality and race relations as a way of spreading my ideology because these concepts are much less abstract than feminism. Everybody can instantly relate to the dilemma of having no money. Everybody can instantly relate to people judging you solely on the stereotypes of your race/ethnicity. The relatively abstract concepts behind modern feminism make it inherently harder to communicate to the masses, specifically the 50% of people that aren't women, so it is not an ideal movement to found a literal shooting revolution under.

    You describe the "death" of the nuclear family to be the doing of Communist ideology, when it is more a hybrid of Capitalist and Malthusian theory. Simply put, the more people there are in a country, the most expensive things get. The more expensive things get, the less likely people of younger generations will have big families, or even consider the idea of conventional families at all. Ostensibly, the resulting population decline would lead to lower overall resource consumption, which would follow a universal drop in expenses. A generational self-correction, in the face of increased natural resource strain.
    If you have a billionaire that has a 50.000 workers that he "exploits" and you want to take him down, the minute you organize communist syndicate and go for his money, he calls the police or mafia to take care of the communist syndicate. But if you get him the trophy wife whom divorces him, takes half of his wealth and than false accuses him of rape, destroying his reputation and business, it is much cheaper way to take him down. If they had kids, she takes them and than kids are rich as her and being born with that privilege, you take them to college where you indoctrinate them with SJW BS and voila, the next thing you know, they are setting up funds to save seals and feed the hungry and poor around the world, thus distributing the wealth.
    Modern feminism theory is grounded in a Frankfurt school, not in Western culture and Frankfurt school is very very tricky bomb to diffuse.
    Last edited by Versus; 20 May 18, at 10:12.

  8. #338
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Team View Post
    The world's biggest Communist powers were far from being pioneers of progressive gender role liberalization, and the evolution of modern feminist theory is heavily grounded in Western philosophy, so I don't understand how the feminist movement is Communist, at least in the sense of the Soviets. The remaining Communist nations in the world continue to disadvantage women to higher degrees than their Western counterparts.

    Your fear of a Communist takeover using feminism as a "Trojan Horse" just does not make sense from a view of parsimony either. Hypothetically if I were a Commie, I would have a much, much, MUCH easier time exploiting wealth inequality and race relations as a way of spreading my ideology because these concepts are much less abstract than feminism. Everybody can instantly relate to the dilemma of having no money. Everybody can instantly relate to people judging you solely on the stereotypes of your race/ethnicity. The relatively abstract concepts behind modern feminism make it inherently harder to communicate to the masses, specifically the 50% of people that aren't women, so it is not an ideal movement to found a literal shooting revolution under.

    You describe the "death" of the nuclear family to be the doing of Communist ideology, when it is more a hybrid of Capitalist and Malthusian theory. Simply put, the more people there are in a country, the most expensive things get. The more expensive things get, the less likely people of younger generations will have big families, or even consider the idea of conventional families at all. Ostensibly, the resulting population decline would lead to lower overall resource consumption, which would follow a universal drop in expenses. A generational self-correction, in the face of increased natural resource strain.
    This is the sanest post I've read on this thread.

    And when I say this is the sanest post on this thread, I am commenting not only on the relative insanity of some of everybody else's posts, but some of those by myself as well. :-)

    That being said, I still think (the non-racist parts of) Ben Franklin's Observations on the Increase of Mankind is as applicable in 2018 as it was in 1751. The man was the Ultimate American Enlightenment Prophet™, who stands above all previous prophets as far as I'm concerned.

    In addition to his prophecies, science, and the body of the rest of his works, his lifestyle choices and the pragmatic manner he conducted relationships with women would see us avoid many of the problems we see in modern American society.

    I believe the sum of his lifestyle choices and body of works is the reason why Ben Franklin is on the $100 bill.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 20 May 18, at 13:50.
    What I don't want to see is the Bills winning a Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen.

  9. #339
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,835
    Duke, Ben was a romantic and living its enlighten dream. The reality was different.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate

  10. #340
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,835
    The greatest mistake made by the lightbearers aka the enlighten ones, was that they, when they are speaking of mankind, they actually think of the mankind in the western world, not the planet. Hence their observations are correct but only if applied to western societies and culture. Or to be brutally honest, only to WASP's. Imagine Ben sailing to Ottoman empire and preaching his ideas and trying to enlighten them...It would be, Allahu Akbar and chomp! there goes your enlightenment.

    The sad truth Duke, is that substantial proportion of the planet still lives in a era between an early iron age and the 14th century.
    Last edited by Versus; 20 May 18, at 16:33.

  11. #341
    Senior Contributor Red Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Oct 11
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Versus View Post
    Duke, Ben was a romantic and living its enlighten dream. The reality was different.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...fertility_rate
    Versus,

    Further to my point in the previous post, compare the countries with the lowest fertility rates to the countries with higher fertility rates in terms of GDP, cost of living, wages, and infrastructure. France is a notable outlier, but this is likely a product of their robust social security network and educational system artificially lowering cost of child-raising. Generally, you can see that rich developed nations have less children than developing nations, this is largely a function of need and expense. Having a large family isn't as much of a necessity to your future in a developed nation with an established infrastructure as it is for a developing nation.
    "Draft beer, not people."

  12. #342
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,835
    Last edited by Versus; 20 May 18, at 17:36.

  13. #343
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    2,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Team View Post
    Versus,

    Further to my point in the previous post, compare the countries with the lowest fertility rates to the countries with higher fertility rates in terms of GDP, cost of living, wages, and infrastructure. France is a notable outlier, but this is likely a product of their robust social security network and educational system artificially lowering cost of child-raising. Generally, you can see that rich developed nations have less children than developing nations, this is largely a function of need and expense. Having a large family isn't as much of a necessity to your future in a developed nation with an established infrastructure as it is for a developing nation.
    Than why there are problems with workforce and why there is migrant crisis? There is a systemic error in that thinking.

  14. #344
    Senior Contributor Red Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Oct 11
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by Versus View Post
    Than why there are problems with workforce and why there is migrant crisis? There is a systemic error in that thinking.
    By workforce problems what do you mean? Here in the US, the contemporary issue is with wage stagnation driven by a saturation of workers in the labor market brought by the entrance of women in the labor force.

    The migrant crisis in Europe is primarily an issue of cultural friction, not cost/benefit. In fact, many countries in the EU with declining population trends could stand to benefit from a surge in the labor market brought by an acute influx of immigrants.
    "Draft beer, not people."

  15. #345
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Versus View Post
    The greatest mistake made by the lightbearers aka the enlighten ones, was that they, when they are speaking of mankind, they actually think of the mankind in the western world, not the planet. Hence their observations are correct but only if applied to western societies and culture. Or to be brutally honest, only to WASP's. Imagine Ben sailing to Ottoman empire and preaching his ideas and trying to enlighten them...It would be, Allahu Akbar and chomp! there goes your enlightenment.

    The sad truth Duke, is that substantial proportion of the planet still lives in a era between an early iron age and the 14th century.
    I don't really buy into your or other people's notions of what constitutes a "civilization" or a "civilized people" to begin with, so to be frank with you, we're not even on the same frequency.

    First off, I don't believe that Serbia or any part of the Balkans could be described as Western countries to begin with. If there is such a thing as Western civilization, Serbia has but a veneer of it, and some buildings that happen to look Western. In the last couple of centuries, these countries simply copied some practices, architecture, etc. that were being done in the truly "Western" countries, and Serbia is at best a Potemkin "Western" country, a facsimile of a facsimile.

    This is what I believe, and I don't mean to give offense, but you're free to get offended, if you're so inclined to take offense.

    Second, while the "Western" countries perceive themselves as "advanced" and "civilized", I simply see ourselves as the barbarian Vikings and Farangs my forebears (not your forebears) were. The West, and by that I mean western/northern Europe and Germany (with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a intermediate between West and East), were constantly at war with one another, went through a rapid increase in technological prowess and weaponry over a few short centuries, invented tall sail ships, sailed the oceans, and stole everything from everybody.

    We were the barbarians the Arab merchants and missionaries warned everybody about, the savage pale ghosts and sunburnt demons of myth and legend, and one day, these monsters of myth and legend showed up in places such as India, the Orient, the Americas, and Africa. We looted everything we could get our hands on, and settled everywhere temperate that was suitable for us.

    The true Western countries (which doesn't include Serbia) remained constantly at war with another, and the purloined wealth from other continents, and the constant warfare, sped technological development in the West even faster.

    After World War II, the West, for the most part, took a few "Xanax" and decided not to war so much. This constant state of war ultimately led to Hitler (whose only good act was that he was the man who killed Hitler, got to give credit where credit is due), and nuclear weapons got invented, hence, the reason for taking a proverbial "Xanax".

    At our core, I believe Westerners are still savage and barbaric. Westerners typically have lots of money, nice places to live, but go to any European football match and see the hooligans, or to an American inner city, that's where the wars are being fought. In the West, the wars are also being fought in both the bedroom and the boardroom, in divorce courts and via lawsuit. We're still the Farangs, Goths, Lombards, Saxons, and Vikings of ages past, but now we're rich and have nice things.

    Because we got the most money and the nicest things, we decided to slap a label on that and call it "civilization".

    I'm neither ashamed of this, nor do I take pride in the introspective cultural self-description I just wrote. I don't see this in moral or ethical terms. According to my own worldview (take it or leave it), it's just the facts as I see them.

    As a full disclaimer, these are my opinions and mine alone. Different people believe differently, and it's different strokes for different folks.
    Last edited by Ironduke; 20 May 18, at 18:27.
    What I don't want to see is the Bills winning a Super Bowl. As long as I'm alive that doesn't happen.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 12 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 12 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2018 American Political Scene
    By astralis in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 1144
    Last Post: 25 Jul 18,, 22:11
  2. ANZAC Day 2018
    By Albany Rifles in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 25 Apr 18,, 15:20
  3. Iranian uprising 2017-2018
    By 1980s in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 23 Jan 18,, 02:34
  4. Miami Vice reboot -2018
    By surfgun in forum Movie & TV Room
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04 Aug 17,, 01:23

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •