Youtube comments of CaptainVanisher (@captainvanisher988).
-
402
-
339
-
325
-
300
-
182
-
176
-
174
-
166
-
151
-
141
-
135
-
122
-
114
-
110
-
108
-
106
-
106
-
95
-
94
-
93
-
86
-
85
-
79
-
79
-
72
-
71
-
69
-
68
-
64
-
63
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
53
-
52
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Minors when it comes to dating, means "under the age of consent". 95% of the advanced world has the age of consent at 14-16. Japan -> 16, China -> 16, South Korea -> 16, Taiwan -> 16, Germany -> 14, France -> 15, Italy -> 14, Austria -> 14, Portugal -> 14, Bulgaria -> 14, Greece -> 15, Russia -> 16, Poland -> 15, Canada -> 16, Belgium -> 16, Romania -16, Netherlands -> 16 etc.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@zachrojo5913 Hmm i didn't think NAZIs are fond of jews neither would support the Israel state that was created. If you haven't seen at least 25 videos of PragerU just don't type man. I know that some of them are not exactly right but most of them are just spitting out straight out facts. And there are many people that have come to talk to PragerU. Scientists,sociologists , economists , politicians , buisnessmen , stand up comedians etc. From many races and religions :muslims ,jews , christians ,blacks ,latinos ,whites and asians. So either these "fascists" are really bad at enforcing fascism or you are just a fking idiot?
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@tiglishnobody8750 Social cohesion and social trust are two major ones.
Yes there were plenty of European countries that had 95% ethnic natives. Also just because a European country might have a few native ethnic groups, doesn't mean that they are not homogenous.
Let's start.
Albania is at 97% right now.
Greece is at 93% after mass migration from Albania in the 90s and then the middle east in the 2010s entered the country. It was around 98% prior to mass migration, with the 2% being the small Turkish minority and gypsies.
Poland right now is at 97% as well.
Portugal is at 95% even after mass migration came from North Africa. Prior to it, they were 99% ethnic Portuguese.
Finland is at 98% if you include Finland-Swedes.
Hungary right now is at 92.3%
Italy is at 91.7% and if you exclude non-European immigrants that mainly arrived in the 21st century, it shoots up to 98%.
Croatia is at 91.6% however the 8% of those non-ethnic Croats are Serbians, Albanians, Bosniansks, Italians. Meaning that without their neighbours, they reach 99% homogeneity.
Iceland is at 91%, but if we include European migrants it's at 99%.
I can go on and on.
We can allow migration from civilized European countries, but if we remove all the Africans and the Middle Eastern and islamic Europeans (Albanians and Bosniaks), most European countries would be fine. and all of them would have over 90% homogeneity and more than half would've over 95% homogeneity.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
If you actually want to assimilate you can do so with their current system. But you should really want it hence why you have to wait and then get a visa and then prove that you are a positive influence to their society and then on top of that fully assimilate (learn the language, customs etc) and denounce your past citizenship.
Their system is what every nation should strive for. The idea of loosening immigration rules is what got Europe to the point it is now. A failed experiment that has been widely unwelcomed by a lot of people here in Europe. Hence why right wing anti immigration parties are on the rise everywhere in Europe. Finland ,Germany, Sweden, France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Belgium, Austria, Czechia etc.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tutatis96 First off it started in the 80s. Second off, feminism and materialism have been in place for a bunch of decades prior to the 80s.
Now your point of Italy having more actually religious people than Germany or France is null. The 2-3% deviation won't have any real mapping in the statistics of births. What matters is how the bulk of the population responds to having children.
We already have statistics on how religiosity does affect birth rates and the more religious one considers themselves the more likely he is to have many children.
Tradition and feminism do not coincide I've said this multiple times but I will spell it out for you too. If a country is feminist it has lower than replacement level birth rates. The countries that are feminist but also try to uphold some traditional values are hit even harder. Feminism cannot coexist with tradition. Japan is extremely feminist, they push women into the work force, women vote, divorce, abort, have sexual freedom free of consequence etc, they also try to uphold traditional values such as men refuse to marry women over 30. Women are supposed to cook and clean the house in a marriage etc.
Now we have three options: Traditional, Feminist and Progressive, Feminist and Traditional.
Only of the three options provides with healthy birth rates and we all know which one.
If you want actual analysis on the demographic problem world wide I suggest you to watch Kauserbauch, he analyses it very well.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@thatguy9088 It's odd that you'd think I wouldn't know who my great grandfather was or my great great grandfather. In fact I know their entire life stories. My great grandfather was close to a genius of his time but that's besides the point. Legacy is the least of my worries when it comes to children.
If you are religious (which you probably are not) you do have God given responsibilities. But even if you are not, humans are by nature responsible to procreate so we keep our species from extinction. It's not only a proclivity of ours, but even if you look at the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, procreation is at the bottom level along with shelter, food, water, etc. It's great that we've outsourced this through technology, but that imperative is still there deep ingrained in your DNA.
I'll say this. I do believe that men can occupy themselves with other things (such as physical labor or hobbies that create things) to alleviate some of the emptiness that having no family brings better than women can. And since it's bound that some men will be unable to procreate (it's a very common thing throughout history) ,the burden of procreation doesn't weighs on us as much. I'd still say as a man, that building a family is not only the most important responsibility but also the greatest source of true happiness. Eudemonia. Relationships and bonds are the stronger sources of true happiness and that's a theme perpetrated not only by the greatest philosophers but also some very credited psychological studies. And the greatest and strongest bond one can build, is that with his children.
Being respected, being acknowledged and awarded are great. But in the end, they can't replace a family. That's my bit. I can only respect someone who goes in the childless way as long as they themselves acknowledge that this is an innately selfish and egocentric decision.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tiglishnobody8750 99% of people living in Albania, have Albanian as their 1st language. So let's say someone there is a Bulgarian or Serbian ethnically, they were brought up as Albanians.
Again I told you that European migrants as long as it's not from Albania or Bosnia are fine.
Now your comment was widely wrong because you claimed that "European countries were never homogenous", which is just plainly untrue.
Almost every single European country was over 95% homogenous (as in their native ethnicities) in most of 20th century.
The UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Iceland, Greece, Serbia etc.
What you conflate here are similar ethnicities, like Swedes and Finish which was never a big issue when it came to social cohesion/social trust. The UK for example had 4 major ethnic groups, Welsh, English, Scotch and Irish. Belgium had the French Belgians and the Flemish. I consider those "homogenous" as in those groups are not "migrants" from vastly different cultures like most migrants today are.
3
-
3
-
@krashme997 "any laws that allows you to move to a country and work there are already, in essence, progressive."
Nope. Nothing progressive about that. People went for work to other nations all the time 100 years ago. It's just that now it's far easier due to transportation and a global economy.
"Then, every law and initiative that grants you any right at the same level or near the same level as the locals will also be a progressive one."
That is also not true. No law gives me the right to vote upon arriving in Japan. You're Swiss so I know you do not have the Japanese nationality. Maybe you have temporary citizenship unless you've lived there for long. You'd also know that recently Japanese sentiment has been shifting against tourism and migration. The politically active electorate is firmly against mass migration from the 3rd world the way Europe did.
"the idea of "cultural preservation" is such an odd concept, one that works almost as a buzzword to rile up any right-wing hardliner who couldn't even explain what it really means and how it would be applied."
Every descriptor can be called a "buzzword". Culture definitely evolves, the question is why and what and where does it evolve. If a country's culture evolves due to islamic migration then it evolves towards an islamic nation. What you described though is evolution due to technological advancement and Western influence. Western influence has arguably impeded Japanese society. The Japanese cultural revolution that came with Western materialism and neoliberalism has caused a decadent society with a dying population and high rates of loneliness.
Switzerland barely has cultural roots. It was never a homogenous society unlike Sweden for example. But you look at Sweden and you see incredibly high crime rates to the point where the military must be called to deal with it. I know a family friend that was from Sweden that came here to live and married a man and after they got divorced she decided to go back to Sweden. 30 years after she left. She came back running, couldn't believe how much Sweden has changed. She told us how unsafe it was and how the high trust society Sweden used to be has been overturned almost solely due to mass migration.
"think it to be weak enough to be "erased" by migrants with no money, no influence, and who barely speak the language" That's another ridiculous presupposition. The culture itself isn't weak. The ideology of tolerance is. Unless the culture holders become intolerant of cultural degradation then it definitely won't disappear by migrants as long as they're kept at a manageable level.
Let's see an example. The Netherlands used to be one of the most migrant friendly and tolerant countries in Europe. Somehow they just voted one of the most anti-Islam politicians in the history of Netherlands, not only by a plurality but the largest plurality from any recent Dutch elections. Sweden was by far the most migrant friendly country. It closed down their borders to middle eastern and african migrants and refugees. Is that a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that the crime in Sweden has gone so high up that they were forced to use the military inside the ghettos that the migrants created?
Now since you claim that migrants will only stay as long as they assimilate. That's 100% untrue. Anyone that lives near migrants from the arab world or Africa knows that it's untrue. The crime rates show that it's untrue, the statistics on being a net negative show it's untrue. Didn't Kurdish immigrants in Japan recently (which are very few btw) cause a massive riot where they burned down cars, destroyed public property and beat each other up?
You want more proof? How about the fact that Turks in Germany made the German football stadium red from Turkish flags when Germany was playing against Turkey? Imagine not only 1st generation, but 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants supporting the country they left when it's against THE COUNTRY THAT ALLOWED THEM IN. How about Lebanon? The country that had 70% Christian population that got destroyed by Palestinian migrants that were expelled from Kuwait and Jordan. They came inside the country, caused a civil war that ended in the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Christian Lebanese and now have installed a terrorist organisation as the main political power inside the country. A country that used to be the gem of the middle east destroyed by islamic migrants.
The EU supposedly is trying to do deals with Northern African countries due to hundreds of thousands of illegals crossing the sea and landing inside the EU. It has not succeeded yet and unless EU goes hard on it, it won't succeed. Only last month a boat with dozens of illegals landed on my home island and it came from Libya. Lempedusa had 20 thousand migrants land within a couple months, all coming from Libya.
Lastly, to solidify my point. If immigration wasn't such a big deal in Europe, why are far right and right wing parties seeing such a rise in popularity in almost every single EU country?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@leovalde7z Well to be truly accepted. Just having a job is definitely not enough. If you want to become a permanent citizen in another country, you have to partake in their customs, learn the language, have positive productivity and if your own culture is incompatible with the culture of the host country, then you'd need to convert into that culture.
In cases where a migrant might not need to convert cultures and religions is if they have similar religion (i.e. Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox) and closely related cultures (India-Bangladesh-Pakistan or Germany-Austria-Switzerland-Luxemburg etc).
Now, as being quite anti-immigration myself, I have no issue if a person like yourself just wants to get a work visa, maybe work 10-15 years in a European country and then take their leave. I mean it's a quite tall task to convert culture and religion, so there is a middle ground ig.
As for RIGHT NOW, you are at luck but I don't know if it'll be for long enough or for the good of the people of Europe. But Europe has strayed away from its identity. It's no longer a Christian society, it's no longer culturally cohesive society. It has engaged in multiculturalism and liberal secularism. So as of now, you'll probably be just fine if you just pick up a few everyday customs, learn the language and work a job. In my opinion, it's not enough to be truly taken in, but that's how it is in most of Europe as of now.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@airynod The cultures that heavily punish male adultery and prostitution are mainly Islamic cultures. And in those cultures the threshold for women cheating is insanely high (i.e. they have to be fully covered when in public, talking to other men is out of the question etc) and on top of that it allows men to have up to 4 wives. Which yes, it's not as lax as in Japan that they tolerate men having fun with prostitutes but it's not the "strict monogamy" standard of the Christian church and of the West. Having said that, that strict monogamy standard of the Christian church (which I am also a part of) came along with also a bunch of restrictions for women. Like the bible itself saying to men to NOT marry non-virgins and that wives fully submit to their husbands. It also came along with a culture of arranged marriages, so women couldn't run wild with hypergamy making so many bad choices in mating.
But generally speaking, strict male monogamy was mainly started and was spread by the Christian church, it didn't exist in any major civilizations at that time or before.
I myself am an Orthodox Christian, one of the few churches that has remained somewhat traditional, so I fully agree with strict monogamy. However when women do not abide by the standards they need to when married, I don't understand how you want men to do so. Women are rarely virgin in their marriage, women rarely fully submit to their man nowadays. It's preposterous but sadly it's the reality of this modern degenerate and gynocentric society.
But I am pretty sure people voted for feminism, voted for progressivism, people decided to abandon religion. So for those people that contributed to what is happening now: Have fun in a society where long term monogamous marriages are replaced with serial monogamy, polygyny by the top men and hook up culture.
2
-
@airynod So here's the thing, if a society doesn't have a moral standard it will fall into chaos (at least on a societal and governmental level). I don't think anyone should be forced through violence to comply with Christianity, however in a Christian society shame and laws based around Christian morals should exist.
As for judgement, this part is taken out of context. Jesus himself tells us to judge others : “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24) and so did Mosaic law : “In righteousness, you shall judge your neighbour.” Leviticus 19:16
Judgement is integral to a well functioning society because it can be used to avoid a fall into degeneracy along with putting people in a straight path.
As for polygyny and such. In Ancient China men had the ability to have concubines and prostitutes if they could afford them (depending on the time period). They also had the ability to have multiple wives. In fact many kings boasted amounts of 10,000 wives or so. So by modern standards they "allowed" men to cheat. I don't think any Western woman would say that her man having multiple wives and concubines would not count as "cheating".
Feminism was good in principle but as we see the results bad in practice. From birth rates plummeting to 3rd world mass immigration destroying the West, all of this was mostly due to feminism. And as much as we try to deny it, the female sexual liberation movement had to be the most destructive political movement in the past few centuries. From the destruction of marriage ,to the poisoning of interpersonal relationships, to the millions of babies being slaughtered in the altar of convenience.
As for your last statement : "Sometimes, I will say that, if you can’t find a good woman/guy, maybe it is because of your social circle or you just don’t live up to the standard of your dream."
It's partially true. Although your circle does affect what women you will meet, the actually good women are extremely scarce. I have a wide circle and even best friends that have circles in very conservative areas, and even there the women refuse to submit to their man and/or are not virgins. I can even ask you how many submissive virgin women under the age of 25 you know, I doubt you can even think of 1. And even if I do find a few (hopefully I will), I am gonna have to put 10x if not more the work my grandfather did to find one with those attributes. Luckily I am not a pessimist, so I will put everything I have into achieving my goal of building a family with a good marriageable woman, but I can 100% understand men that just opt out of society and dating.
Thanks for the wishes, I hope you're enjoying your life.:face-red-heart-shape:
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@skellurip that's the exact opposite. All the things you mentioned are far more prevalent in restricted economies like Argentina. If you look at the most capitalistic countries, none of what you said here is true. Atm the most capitalistic economies are these: Singapire, Switzerland, Ireland, Taiwan ,New Zealand, Estonia, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Australia, Germany, South Korea , Canada, Latvia, Cyprus, Iceland, Lithuania. Those are the top 20 in that order by the way.
And there is logic on why everything you said is the exact opposite in Capitalism.
1. (corporate power): In capitalistic countries due to the market deciding and high levels of competition, companies rarely stay at the top of the power structure for long. Whilst on more restricted economies, companies through lobbying and bribes use the overreach of the government to further their influence and crash their competition
2. (lower worker rights): Another fallacy for an economically uneducated person to make is that "if the market is free then the corporations will do whatever they like and take away worker rights". That's a fallacy because in a capitalistic system that's not an option. The competition will always keep the big corporations in check. The moment they start taking away rights and benefits is the moment the company fails and another one snatches their workers.
3. (lower consumer protection): In a capitalistic market, consumer protection exists through the threat of lawsuits along with some limited government organisations that check the pharmaceuticals and the food
4. (lower quality product): That's categorically true for anyone who has any basic knowledge of economics. Capitalistic markets is what made an incredible improvement in quality/cost of goods. The quality skyrocketed and the prices fell
5. (slower technological improvement): Almost all of technological improvement in the past 2 centuries has happened through free market economies. Technological advancement is literally forced in capitalism because of the high levels of competition
6. (higher price due to monopoly and cartel): Monopolies cannot exist in a true capitalistic system. Although I do understand that a capitalistic system can be corrupted like the one in the Us and after its corruption monopolies can rise through. As for cartels, that has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with law and order.
7. (capitalism incentivizes things like exploitation and anti competitive behaviour): That's got to be one of the dumbest statements you've made thus far. I expect a middle school child to know that capitalism is directly connected to high competition.
All in all ,you're very uneducated when it comes to economics and you're also probably low IQ. So rather you should let the professionals handle things like the economy instead of voting in corrupt lobbyists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WillemDefoe 70% Christians "diverse". And you also have states with 75%+ Christians like Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota ,Texas, Louisiana etc. No the Us is not religiously diverse lol. It's a vast majority Christian country. It used to be a lot higher a few decades back (upwards to 90%) but it still is pretty high. Your steady stray from religion is one of the primary reasons you have such high degeneracy, crime rates and general disintegration of your society. Do better.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Important note is that women could almost always own property. BUT they couldn't own property after they were married. The man was the owner of the property and the money in the family. At least that's how it worked in the Us and most of Europe. Which is the funny part about the bank account. Married women couldn't have a bank account, non-married ones could.
As for women working back then and now. It's very different. When women worked at the same level as they work now, they only did so for the family. Meaning that their husband was their employer or at least worked with the husband. The same went for children. It's was more of "helping around" than the modern definition of working. When women had children, they almost always worked with their children around to take care of them. Meaning that they worked from the home.
Women NEVER chased a career over a husband which is the important take away from this. So yes, if we eliminate the ideology implanted in young women's heads of chasing a career and replace it with chasing a husband, then fertility rates will almost certainly rise.
I am more on the libertarian side so I don't necessarily support barring women from education, work, property etc. However, freedom of association is mandated. If I am a businessman I HAVE to have the right to decide if I want to hire women or not. It was one of the most destructive part of our societies when we allowed the government to take away freedom of association.
The vote is also an issue. Democracy is obviously not working that well, especially the democracy of "everyone has an equal vote". It's a ridiculous concept. Especially considering that we gave bums, young people and women the same power to the men that built society and are biologically capable of being the decision makers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Liamg1999 Funny because I don't really trust the google definitions of many politically charged words and I am funnily enough right.
Here's Britannica's definition of nationalism:
Nationalism, ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.
Here's Cambridge:
a nation's wish and attempt to be politically independenta
This is what wikipedia is saying:
Nationalism is an idea and movement that holds that the Nation should be congruent with the state.[1][2] As a movement, it presupposes the existence[3] and tends to promote the interests of a particular nation,[4] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining its sovereignty (self-governance) over its perceived homeland to create a nation-state. It holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[5] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power.[4][6] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on a combination of shared social characteristics such as culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history,[7][8] and to promote national unity or solidarity.[4] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture.[
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@thatguy9088 If you are religious then you are completely wrong on the procreation part. The people in the bible that went unmarried and childless, were married to God. Monks, pastors, saints etc dedicated their entire lives into faith and God ,so they married God. Those who don't though, definitely have the responsibility to procreate. But that's religious talk, which isn't the point here.
I am not going to force anyone. I am criticising and I am 100% free to do so. In fact without people criticising and caring about social issues that are so important, society would crumble in an instant.
This idea that we should not give a damn about anything other than our own life is a very egocentric and individualistic way to view life. And that's fine as long as you understand that.
From what I have experienced, the most happy old people did have children. I have never met a truly happy senior that had no children but ofc that's just my experience, so I can't bring facts into it. Are there loners that will be happy living without a family well into their senior years? Sure. But most people are not meant for it.
As for "jumping off buildings and despair". That's actually partially true. The main reason men commit suicide at such high rates is because of loneliness. As for women, childless women over 40 have the highest rates of depression and anxiety medication consumption (1 in 3). That's a pretty scary thing to think about.
So yes, I ain't gonna change your mind but that's not my goal here anyways. My goal is to deter as many people as possible from this (usually) destructive path of narcissism and individualism which the vast majority of people will regret. You may be the exception and enjoy the life you've built up to the end without family. Who knows? I certainly don't.
As for your last statement, I don't have children (yet) but my woman was never and is still not a slut and dear technology blessed us with a thing called paternity tests. Something we've both agreed on when the time comes.
Good day back to ya.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I see a major issue in this video. We are comparing ourselves to our parents and at best grandparents generations. Yes, we have it worse than them. But we have it infinitely better than our great-grandparents and any generation before. We saw that the generations of the 50s-80s failed, they were spoiled rich generations that defaulted to hedonism and self-centrism. So why are we trying to reach those generations that failed instead of those that didn't?
People claim "muh the economy" when they don't have children. Why is is that wealth only drives birth rates down then? Meaning that if they did have more money, they would be LESS likely to have children statistically.
We see having children as a burden: " I must give them 2 extracurriculars, a decent university tuition, a car, a bunch of toys and things, 2 vacations per year etc"
Instead why don't we focus on what matters: "I must give my kids love, family ,the basics and the freedom to play with the other kids in a field"
I personally believe, we have become so hedonistic and have such a victim mentality that we can't see past our own as*.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexlloyd5354 The Us has heavy federal influence on the economy and its past economic history would be far better to be described as Capitalistic. Nowadays it's more corporatism or collusion between the federal government and big corporations. Even then, the aftermath of Capitalism still makes the Us the best country to live in.
Also no one is starving in the Us , stop the cap.
To see better examples of well enforced Capitalism ,you can go look at Iceland, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Ireland, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, Singapore and Hong Kong, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, Cyprus, UAE and after all these maybe the Us.
But please can you give me a better system for the economy and an example encompassing its long term success?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lilithsmolinski4563 Fico, Wilders and Orban are not far-right.
Fico is (probably) very moderate socially. Wilders is only aggressive in his anti-Islam redirect which he has toned down. Wilders is pro-lgbt, he is a feminist, he is pro-abortion, he's pro immigration other than islamic. He's also a Zionist.
Orban is also a feminist (at least 1st and 2nd wave), he's also pro-abortion since he has kept is fully legal during his many years in power. He's not anti-legal migration either.
I haven't delved into Fico much, but I really have never seen an anti-feminist/patriarchist leader in Europe or european-esque countries in my entire life.
Trump is a moderate centrist. He's pro-abortion, pro-mass legal migration, he was always pro-lgbt, he's not really a Christian, he's accepting of general degeneracy. Also he's a MASSIVE feminist. Can you tell me a single "right-wing" policy of his. More specifically conservative policy of his?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidstrelec610 That's utter bullsh*t. The most capitalistic countries have the wealthiest citizens on average. Meaning that the average citizen is wealthier in the most capitalistic countries than anywhere in the world.
The systems that benefit only the ultra wealthy are corporatism and socialism/communism. You are also probably conflating the Us as "capitalistic". And although it still is somewhat, it's not even in the top 25 when it comes to market freedom.
Here are the 20 most capitalistic countries atm: Singapire, Switzerland, Ireland, Taiwan ,New Zealand, Estonia, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Australia, Germany, South Korea , Canada, Latvia, Cyprus, Iceland, Lithuania
1
-
@TehRasia You did a great analysis but you should stoop a little to their level in order for them to understand what you're saying. These people are brainwashed by mainstream political trends and are at best average IQ. So for example you should say to them that the most capitalistic countries are the best for average or poor citizens to live in. And then provide the most capitalistic countries in the world (top 20): Singapire, Switzerland, Ireland, Taiwan ,New Zealand, Estonia, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Australia, Germany, South Korea , Canada, Latvia, Cyprus, Iceland, Lithuania
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@uselesscause3178 No migration doesn't mitigate the problem. It only postpones it and only if said migration is mainly from educated high quality immigrants which is not 95% of the case.
And those high quality migrants that do assimilate, in a single generation have the same fertility levels as the local population.
Migration in itself brings an enormous array of problems, so if we weigh the problems it brings to the postponing of the collapse it offers, it's almost fully negative to the country. Problems like high criminality, high welfare consumption, low tax returns, cultural division and cultural erasure of the local culture and so on and so forth.
Sweden 25 years ago had less than 2% non-European migrants. It was by far the safest country in Europe to live in. People left their doors unlocked and women went back home alone in the night. Now it's 20-30% non-European migrants and they've brought the military to deal with the crime. A friend of our family had a wife that lived in Sweden since she was a child but moved here when she married him. They divorced and she tried going back and she left running. It was so unsafe that she was afraid of her life.
The same tale can be said for Germany, the UK, Ireland, France, Spain, Italy, here in my home country Greece and a few other ones. In Norway they're lucky that migrants only concentrate in Oslo, so outside of that, they have their safe trusting societies. But that's not the case for the other countries I mentioned.
In conclusion. I'd rather have my country experience the collapse in 30-40 years but remain culturally and ethnically untouched, than to postpone the collapse for 10-20 years and then I and my children and grandchildren will have to fight the migrants to take back our country or even worse, be phased out and replaced due to the migrants gaining a demographic majority like many European countries are headed towards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nightbot.2817 UNCLOS is actually the final decision signed by every country. I've yet to find a single Turk nationalist in this thread to tell me 1 country that doesn't recognise UNCLOS for their sea territories. Only Turkey.
"UNCLOS does not say that the island where 600 people live should steal the EEZ, or economic zone, from the place where 2,000,000 people live." Yes it actually does. And that is mainly to prevent from isolation of island parts. In fact every country recognizes this besides Turkey.
"it does not say that 40,000 times the size of the land area of 9-12 square kilometers deserves an EEZ" Again it does.
This comes from a legal expert in another thread: "All of the provisions of UNCLOS are considered and proven to be customary law. Thus, Turkey before an international judicial body (like the ICJ) will be recognized as being subject to these provisions. As such, the 12 nautical miles (being considered by law as an “iPso facto” and “ab initio” sovereign right) is not legally negotiable and are going to be recognized to Greece. However, when it comes to EEZ of islands special and general circumstances apply. For example, In numerous cases, the ICJ whilst delimitating maritime zones between island nations and other nations (see the judgment about Libya and Malta) has recognized a diminished effect of islands in producing EEZ. All in all, all territory qualifying as islands (territory that either has population and/or economic activity) have a 12nm territorial waters, however, a really small island may not produce no EEZ at all, if regarded so by the ICJ."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AidanK_ART So here's a lengthy but explanatory rant (I will answer all your questions):
Men and women are different. Men view sex differently than women. Most men can differentiate emotions and physicality in sex. Women can't for the most part. Which is why cheating is not viewed the same. Women when they cheat, they cheat emotionally, mentally, physically and even socially. Men usually cheat solely physically. You can even trace that underlying thought process in these women that understand male nature. They'd allow their man using a prostitute because that means it's not emotional cheating therefore they're not afraid that their man will get stolen from them.
Now on why men would do such a thing. Well you have to understand male and female sexual instinct and libido. It's well known that men have far higher libido than women, but even so. You might ask: If the woman gives the man sex very frequently why would he go use a prostitute and not his wife? It's because of the male sexual strategy. Men instinctually want to spread their seed aka men look for quantity of women. A man can have multiple wives that he can love the same, a woman cannot. Hence why there is a historical precedence of men being allowed to have multiple wives whilst the opposite was always punished.
The female sexual strategy is called hypergamy. What does that mean? That women seek the man that can lead them, provide for them, protect them, be their emotional rock etc. That all amounts to a man that is superior to them in tangible assets as well as mental assets. Why did that instinct evolve to that point? Well for multiple factors. Women needed a man capable to protect them from physical threats. A man capable to provide for them when they are in a vulnerable state. A man that will allow their woman to vent to him and provide a solution with a calm mind. A man that could lead them out of tough situations. Those were all death or life traits that a woman needed from a man. So getting the man that is the BEST at all, would be ideal.
It all comes down to biology.
There are other biological reasons as to why men are built for polygyny whilst women are not built for polyandry. Such STI vulnerability, ability to reproduce at mass scales etc.
What you need to understand though is even if Japanese or other men from other cultures "cheat" physically, they still go home to their wife. They still love their wife and will never leave her. The betrayal would be to have a second relationship or leave them. And that's how it is in most of the world. In islamic countries men can have up to 4 wives however they cannot have intercourse outside marriage. So it depends on the region and culture.
I am from Greece so societally we're close to you Russians. Your values were based upon Orthodox Christianity. So what happened in our societies is vastly different. Christianity pretty much invented the concepted of forced male monogamy. Men were NOT monogamous prior to Christianity. And although a very tough thing for many men to follow, it's the best for society as a whole. Because that means everyone gets paired and has a family and children and a happy marriage. HOWEVER, that also came with other criteria that were to be followed which now are not. Hence why we have extremely low fertility rates, high suicide and depression rates and most people are lonely.
Whilst in our Christian societies we still uphold the restrictions on the male sexual strategy (polygyny and quantity of women),we do not uphold the restrictions on the FEMALE sexual strategy. Meaning that women now choose who they mate with. That's a huge issue, because hypergamy will cloud their judgement and for the most part we know women are not good at finding the best man for their future. In our society, it used to be the father finds a few good picks for his daughter and sometimes the daughter could choose who she liked the most from these highly vetted picks or sometimes she couldn't. However, before she could date/marry a guy, the father had to approve or she was disowned. And that's a good way to do things because the father always knows who the bad men are and who the tricksters are. And since he is a part of the decision he also has authority over the relationship. Meaning that if the man was deceiving, he would face harsh consequences. Now fathers are barely present and have barely any authority on who their daughter dates or marries. It's more so pronounced in Greece but I think it's also highly the case in Russia. So the dating market and relationships are utterly f*cked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OsmanOsmanHan Took back your land? North Macedonia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Thessaly, Epirus, Thrace, Syria, Lebanon, Judea, Iraq have to disagree with you. You literally lost more than half of your empire. You were only lucky enough that the Great powers were tired of war and chose to support you at the middle of the Greco-Turkish war which allowed you to protect the remaining lands of your crumbling empire. Extremely fortunate because if they continued with supporting Greece, Ankara would've fallen and with it the Ottoman empire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joek600 He has 0 connection with ND in fact he never even voted for them besides these elections. He also doesn't work for any niche part of construction. He is a civil engineer so he works on literally everything. From houses, to hotels, to airports, to ports, to roads, to bridges etc. After he finished his 2 year job last year, he was given 4 offers of good paying jobs. But you can easily look at the construction projects that have started all around Greece. In Crete we have enormous projects like the new giant Herakleion airport, the extension of the US military base in Suda Bay, the dam in Tavronitis, the BOAK road is in future planning. Of course the Elliniko project which is an enormous project that will attract thousands of investors, the extension of Peiraias port, the extension of the Athens metro etc. The lack of laborers working even in construction crews like brick layers, electricians, machine operators, etc is huge. They even have a bunch of open jobs for unskilled laborers since I do work part time for a construction crew and so do many of my friends and yet they need more workers.
But even if we were to agree with your assumptions. Why has the GDP risen so much? And it's not just the recovery from COVID since it has far surpassed the GDP reduction during the COVID year. The unemployment rates are at 10-11% atm compared to the 16-17% when SYRIZA left the government. These are general statistics which cannot be refuted. Why is that if not for an economic boom?
You can dislike ND all you like, I do too. But saying they didn't excel economically during their administration is ridiculous. You could find 100 things they did wrong, but the economy is not one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WillemDefoe People thinking for themselves? We live in the most sheepish times nowadays. Everyone complied without asking any questions 2 years ago. That's the "thinking for themselves" and "questioning authority" right?
Flawed religion? LoL. I am not even gonna comment on how wrong that is but I'd love to see your alternative. Everyone listen to the values they made for themselves? So there is no moral standard. As long as societal trends switch to the extermination of whites it's fine. Because the moral standard at that time line is this.
If you think a degenerate society where suicide and depression are through the roofs, Where the sense of community has been demolished, Where relationships are on the bottom of the barrel, Where half the children grow up in a broken household, Where birth rates are below replacement rates, is a good predictor of the future of our societies then go ahead. Be a participant on the destruction of your own society.
As for the more blood in the hands of Christianity than any war. That's absolute garbage and I dare you to provide any evidence for that. Because atheistic marxist societies (USSR, China, Nazi Germany, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia etc) in the 20th century are responsible for the death of more than 300 million people directly from their policies.
As for your last comment. It shows the ignorance and low knowledge you have about Christianity. If God was vengeful and couldn't stand people not believing in him, he would've never given us free will. Divine punishment that occurred in various times through history is not an absolute and it usually came onto already completely fallen societies.
But the most ironic about you is that you believe that you're not a part of religion. Which is ridiculous. Yes you are. Whether that religion is based around yourself (inherently narcissistic) , science (scientology) or nihilism it's still is a religion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mostly disagree. I am an average man and have wielded my grandfather's rapier and I can tell you that the average woman CANNOT properly or effectively swing a sword, a rapier, or a mace. Can she carry it? Perhaps. But if the swing is half assed, you can easily dodge.
In the case of Andrew Wilson and the girl. If Andrew was unarmed and you gave her a mace, I'd give her less than a 10% chance of beating him. It's far more likely she'd miss/he'd evade and he'd knock her down and bash her sk4ll in or even take away her weapon. Now if both have a mace, I give her 1% chance. In comparison, if both are unarmed I give her a practically 0% chance of beating him (I wouldn't say absolutely 0%, because some quite improbable thing might happen and win, like Andrew getting a heart attack mid fight, so it's practically 0% chance).
Obviously the chance becomes higher when weapons are in play, but it's still relatively low. When we get to guns, the chances go up mainly if training is involved. But if you gave the average woman a gun, I'd still not give her more than 50% chance of killing an unarmed man.
There is a reason why Russia is not using women in the front lines and it's not because they need them to have children, since they are statistically not having children. It's because they're far less capable to be in combat. So much so, that I've yet to see a single one in the front line videos. And we're talking about modern warfare where they use automatic guns and rarely do they get into hand to hand combat. That is mainly what Andrew is speaking off. Most can't even carry the gear the soldiers are carrying, and those that can, can't do it for a prolonged period of time. They have far worse bodily heat regulation which can be deadly in the summer heat or the winter cold. They have far more fragile structures, meaning they can get hurt and die a lot easier than the soldiers. They are also slower in both running speed and reaction speed. I can go on and on, but those are the main settings.
Generally, I agree with your statement that we can never be absolute in 1v1s when weapons are involved, even if a woman is wielding said weapon. But when we are talking in generalities and grouping women and men, then the general statements can be applied.
1
-
@metatronyt Properly no. I have wielded a rapier given to military officers (my grandfather was a SEAL officer in my country) and I had a hard time swinging it, or in the case of the rapier stabbing with it.
Could she do swings? Sure. Would the swings be fast enough for me not to be able to dodge? Probably not. There is still the fact that she may hit me by chance, but that's pretty low. (I am talking about incapacitating wounds, obviously if she tried to hit me on the ribs, she might have a higher chance to succeed but depending on the force it wouldn't incapacitate me before on get her down)
Would it be 100%? No. If it's an average armed woman against me unarmed (an average man, 5'9 70kg) I'd give her a 20-30% chance. Now in the case of Andrew and that girl. That is an above-average man in both height and weight vs a below-average woman. The chances would be less than 10%. If both are armed, less than 1%.
Now obviously training plays a big role, that's the case even in martial arts as I've done Jiu-Jitsu for 4 years and I've experienced it first hand. But here I am talking about being untrained in the usage of weapons which are most people and even more so for women. I am assuming when talking about women fencing longswords well, you're talking about trained ones. Because from my observations the average woman can barely run properly, nevermind swing a mace or a sword.
When training comes into place, I am out of my depth in terms of medieval combat since I am not trained myself other than self-training with the rapier. When it comes to wielding guns, I am also out of my depth although I know how to use one unlike 95% of women in my country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@astrayblackcat I use the word "cheating" for the Westerners to understand.
I don't know what part of Japan you are in. But in most rural parts women are not allowed to cheat. Maybe in Tokyo or other metropolitan areas.
However I will suggest you this: Why are relationships in Japan at an all time low? Why are divorce rates so high? Allowing women sexual freedom and not being "archaic" has a part in that. Although you say you are not like the West, you clearly are because you adopted the feminist mindset. And believe me, in the West they cheat a lot.
What many Japanese men fail to understand is female nature. Women get attached to the person they have sex with and it is an important part of their emotional bond. I don't know if you've dated a virgin woman compared to one who has slept with a lot of men, but the difference is stark after you have sex with a virgin woman or a woman with low prior sexual partners.
The more men a woman sleeps with, the more she loses that ability of emotional bonding through sex. The more sexual partners she has, the more likely she is to divorce you/break up with you. It's also cuckoldry. A man allowing his woman to sleep with other men was and is considered cuckoldry from most men. And unless you're into NTR I don't see how this can work. That equality thing that modern people even in Japan think is good, is really not. We tried it in the West for decades now. We are almost destroyed as former empires. Japan is following the trend. No loyal wives, no children. More feminism and working women, less wages for the family and time for kids. So less kids. Less kids, less future taxes and work force. Less future taxes and work force, societal collapse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sanakudou You seem to not understand the precedent of all this. "Feminists are proven right that men that are humiliated and stripped from love and any basic humanity will destroy the society that brought them to this point". That's what you're actually saying to anyone understanding the situation.
It's not necessarily a threat but an observation of reality. If you look throughout history, when young men do not have a family to protect, a God to bow down and a community to serve, society tends to collapse. There is a reason why societies that saw the aristocracy practicing high levels of polygyny are so unstable. The islamic nations are a perfect examples of this but also the subsaharan nations prior to complete colonization as well.
"The “world” doesn’t owe anyone anything they want, other people do not exist for us, it’s always going to be their choice if we have a place of significance in their life or not."
Again that's not the point here. You can say "the world doesn't owe you sh*t" and they will say "then I don't owe the world sh*t". What can you do to stop them? You can't do anything. The idea of equality amongst men and women is fallacious by nature. Why? Because rights are not tangible, they exist because there is force that is used to apply them. Who wields that force? Men. It was always men. And the moment men decide to stop using the force to enforce those "equal rights", they suddenly vanish. Take a look at Afghanistan. Somehow all this equality vanished within a week of the Us leaving the place. But how can this be possible? You might ask. Well, women protested for a few days and nothing happened. Why? Because women inherently cannot fight with their lives and win against men. It's against their nature.
So all you have to do as a woman isn't be afraid of men. But ask yourself this: What did feminism achieve in the West? Did it achieve that utopia of female empowerment? Not really. Did it achieve a greater happiness for women? Not that either. What it did is destroy Western societies. Women in the West were always the most privileged class in history. Men protected them, men provided for them, men gave them rights and freedoms, men cherished them and men died for them. Western women were living a life of privilege due to the successes of Western men. They had husbands that loved them and were loyal to them, children that respected them, communities that listened to them and a safe environment to live life in. Yet because of some weak simps, feminism entered into play and threw all that away for what? A materialistic vain life that is clearly driving women crazy.
Saying "men need to make peace with leading a loveless and sexless life" is just a dream. It's as real as Marx's classless, moneyless and borderless utopia. But to make you understand it better I'll give you an analogy:
It's like saying to a group of people in a field: You will eat the cow sh*t for the rest of your life, sure it might be disgusting but at least you will survive. All while the owners of that land are eating beef steaks, yogurt and cheese and drinking milk and orange juice. But the catch is that if all those people in the field wanted to, they could kill the owners of the land and enjoy their food instead of eating sh*t for the rest of their life. Now would it be morally wrong to kill for a better life quality? Perhaps. But when did "morality" stop desperate people? Never. Even if the owners pleaded with them "Please, eat the cow sh*t and try to enjoy life outside of eating", why would those people listen?
In conclusion, I hope that the "threat" is actualized through civil means aka feminism is eradicated through men wielding political power but with little human life loss. I really do. But as much as I hope that the transition is peaceful and harmless, it probably won't. In history it rarely was, so why would it be now? In my opinion, the bloodbath can be mainly prevented if women as a whole trend a little to the right and show respect to the average man. But we all know it won't happen. I'd jump in joy to the day women see "unattractive" low level men as human beings or women appreciate men at their level instead of chasing the out of their league men. But as I said, that'd be going against their nature. It's similar (although far less outrageous) to your claim about men.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Justice Keith-LeClaire Your bs excuses keep coming.
I don't know which one is funnier, throwing years of your life into a useless degree or making excuses to defend a clearly selfish decision, which is prioritizing yourself and your inane needs over your responsibilities and duties.
Again you seem to be repeating that I bring up religion when I never explicitly did. As for bringing up country. Do you think people who give 0 sh*ts about the country they live in are not narcissists? The country you live in is the extended community you live in. If your country collapses, you are gonna be greatly affected. So acting partly on your duties to your country should be on every normal person's checklist.
"Choose a better life for THEMSELVES". Here, you just proved my entire hypothesis. People seem to chase momentarily or even prolonged happiness instead of searching for eudemonia. How do you think your life will be better? If you have a bigger house? Maybe a better car? Or how about working 10 hours a day on your career that can fire you on a whim? Dying alone seems great right? These inane and superficial goals and dreams only manifest in this superficial and materialistic society. Instead of striving to create strong bonds and relationships with people, you strive for pointless dreams and aspirations. And guess what? There is no stronger bond and relationship than that of a parent and a child.
That's the problem. "Provide the best life possible". What's this bs? Do you think you need to cuddle your kid and give him a fully comfortable life for him to have a happy childhood? From my experience, children in the middle-lower middle class are having the best childhoods. They grow up and learn how to be grateful and humble (most do). The excuses of "the costs are too high" or "I can't provide the best life for my child" are utter bs. Garbage excuses. Children can be raised extremely well in the poverty line. Money is the least of the things you should be worrying about when raising children. As long as you can provide them with food, a place to live and clothes you don't need anything else. Everything after that is extra. The life lessons and the character of your child are the integral part.
Another fallacy is saying that poor children or unwanted children "don't stand a chance". That's an extremely privileged way to view things. I've met some great people who were orphans or lived in sh*tpoor conditions. In my country, I grew up in lower-middle class which would be considered close to poverty line in the Us. Had a great childhood and now working towards my best self.
Bringing children to this world and abandoning them are two very different things. Unless you are the type of person to abandon your children, why would you use that as an excuse? And if you are the type of person to abandon your children, then you got far bigger problems than narcissism.
See, all your inane excuses are easily debunked. Most excuses to not have children are that way. Why? Because putting yourself and what you think you need above everything else is by definition a narcissistic mindset.
Maybe one day you people will grow up and mature and understand that sacrifice is part of life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@steppenwolf5956 Not really. Americans are not calling themselves "Englishmen", "Germans" or the other European ethnicities where they descended. Prior the USA there was no country/empire/nation in the region of North America. There were only regional tribes with no well defined borders.
In contrast, the Turkish invaders destroyed 2 of the wealthiest empires at that time aka the Eastern Roman Empire and the Persian empire. They turkified the local population and through many ways (blood tax, forced islamizations, enslavement, controlled massacres) they enforced population control, steadily extinguishing and turkifying the local populations. It all reached the peaking point during the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides that they committed in the early 20th century, fully establishing a Turkish majority within the territories that they had left.
That was also proven through historic evidence. Turkish culture as we know it didn't originate from the Turks but it is a combination of stolen cuisine, music, clothing etc from Persians, Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Jews and other ethnic groups of the former ERE. DNA testing has also proven that the majority of Turks have very little Turkic DNA. Meaning that most are a mix of those former ethnicities that were turkified. The highest DNA percentage is Pontic Greek and other Minor Asia Greek ethnic groups, then Armenian and Persian, then Arab and lastly Turkic at 5-15% on average. Hence why most Western Turks look Greek.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noriantiri9310 No, your assumption is just plainly wrong. Actually religious population in Southern countries is not as high as church registration is. We are registered at church from babies because we are baptized. However, very few of us actually attend church and are religious. Let me demonstrate this to you: If deeply religious people are 10% of the population and have 3.0 birth rate. If the rest of the population has a 0.5 birth rate then the birth rates overall will be very low. Now if we go to the Nordic countries, the non-religious population has higher birth rates on average than the average non-religious population in Southern countries.
If you look at birth rates between very religious and non-religious people there is a spark difference. There have been studies done on this too. But the most accessible example is Israel. The ultra orthodox jews have an average of 6-7 birth rate, the secular jews have a 2-3 birth rate. That's in Israel which is the only 1st world country with a healthy birth rate.
Now if we go for the reason why Southern countries have lower birth rates, it's mainly because tradition and feminism cannot coincide. It's a similar thing that explains South Korea's, Japan's and China's low birth rates. They are traditional societies that have embraced feminism to its fullest.
And one might say after that : Then why should we not push them to become progressive?
Because that will bring other issues and will not solve the issue at hand. Progressive countries like the Nordics, UK, France etc also have far below the replacement level of births. Just because it's 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 more than the traditionalist feminist countries doesn't mean it's good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@r.yuksel9774 Untrue. All support was withdrawn by March 1921
"By this time all other fronts had been settled in favour of the Turks,freeing more resources for the main threat of the Greek Army. France and Italy concluded private agreements with the Turkish revolutionaries in recognition of their mounting strength.[62] They viewed Greece as a British client, and sold military equipment to the Turks. The new Bolshevik government of Russia became friendly to the Turkish revolutionaries, as shown in the Treaty of Moscow (1921). The Bolsheviks supported Mustafa Kemal and his forces with money and ammunition.[63][64] In 1920 alone, Bolshevik Russia supplied the Kemalists with 6,000 rifles, over 5 million rifle cartridges, and 17,600 shells as well as 200.6 kg (442.2 lb) of gold bullion. In the subsequent two years the amount of aid increased.[65]"
"Having failed to reach a military solution, Greece appealed to the Allies for help, but early in 1922 Britain, France and Italy decided that the Treaty of Sèvres could not be enforced and had to be revised. In accordance with this decision, under successive treaties, the Italian and French troops evacuated their positions, leaving the Greeks exposed."
The French and British ships waited and watched as the Turks burned down the city of Smyrna slaughtering tens of thousands of Greeks and Armenians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1