Youtube comments of CaptainVanisher (@captainvanisher988).

  1. 402
  2. 339
  3. 325
  4. 300
  5. 182
  6. 176
  7. 174
  8. 166
  9. 151
  10. 141
  11. 135
  12. 122
  13. 114
  14. 110
  15. 108
  16. 106
  17. 106
  18. 95
  19. 94
  20. 93
  21. 86
  22. 85
  23. 79
  24. 79
  25. 72
  26. 71
  27. 69
  28. 68
  29. 64
  30. 63
  31. 61
  32. 61
  33. 60
  34. 56
  35. 55
  36. 55
  37. 55
  38. 55
  39. 53
  40. 52
  41. 49
  42. 48
  43. 48
  44. 45
  45. 45
  46. 44
  47. 42
  48. 42
  49. 42
  50. 41
  51. 40
  52. 40
  53. 40
  54. 39
  55. 39
  56. 38
  57. 37
  58. 37
  59. 37
  60. 37
  61. 36
  62. 36
  63. 35
  64. 35
  65. 34
  66. 34
  67. 33
  68. 32
  69.  @jazzm786  Oh really? Let's actually analyse some data and statistics on why men are actually heavily disadvantage today. Legally: 1. Justice courts heavily disadvantage men and give them harsher penalties for the same crime compared to women 2. Family courts are so stacked against men that alimony, child support and child custody goes at rates higher than 90% to women 3. Affirmative action, which gives male students lower scores when try to enter unis solely due to their gender Socially: 1. Men commit suicide at 3:1 rate compared to women 2. 70% of homeless people are men 3. 90% of deaths in the workplace are men 4. 78% of homicide victims are men 5. Almost all war deaths are men 6. Men are more likely to get robbed 7. 33% of young men(in 2018 now it's higher) are virgins or haven't had s3x in a year 8. Men are more likely to have mental disorders like autism 9. Women outweigh men in college enrollments and graduations with the disparage being higher than that of men against women in the 1970s 10. Women are more likely to be hired in STEM jobs 11. Men are very oftenly deemed p3dophiles when being around children 12. Testicular cancer raises a lot less money than breast cancer through charity 13. Men have 0 reproductive rights 14. There are almost no help centers for male victims of rape or domestic abuse 15. Physical abuse against men committed by women is at many times socially acceptable and almost never punished 16. School systems are built in a way that heavily discriminates against the male nature of the students 17. The average man is considered unattractive by the average woman 18. Women swipe on 4.5% of men compared to men swiping on 60% of women in dating apps And those are just a few things that popped on my head. Your argument is a logical fallacy by the way. "Men are ruling the world". Yes most elites and politicians in high positions are men. These people are less than 1% of the male population. They do not remotely represent the average man. The average man has it fare worse than the average woman.
    31
  70. 31
  71. 31
  72. 30
  73. 30
  74. 30
  75. 29
  76. 28
  77. 28
  78. 28
  79. 28
  80. 27
  81. 27
  82. 26
  83. 26
  84. 26
  85. 25
  86. 25
  87. 25
  88. 25
  89. 25
  90. 24
  91. 24
  92. 24
  93. 24
  94. 23
  95. 23
  96. 22
  97. 22
  98. 22
  99. 21
  100. 21
  101. 21
  102. 20
  103. 20
  104. 20
  105. 19
  106. 19
  107. 19
  108. 19
  109. 19
  110. Idk where you found the 3rd one from. Ukraine had the 2nd worst GDP per capita in Europe behind Albania in 1990. Other countries within the Soviet sphere followed like Romania and Poland. Ukraine's population in 2019 was 45 million that's a 7 million decrease from the latest Soviet era population size however that's what'll happen to a country that suddenly opens up to immigration. Soviet citizens had hardly any ability or right to immigrate out of the USSR. That's the case even in puppet states like Poland and East Germany. So obviously people will leave an impoverished region fast when they have the ability to do so. Debt cannot be counted for Ukraine alone under the USSR but we know for a fact that the USSR had debt. It's just small compared to the GDP. Having said that "no debt" doesn't mean "good economy". The USSR despite having low debt collapsed due to the unsustainability of their economic system. Developed social sphere is also highly debatable since the USSR only artificially boosted their results in science and education and even then came nowhere near the West. The last three points are also asinine since the Ukrainian economy was pretty bad compared to Europe. If you want to make the point that Ukraine was highly mismanaged after the end of the USSR then I am with you. But trying to suggest that Ukraine was this amazing nation under the USSR is just a blatant lie. Was it better? Perhaps. But so was Belarus. So was Kazakhstan. Most former USSR states felt the collapse and never recovered from it. In the contrary USSR puppet states flourished after the USSR fell. Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia are all doing much much better than they did anytime under the USSR. Ukrainians haven't been "held" hostage by their government. They voted and created said government. Instead of overthrowing bad leaders like Zelensky, they allow them to take full control. You can sympathize with Ukrainians all you want but they created many of their problems themselves.
    19
  111. 18
  112. 18
  113. 18
  114. 17
  115. 17
  116. 17
  117. 17
  118. 17
  119. 17
  120. 16
  121. 16
  122. 16
  123. 16
  124. 16
  125. 16
  126. 16
  127. 16
  128. 16
  129. 16
  130. 16
  131. 15
  132. 15
  133. 15
  134. 15
  135. 15
  136. 15
  137. 15
  138. 15
  139. ​ @vladdumitrica849 A bunch of bs. What we have now is the inevitable state of modern democracy. The original type of democracy was not universal, non-natives couldn't vote, disabled couldn't vote, women couldn't vote and young people couldn't vote. And even that system didn't last long and monarchy made a comeback in ancient Greece. Direct democracy doesn't work either. The masses can be equally propagandised and misled. The majority of the population has 0 idea of how to rule a nation or what laws are better for our society hence why democracy is flawed to its core. Modern democracy removes the competent leaders from power and replaces them with the people that can mold and appeal to the masses the best. Direct democracy also removes the competent leaders from power and replaces them with the mob that usually just follows the trends. Monarchy or decentralised states were the best in balancing the power of the state. The monarchs were held accountable when they failed by being assassinated, executed or generally deposed. Now politicians are seated, they get their money to make the decisions of the special interests and if they become too disliked they go back to their home with millions in their pocket. They're not held accountable. By decentralised government, I am talking about the system that the Us had from the 17th century to the 19th century. Government power was balanced by the power that each community held within the state. As the person in the video said, communal governments, local churches, fraternities etc held much more power counterbalancing the state.
    15
  140. 15
  141. 15
  142. 15
  143. 14
  144. 14
  145. 14
  146. 14
  147. 14
  148. 14
  149. 14
  150. 14
  151. 14
  152. 14
  153. 14
  154. 14
  155. 13
  156. 13
  157. 13
  158. 13
  159. 13
  160. 13
  161. 13
  162. 13
  163. 13
  164. 13
  165. 13
  166. 13
  167. 13
  168. 13
  169. 12
  170. 12
  171. 12
  172. 12
  173. 12
  174. 12
  175. 12
  176. 12
  177. 12
  178. 12
  179. 11
  180. 11
  181. 11
  182. 11
  183. 11
  184. 11
  185. 11
  186. 11
  187. 11
  188. 11
  189. 11
  190. 11
  191. 11
  192. 11
  193. 11
  194. 11
  195. 10
  196. 10
  197. 10
  198. 10
  199. 10
  200. 10
  201. 10
  202. 10
  203. 10
  204. 10
  205. 10
  206. 10
  207. 10
  208. 10
  209. 10
  210. 10
  211. 10
  212. 10
  213. 10
  214. 10
  215. 10
  216. 10
  217. 9
  218. 9
  219. 9
  220. 9
  221. 9
  222. 9
  223. 9
  224. 9
  225. 9
  226. 9
  227. 9
  228. 9
  229. 9
  230. 9
  231. 9
  232. 9
  233. 9
  234. 9
  235. 9
  236. 9
  237. 9
  238. 9
  239. 9
  240. 9
  241. 9
  242. 9
  243. 8
  244. 8
  245. 8
  246. 8
  247. 8
  248. 8
  249. 8
  250. 8
  251. 8
  252. 8
  253. 8
  254. 8
  255. 8
  256. 8
  257. 8
  258. 8
  259. 8
  260. 8
  261. 8
  262. 8
  263. 8
  264. 8
  265. 8
  266. 8
  267. 8
  268. 8
  269. 8
  270. 8
  271. 8
  272. 8
  273. 8
  274. 8
  275. 7
  276. 7
  277. 7
  278. 7
  279. 7
  280. 7
  281. 7
  282. 7
  283. 7
  284. 7
  285. 7
  286. 7
  287. 7
  288. 7
  289. 7
  290. 7
  291. 7
  292. 7
  293. 7
  294. 7
  295. 7
  296. 7
  297. 7
  298. 7
  299. 7
  300. Is that why the Brits refused to send aid to Greek troops. The Brits had no "anti-Turk" emotion otherwise they would have ceded Constantinople to the Greeks and not to themselves and on top of that they would've send the arms and the troops they promised to the Greek army. Instead they sent a little aid at the start of the war and then backstabbed the Greeks in fear of a great Greek empire that would own Constantinople. They wanted the city to themselves. The French didn't offer any aid to the Greek army or state, they just had a war coinciding with the Greek advancement. Eventually they refused to continue the war and capitulated. The Italians just retrieved their troops and didn't involve themselves at all. The Bolsheviks on the other hand sent large amounts of weapons and ammunition to the Turkish army and government in support of their war effort. Without Russian arms, Turkey would've certainly fallen, or at least most if not all of Western Turkey would be Greek. And the funniest part is that the Greek army barely lost any battle. They just retreated and then left. The "army from scratch" you are talking about was absolutely destroyed to the point of their new capital being almost under siege. 50km away. Now had the Brits not betray Greece once again, Greece would've reached Ankara and captured most of the last remains of the Ottoman empire. Had the French continue to fight, the Turkish army would be unable to keep up and fall in the Western front to the Greek army. Had the Russians not been such a big help to Attaturk, the Turkish army would've never managed to push back or even defend from the Greek army. Had king Alexander not died, Greece would still be unified and be able to organize better and send more reinforcements. In general, had the Entente not betrayed Greece, Turkey would not exist today. Not as we know it at least.
    7
  301. 7
  302. 7
  303. 7
  304. 7
  305. 7
  306. 7
  307. 7
  308. 7
  309. 7
  310. 7
  311. 7
  312. 7
  313. 7
  314. 7
  315. 7
  316. 7
  317. 7
  318. 7
  319. 7
  320. 7
  321. 6
  322. 6
  323. 6
  324. 6
  325. 6
  326. 6
  327. 6
  328. 6
  329. 6
  330. 6
  331. 6
  332. 6
  333. 6
  334. 6
  335. 6
  336. 6
  337. 6
  338. 6
  339. 6
  340. 6
  341. 6
  342. 6
  343. 6
  344. 6
  345. 6
  346. 6
  347. 6
  348. 6
  349. 6
  350. 6
  351. 6
  352. 6
  353. 6
  354. 6
  355. 6
  356. 6
  357. 6
  358. 6
  359. 6
  360. 6
  361. 6
  362. 6
  363. 6
  364. 6
  365. 6
  366. 6
  367. 6
  368. 6
  369. 6
  370. 6
  371. 6
  372. 6
  373. 6
  374. 6
  375. 6
  376. 6
  377. 6
  378. 6
  379. 6
  380. 6
  381. 6
  382. 6
  383. 5
  384. 5
  385. 5
  386. 5
  387. 5
  388. 5
  389. 5
  390. 5
  391. 5
  392. 5
  393. 5
  394. 5
  395. 5
  396. 5
  397. 5
  398. 5
  399. 5
  400. 5
  401. 5
  402. 5
  403. 5
  404. 5
  405. 5
  406. 5
  407. 5
  408. 5
  409. 5
  410. 5
  411. 5
  412. 5
  413. 5
  414. 5
  415. 5
  416. Great video, bringing into light one of the biggest problems that the Westernized countries are facing, which are birth rates. Japan is already starting to feel the consequences and the next 3 decades it will only get worse. My analysis is this: Very few of the factors listed are actually correspondent to reality. The two main factors for low birth rates all over the Westernized world are: 1. Women's emancipation 2. Materialism Materialism is an easy diagnosis when you start actually listening to people that don't have kids or unmarried. The mere fact that so many people say "economic issues" when they live in one of the best eras economically for the average earner shows just that. In reality, the average earning couple can comfortably raise 3-4 children if not more. It's just that we have become so materialistic that many believe that children should be raised with everything they want and more. As for women's emancipation. I think it's self evident. Women prioritize career over finding a husband and creating a family. Women even after married refuse to downgrade or let go of their career in order to have children. Women have risen through the economic ranks and that combined with their natural instinct of hypergamy has caused the qualifying dating age men pool to shrink immensely. As for many points raised like immigration. It doesn't work. It only postpones the consequences for a few years. The old guy's points were also kinda off considering Germany has some of the lowest birth rates in Europe even after allowing millions in mass immigration inside their country and the US is only staying afloat because of continuous mass immigration (illegal or not) and there are still a few strong religious communities where they have big families. But even the Us is under the replacement rate and that says a lot.
    5
  417. 5
  418. 5
  419. 5
  420. 5
  421. 5
  422. 5
  423. 5
  424. 5
  425. 5
  426. 5
  427. 5
  428. 5
  429. 5
  430. 5
  431. 5
  432. 5
  433. 5
  434. 5
  435. 5
  436. 5
  437. 5
  438. 5
  439. 5
  440. 5
  441. 5
  442. 5
  443. 5
  444. 5
  445. 5
  446. 5
  447. 5
  448. 5
  449. 5
  450. 5
  451. 5
  452. 5
  453. 5
  454. 5
  455. 5
  456. 5
  457. 5
  458. 5
  459. 5
  460. 5
  461. 5
  462. 5
  463. 5
  464. 5
  465. 5
  466. 5
  467. 5
  468. 5
  469. 5
  470. 5
  471. 5
  472. 5
  473. 5
  474. 5
  475. 5
  476. 5
  477. 5
  478. 5
  479. 5
  480. 5
  481. 5
  482. 5
  483. 4
  484. 4
  485. 4
  486. 4
  487. 4
  488. 4
  489. 4
  490. 4
  491. 4
  492. 4
  493. 4
  494. 4
  495. 4
  496. 4
  497. 4
  498. 4
  499. 4
  500. 4
  501. 4
  502. 4
  503. 4
  504. 4
  505. 4
  506. 4
  507. 4
  508. 4
  509. 4
  510. 4
  511. 4
  512. 4
  513. 4
  514. 4
  515. 4
  516. 4
  517. 4
  518. 4
  519. 4
  520. 4
  521. 4
  522. 4
  523. 4
  524. 4
  525. 4
  526. 4
  527. 4
  528. 4
  529. 4
  530. 4
  531. 4
  532. 4
  533. 4
  534. 4
  535. 4
  536. 4
  537. 4
  538. 4
  539. 4
  540. 4
  541. 4
  542. 4
  543. 4
  544. 4
  545. 4
  546. 4
  547. 4
  548. 4
  549. 4
  550. 4
  551. 4
  552. 4
  553. 4
  554. 4
  555. 4
  556. 4
  557. 4
  558. 4
  559. 4
  560.  @ancientalien000  No you seem to not understand how that works. The bell curve was normal only after the woman knew the man she was rating. But here's the thing, do you think that it's easy to get passed the appraoching stage of a woman for most men? Most men are unattractive when women don't know them. That means that they will ultimately be rejected if a woman finds them unattractive. So if they can't get passed through stage 1 due to their attractiveness, it's 100% understandable why they would "whine" about it. It's a paradox. First it's "no women do not have high standards for looks" to "okay women have high standards for looks, but if you get to know them you the standards normalize". And the question to that is "How will you get to know a woman to drop into their reasonable standard scale if you get rejected insantly due to their unreasonable standard scale?" Do you even understand the absurdity in this? Cultivating social skills and good personality traits won't get you anywhere either. There's something called game. That's how men can have an easier time to pass stage 1. But that alone won't make you succeed. Looks are essential. I've seen so many men with great social skills that can have a discussion with anyone fail time and time again to land women. The only men I've seen that were at best average looking getting away with having great success with women were men that were borderline narcissistic psychopaths. And I am not joking about this. Every narcissistic psychopath I know is a chick magnet. Coincidence?
    4
  561. 4
  562. 4
  563. 4
  564. 4
  565. 4
  566. 4
  567. 4
  568. 4
  569. 4
  570. 4
  571. 4
  572. 4
  573. 4
  574. 4
  575. 4
  576. 4
  577. 4
  578. 4
  579. 4
  580. 4
  581. 4
  582. 4
  583. 4
  584. 4
  585. 4
  586. 4
  587. 4
  588. 4
  589. 4
  590. 4
  591. 4
  592. 4
  593. 4
  594. 4
  595. 4
  596. 4
  597. 4
  598. 4
  599. 4
  600. 4
  601. 4
  602. 4
  603. 4
  604. 4
  605. 4
  606. 3
  607. 3
  608. 3
  609. 3
  610. 3
  611. 3
  612. 3
  613. 3
  614. 3
  615. 3
  616. 3
  617. 3
  618. 3
  619. 3
  620. 3
  621. 3
  622. 3
  623. 3
  624. 3
  625. 3
  626. 3
  627. 3
  628. 3
  629. 3
  630. 3
  631. 3
  632. 3
  633. 3
  634. 3
  635. 3
  636.  @airynod  If you're not religious there is no "promise". Female sexual fidelity is important though even in non religious marriages. In contrast male fidelity isn't and as we can see here or historically it doesn't hold much interest to women. Of course women in the West a lot of the times say it's the most important thing, however their choices say otherwise. They go for the man with the options and the man with the women around him. They go for the experienced guy. So even though they don't like the thought of their man cheating, they find the attributes of an adulterous and promiscuous man attractive which is an oxymoron. It's like saying "I don't like guys who work out" and then go for the guys that are shredded and have muscle mass. Now for the marriage specifically. There is a reason why in many cultures the man using prostitutes is not considered cheating. Because there are different bars for women cheating and for men cheating and that's both due to biology and gender dynamics. And because they don't want to increase the bar for women (to the point of advertising herself through having social media pages and post herself there or not covering herself being considered cheating) they make the bar lower for men. Western society is fundamentally more broken because they only allow double standards on the part of the woman to exist. For example what women value is not vilified (height, strength, economic ability, charisma, status, leadership) whilst what men value is (virginity, youth, submissiveness) EVEN THOUGH men don't ask for nearly as much.
    3
  637. 3
  638. 3
  639. 3
  640. 3
  641. 3
  642. 3
  643. 3
  644. 3
  645. 3
  646. 3
  647. 3
  648. 3
  649. 3
  650. 3
  651. 3
  652. 3
  653. 3
  654. 3
  655. 3
  656. 3
  657. 3
  658. 3
  659. 3
  660. 3
  661. 3
  662. 3
  663. 3
  664. 3
  665. 3
  666. 3
  667. 3
  668. 3
  669. 3
  670. 3
  671. 3
  672. 3
  673. 3
  674. 3
  675. 3
  676. 3
  677.  @poetpinch1396  You make a bunch of logical fallacies. But to crash your entire point, no. Humanism was never present in non-Christian cultures. It has been partially adopted today due to the high influence the West has had on the rest of the world. Now to your second logical fallacy. Humanism is literally an ideology that is derived from Christian ethics. Now of course many Christians would be against it, I am a Christian and I am partially against it. Now that doesn't prove that this isn't a Christian based ideology. It's like saying that classical marxists don't like maoism or stalinism. Yet we know for a fact that these two ideologies came from marxism. This is just an easy example to show you that huge logical fallacy you made there. "restrain rights". What do you mean by that? Atheists and seculars restrict rights all the time. The most recent example of a huge wave of rights restrictions happened in 2020 if you remember. "Rights" don't really exist as the concept you think it is. Rights are just enforced privileges. If the enforcers want to take away those privileges, then you can either defend it with your life or let them do so. A good example is "women's rights". Women's rights come from the men that enforce them. In this instance, because they are women they cannot defend those "rights" themselves, so they rely on men to do so. If men collectively decide to take away those privileges, then guess what. Those privileges will be gone. Meaning that they are not "rights". A prominent example is Afghanistan. The Taliban decided to take away many privileges from women and they did. The women couldn't defend it because they lack the ability to do so. Now back to the "rights". I want you to try and define what a "right" is.
    3
  678. 3
  679. 3
  680. 3
  681. 3
  682. 3
  683. 3
  684. 3
  685. 3
  686. 3
  687. 3
  688. 3
  689. 3
  690. 3
  691. 3
  692. 3
  693. 3
  694. 3
  695. 3
  696. 3
  697. 3
  698. 3
  699. 3
  700. 3
  701. 3
  702. 3
  703. 3
  704. 3
  705. 3
  706. 3
  707. 3
  708. 3
  709. 3
  710. 3
  711. 3
  712. 3
  713. 3
  714. 3
  715. 3
  716. 3
  717. 3
  718. 3
  719. 3
  720. 3
  721. 3
  722. 3
  723. 3
  724. 3
  725. 3
  726. 3
  727. 3
  728. 3
  729. 3
  730. 3
  731. 3
  732. 3
  733. 3
  734. 3
  735. 3
  736. 3
  737. 3
  738. 3
  739. 3
  740. 3
  741. 3
  742. 3
  743. 3
  744. 3
  745. 3
  746. 3
  747. 3
  748. 3
  749. 3
  750. 3
  751. 3
  752. 3
  753. 3
  754.  @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
  755. 3
  756. 3
  757. 3
  758. 3
  759. 3
  760. 3
  761. 3
  762. 3
  763. 3
  764. 3
  765. 3
  766. 3
  767. 3
  768. 3
  769. 3
  770. 3
  771. 3
  772. 3
  773. 3
  774. 3
  775. 3
  776. 3
  777. 3
  778. 3
  779. 3
  780. 3
  781.  @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
  782. 3
  783. 3
  784. 3
  785. 3
  786. 3
  787. 3
  788. 3
  789. 3
  790. 3
  791. 3
  792. 3
  793. 3
  794. 3
  795. 3
  796. 3
  797. 3
  798. 3
  799. 3
  800. 2
  801. 2
  802. 2
  803. 2
  804. 2
  805. 2
  806. 2
  807. 2
  808. 2
  809. 2
  810. 2
  811. 2
  812. 2
  813. 2
  814. 2
  815. 2
  816. 2
  817. 2
  818. 2
  819. 2
  820. 2
  821. 2
  822. 2
  823. 2
  824. 2
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832. 2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839. 2
  840. 2
  841. 2
  842. 2
  843. 2
  844. 2
  845. 2
  846. 2
  847. 2
  848. 2
  849.  @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
  850.  @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
  851. 2
  852. 2
  853. 2
  854. 2
  855. 2
  856. 2
  857. 2
  858. 2
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. 2
  862. 2
  863. 2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. 2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873. 2
  874. 2
  875. 2
  876. 2
  877. 2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. 2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. 2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. 2
  894.  @myacct8304  Response for your first comment response: I heavily disagree with what you're saying. My country has very strict gun laws ,yet crime is through the roof (Greece) and particularly in my island almost everyone in the rural areas has guns (even some illegal). Gun banning does not work for most countries because there will be an illegal market for them which is usually impossible to tackle. Nevertheless that's besides the point. What I find extremely dangerous is allowing the government to own all the fire arms. It's a recipe for a dictatorship or a tyranical government. Citizen gun ownership is integral to keep the government in check. Extensive psychological and physical testing to obtain a gun is very dangerous considering that someone might be in danger and might have to use the gun. (A usual case is a woman fearing for her life by her abusive husband/ex, without proof or active threat the police can't help her so in case she needs it she goes and buys a fire arm for protection). Another one is high crime countries. Making it illegal for law abiding citizens to obtain a gun in a country where crime is common place is beyond criminal. You disarm them from the ability to protect themselves. And that has happened in many places including the UK. Now as far as healthcare goes. The reasons why the Us government spends so much money on their healthcare system are mainly two. The fact that they are trying to implement welfare programs through the federal government who has been proven time and time again how incompetent they are. The fact that the federal and local governments are corrupt and are being lobbied by big farma and healthcare companies. That's also one of the reasons of the highly expensive healthcare costs in many places around the Us. The only way to actually bring good change to their system is to remove government interference altogether. Costs would immediately drop due to lack of lobbying power and active competition to get customers.
    2
  895.  @myacct8304  I agree with background checks and pyschiatric checks. What I don't agree though, is going through that process everytime you acquire a firearm. Of course a time limit should exist, but idiotic regulations such as "waiting for 30 days or waiting for 2 months" to acquire a gun is insane. There should be a robust system that would make background checks easy (like there is in the Us) and pyschiatric evaluations should also be included there. But it should make it possible for the average law abiding citizen to acquire a gun. Because sometimes bureaucracy makes things almost impossible for citizens that can't spend 20 hours trying to go through it. As for healthcare I am not advocating for regulations to be evaporated in the Us. But instead for government involvement in the industry to be minimised. For welfare programs (who are already somewhat sh*tty) to be eliminated and only offer such for people in dire need. Overall what I am suggesting is the spending of the Us government that goes into healthcare to be reduced by a lot. As for what caused this high price increase in healthcare, it is directly connected with Us government spending on healthcare dramatically increasing. It's the same thing that happened to college tuition. Why is college tuition so high in the Us? Well it wasn't like that a few decades ago. But what happened was the Us government decided to force banks to give student loans to any student that asked for them. But what that resulted to, is the college administrations could up the price as much as they wanted (within some boundaries ofc) because that tuition would be payed regardless by the banks the students take loans from. And then those banks are forced by the government to give out those loans either way. It's a similar situation with healthcare. The Us was prosperous up until the federal government grew into excessive proportion. The Us was great as a statist country, where state and local governments made most of the decisions affecting their regions. A huge federal government unfortunately has been proven time and time again that it is incredibly harmful to the Us. Sure big federal government reach on small and secluded countries like Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland may work, but it's not the same everywhere. Here in Greece particularly our governments had been corrupt since our inception as a country. The reason why we went into an economic crisis is because our corrupt government was overspending and our corrupt politicians were pocketing money for decades until the market crashed. P.S. And guess what? Those same corrupt politicians are still in government and not behind bars. Not only that but big criminal investigations on political corruption have been closed recently like the Novartis scandal.
    2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. 2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903. 2
  904. 2
  905. 2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908. 2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912. 2
  913. 2
  914.  @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
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. 2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 2
  933. 2
  934. 2
  935. 2
  936. 2
  937. 2
  938. 2
  939. 2
  940. 2
  941. 2
  942. 2
  943. 2
  944. 2
  945. 2
  946. 2
  947. 2
  948. 2
  949. 2
  950. 2
  951. 2
  952. 2
  953. 2
  954. 2
  955. 2
  956. 2
  957. 2
  958. 2
  959. 2
  960. 2
  961. 2
  962. 2
  963. 2
  964. 2
  965. 2
  966. 2
  967. 2
  968. 2
  969. 2
  970. 2
  971. 2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974. 2
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980. 2
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. 2
  985. 2
  986. 2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 2
  994. 2
  995. 2
  996. 2
  997. 2
  998. 2
  999. 2
  1000. 2
  1001. 2
  1002. 2
  1003. 2
  1004. 2
  1005. 2
  1006. 2
  1007. 2
  1008. 2
  1009. 2
  1010. 2
  1011. 2
  1012. 2
  1013. 2
  1014. 2
  1015. 2
  1016. 2
  1017. 2
  1018. 2
  1019. 2
  1020. 2
  1021. 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
  1022. 2
  1023. 2
  1024. 2
  1025. 2
  1026. 2
  1027. 2
  1028. 2
  1029. 2
  1030. 2
  1031. 2
  1032. 2
  1033. 2
  1034. 2
  1035. 2
  1036. 2
  1037. 2
  1038. 2
  1039. 2
  1040. 2
  1041. 2
  1042. 2
  1043. 2
  1044. 2
  1045. 2
  1046. 2
  1047. 2
  1048. 2
  1049. 2
  1050. 2
  1051. 2
  1052. 2
  1053. 2
  1054. 2
  1055. 2
  1056. 2
  1057. 2
  1058. 2
  1059. 2
  1060. 2
  1061. 2
  1062. 2
  1063. 2
  1064. 2
  1065. 2
  1066. 2
  1067. 2
  1068. 2
  1069. 2
  1070. 2
  1071. 2
  1072. 2
  1073. 2
  1074. 2
  1075. 2
  1076. 2
  1077. 2
  1078.  @mcbean1  What an audit could determine that a recount can't. Everything. In Texas there was a ballot harvester caught red handed. One of the most unprofessional people I've seen. They determine she harvested around 10k ballots for Biden. Now imagine an election that could change with less than 200k votes. And ballot harvesting isn't the only thing. USPS employers checking late ballots to 3rd of November so they can be passed. Hundreds of thousands of ballots that were counted illegally with no observers. (maybe millions of them). Trucks coming from back doors to deliver ballots at 3 AM. There a many more evidence from statistical to witnesses and affidavits. I can give it all to you if you want to but this election was definitely stolen. You can believe otherwise but that's the reality. I have as I stated before a multiple paragraph essay that presents most of the type of practices that were used to steal the election. Big Tech can't swindle 7 million votes? Sure they can and they have. But this election only needed 200k votes to be swindled. Oh there was actually a polling of Joe voters more than 25% wouldn't have voted for him if they knew about Hunter's Biden scandals. But guess what the articles were banned in every platform. You say that's just basic maths yet I have ran multiple statistical analysis before, during and after the election and all of them came out with an improbability of a Joe Biden win or even with an impossibility of a Joe Biden win. And yes I know a lot about math since I am in Civil Engineering right now and I have been interested in maths and statistics since I was 12. Here's a little of basic maths. How is it statistically possible that out of 3 batches that contained 400k votes only 4k went to Trump? How can somebody win 99% of a vote batch? Very few lawsuits were actually dropped from Trump's team. As of Late December only 3 lawsuits had been lost from the Trump team and I believe only one of them was due to lack of evidence. Despite that the evidence were shown in multiple hearings and you can just go and see hours and hours of evidence and affidavits. They never saw the courts though did they? Why is it that Biden got just enough votes to win swing states in 3 AM when they were supposed to 'stop counting" by their own words? I was watching live all night long and they announced they would start again counting at 9 am . Something that has never happened before. Of course they never stopped counting . And improbable and impossible batches overwhelmingly went for Joe. One of the impossible batches was in Michigan at 6 am where Biden got 141,000 and Trump got 6,000. A 97% margin for Biden which is statistically impossible. Statistical improbabilities in other batches like Wisconsin at 3:40 am with 143k votes for Biden and 25k for Trump an improbable margin of 85%. In Georgia at 1:30 am 136k votes for Biden and 29k for Trump with the statistical improbable margin of 83%. In Michigan at 3:50 am 54k votes for Biden and 4k for Trump with the statistical impossible margin of 93% for Biden. You can believe in politicians and corrupt judges and journalists but I believe in statistics, video evidence and the situation in those voting places that were illegal. This election was clearly stolen. And yes in election integrity the percentage of the people who have trust on the election system plays a big role. So in order to restore election integrity you have to take measures which the Democrats took none other than stall until every machine was cleared of any evidence. Lastly I want you to answer me this: If they hadn't cheated and won fair and square tell me one reason on why they didn't order a vote re-evaluation? What would they lose? Because I know for sure they don't care about money since they launched the Russia witch hunt with 0 evidence and costed tens of millions of dollars and resulted on nothing.
    2
  1079. 2
  1080. 2
  1081. 2
  1082. 2
  1083. 2
  1084. 2
  1085. 2
  1086. 2
  1087. 2
  1088. 2
  1089. 2
  1090. 2
  1091. 2
  1092. 2
  1093. 2
  1094. 2
  1095. 2
  1096. 2
  1097. 2
  1098. 2
  1099. 2
  1100. 2
  1101. 2
  1102. 2
  1103. 2
  1104. 2
  1105. 2
  1106. 2
  1107. 2
  1108. 2
  1109. 2
  1110. 2
  1111. 2
  1112. 2
  1113. 2
  1114. 2
  1115. 2
  1116. 2
  1117. 2
  1118. 2
  1119. 2
  1120. 2
  1121. 2
  1122. 2
  1123. 2
  1124. 2
  1125. 2
  1126. 2
  1127. 2
  1128. 2
  1129. 2
  1130. 2
  1131. 2
  1132. 2
  1133. 2
  1134.  @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
  1135. 2
  1136. 2
  1137. 2
  1138. 2
  1139. 2
  1140. 2
  1141. 2
  1142. 2
  1143. 2
  1144. 2
  1145. 2
  1146. 2
  1147. 2
  1148. 2
  1149. 2
  1150. 2
  1151. 2
  1152. 2
  1153. 2
  1154. 2
  1155. 2
  1156. 2
  1157. 2
  1158. 2
  1159. 2
  1160. 2
  1161. 2
  1162. 2
  1163. 2
  1164. 2
  1165. 2
  1166. 2
  1167. 2
  1168. 2
  1169. 2
  1170. 2
  1171. 2
  1172. 2
  1173. 2
  1174. 2
  1175. 2
  1176. 2
  1177. 2
  1178.  @KhanTonyukuk  Many parts of Anatolia were never inhabited and were colonized initially by Greeks but oh well. I wouldn't expect a Turk to know anything about history. Just for a short history lesson, the Greeks colonized almost all the coastlines of Anatolia with small exceptions where the Lydians, Carians and Mysians had colonized it. The Lydian kingdom conquered the rest later and inhabited the entirety of central Anatolia. They were centuries later Hellenized by Alexander the Great The Hellenisation of Anatolians only came after the conquest of the Persian empire. The Persian empire had already subjugated most of Anatolia and Alexander the Great conquered Persia and its lands. But the Hellenization of peoples didn't solely happen on Anatolia but in most parts of the Macedonian empire. That includes Egypt, the Levant, Syria and even parts of modern Iraq. In fact Hellenization was so dominant that by Jesus time, most Jews spoke Greek and not Hebrew. The entire New Testament was written in Greek and the Roman empire unofficially used more Greek than Latin and later on officiated it as well. Now as far as I am talking about. It's not about the Hellenized peoples, but the Hellenes. Who did have colonies on the entirety of the Anatolian coastlines. But the fact that you, a Turk, doesn't know that is even more ridiculous. Because the Turkish name for Greeks is Yunan. Which are the ancient Greek people called Ionians that inhabited all of the Anatolian coastline facing the Aegean sea.
    2
  1179. 2
  1180. 2
  1181. 2
  1182. 2
  1183. 2
  1184. 2
  1185. 2
  1186. 2
  1187. 2
  1188. 2
  1189. 2
  1190. 2
  1191. 2
  1192. 2
  1193. 2
  1194. 2
  1195. 2
  1196. 2
  1197. 2
  1198. 2
  1199. 2
  1200. 2
  1201. 2
  1202. 2
  1203. 2
  1204. 2
  1205. 2
  1206. 2
  1207. 2
  1208. 2
  1209. 2
  1210. 2
  1211. 2
  1212. 2
  1213. 2
  1214. 2
  1215. 2
  1216. 2
  1217. 2
  1218. 2
  1219. 2
  1220. 2
  1221. 2
  1222. 2
  1223. 2
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365.  @MrMsLisa  Absolute garbage. Women nowadays are unhappy because they can't form true relationships. I am not saying we should, I am saying what is. Women are happier when decisions like mate selection were left up to their fathers. Hence why arranged marriages work far more often and women are happier at those. It's also a fact that women that marry their first sexual partner have more successful and happier marriages. Yes I am saying that most women derrive happiness from dealing with people (scientific fact) and not work. And what is better for them than dealing with people? Dealing with their favorite people aka their family. Most women would be far happier searching for a husband and making a family that wasting their life working and taking anti depressants at their 40s because they are lonely. So the best option is to push a culture of women staying home and having a priority on building a family and finding a husband instead of a career. We should also push for fathers to be active on their daughter's mate selection. Women are terrible mate selectors, hence why we see so many divorces, out of wedlock children, women losing their virginity to random guys that will never marry them etc. I am not advocating for complete removal of women's emancipation, I am advocating for an enormous cultural shift away from women being in the work force and towards women having families. Day cares and parental leaves won't help people fix their mindsets. Hence why it doesn't work in fixing birth rates.
    1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448.  @airynod  I don't think we have any moral standards at this point. When we are literally mutilating kids and letting criminals go scott-free. That's far from a society with morals. Maybe extremely loose morals but that's as far as it goes. Yes it is true that older societies had laws in place to contain polygyny. The reason why cheating with a random woman without any bindings was prohibited is because the man won't assume any responsibility if the woman gets pregnant and she would be unable to survive. Hence why it was promoted to either marry multiple women (if you had the resources) or have a few or one wives and many concubines. Which was the case for China. Feminism and materialism are the two reasons that 1st world modernized countries have low birth rates. It's not economics whatsoever. The poorest countries have very high birth rates and a child doesn't need to be raised in luxury to have a good childhood. It's more of the fact that women chase careers in their fertile years and when they want to settle down, they're either too old and no man wants them or they marry and have at most 1 kid or so. And then for both men and women, we seem to be valuing material possessions more than family goals and relationships. There is no such excuse as "I can't afford children" when you have more purchasing power than the average nobleman 1000 years ago. As for mass immigration, yes it is a result of liberalism and the main voters of liberal policies and politicians are women and have always been women. So in fact, feminism was responsible for the liberalisation of society. I'd say I am judgmental when it comes to my life. I am extremely judgmental of myself and therefore I am judgmental of the people I let into my life. And a spouse is the most important thing when it comes to said decision. I also judge and shame groups of actions and lifestyles that are detrimental to our society and are immoral. I rarely if ever target a single person when passing judgment. When I voice my critique of someone in their face, I do so to help them and not for malicious reasons. Of course when I am talking about submission it's within the bounds of a relationship. Although an agreeable character is desired from the first contact. And yes it is 100% about gender. We are biologically built as men to be the leaders and the dominant part of the relationship and the women were built to be the followers and the submissive part that compliments us. That's biology and that's also God. If we are talking biologically, that's our instincts that through evolution we developed. If we are talking about God, he laid out the ladder clearly. Husband submits to God, wife submits to man and children submit to the mother. I agree that a lot of the good women are snatched fast and early. Hence why it is hard to find them. However I believe I can manage, and if not in Greece (my country) maybe in a more traditional place.
    1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491.  @AstroTheFungus  Yeah monarchy is one representation of an authoritarian system but it can be either left or right leaning. So it doesn't necessarily fall under a particular umbrella (although it usually does aspouse right wing ideals). Yes we have seen large swaths of gen zers in Europe that shifted to the right. But we're still a minority and we are mainly male. I am from Greece so I know that first hand. Universities are still dominated by either socialist-left wing anarchist parties ,communist parties or the centre right party. We saw around 17% of gen zers vote right-far right but the male majority was apparent. In general more than 50% of the votes from gen zers went to centre-left, left and far left parties. So even with a movement of gen zers to the right, the disparity is apparent. Millenials voted more for the centre-right party but less for the right or far right parties. It's more neo marxism than marxism. Progressivism and post modernist ideas that were heavily influenced by marx are what has seeped into the mainstream. Hence why I say that politics in general have moved a lot more to the left and that the line of hard line left wing ideals is more close to the center now. A lot of what parties that aspouse "far right ideals" would be considered level head right wing ideals 20-30 years ago. Or even prior to the recession of 2008. People who are considered moderate left wingers now are extremely progressive. I've talked with a lot of them to know. They've gone so far out of line that as a right wing populist, I've found myself agreeing more with og communists than the todays center left-left. Which is insane.
    1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500.  @derdotte  You think that we can't dispose of nuclear reactors that will be melted down in 500 years? Yet we throw solar panels and wind mills into africa and release all their toxic substances regardless. Why? Because the vast majority of them cannot be recycled and on top of that their lifespan is 20-40. If you're talking about Chernobyl then I'd laugh at you. Because you have to either be extremely ignorant of the situation or just extremely dishonest. To make an analogy, if we compare Chernobyl's safety procedures to let's say modern German safety procedures, it'd be a 1 to 100 power level difference. Most regulations are unneeded and pure bureaucratic. We literally have been working with nuclear reactors for 70+ years and there have been 3 accidents with only 1 having a substantial number of deaths. 1 had 0 and 1 had one. Nuclear by definition is the safest energy source by FAR. Even before we had so many regulations, it was by far the safest which proves that most of these are unneeded. It's like comparing someone who goes at 250km/h in the highway with no seatbelt and no air bags and not filled tires (Chernobyl) to a guy that goes on 20km/h on the slow lane of the highway, with three seatbelts, end of the line air bags and perfect condition car and on top of t hat they are so obsessive about safety that they get their car to a mechanic every single day and replace the air bags and the seat belts every other month(modern nuclear regulations). You don't need to be either the first guy or the second guy. You can be the third guy. The guy that is normal with their safety procedures when it comes to driving.
    1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771.  @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
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777.  @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
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834.  @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
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959.  @jazzm786  You're clearly delusional. There's a men's rights movement but no one gives a solitary f*ck about it. But please, enlighten me on how Western feminism has actually helped those "billions of women" the past decade or two. Just give me a few things that they actually did. Another big fallacy you make is that you think that the elites are working in favor of men. They are not. In fact they step on men's backs to get where they want. Men are the best gender to use as a slaving stepping tool due to their biological characteristics. No these court laws exist because society was set out to punish men and the elites to get pocket money. The reason why divorce was pushed and insentivised was because the government pockets some of the money that the men are forced to pay child support for. You clearly don't care about women's issues because I don't see you protesting or funding organisations on countries that there is actual inequality. Of course though you definitely don't care about men's issues. You're just like everyone else in this evil society, men are 2nd class citizens and society does absolutely nothing to solve the social issues of men that I pointed out. So the only issue for women you can bring up is abortion? First and foremost abortion is not a right. Secondly it wasn't outlawed, it was given back to the states. Thirdly abortion is an objectively evil act. Whether they should be legal or not is up to the morality of the people. If you think killing a baby is a right then maybe you should rethink your life choices. As for 0 reproductive rights. Men have 0 say on whether their child is born or not. A man wants the child? If the woman doesn't ,it gets aborted (in most of the West). A man doesn't want the child? If the woman wants it, it will be born and on top of that the man would be financially reliable for it. So in a sense, states that banned or heavily restricted abortions only leveled the playing field. Now no one is allowed to dispose of their baby and now everyone is responsible for their own children. We still need feminism? Really? Why? Give me a couple of good reasons on why we actually need feminism in the West. Because from what I've seen feminism nowadays is a female supremacy movement that has only caused heavy destruction in our societies. From broken families, to depressed lonely old career women.
    1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. Great video. A few contentions I had with it are this: 1. Big part of the reason why a lot of countries do not tackle the population decline problem is inside your video. The downgrade of capitalism and the rise of feudalism or hard corporatism. A lot of already rich people want to keep their positions and will do anything to achieve that. Even if it is preventing their countries from recovering their population. 2. Climate Change is widely an overblown problem. It makes the people occupied and distracted from real problems like stagnant wages vs rising prices, energy crisis and population decline. 3. While widely unrealistic in implementation, a repeal of women's emancipation and rights is as far as we know the only way we can fix a problem like this. Unfortunately the Western world will never be able to achieve something like this without a revolution and dictatorship, however this is exactly why I believe countries like China will not suffer as much as the West. The government can shut down feminists and they can implement authoritarian policies to get women to have children without much persuasion. Costs or "time" are far from the issue of the population decline. But those are the only ones that modern countries seem to be tackling. The reality of the situation is that as countries become richer and richer people forget what suffering looks like, people forget to be proud and greatful of their countries (and in result don't take on the responsibilities that come with that) and people leave organised religion for self centrism and materialism. A more realistic response than absolute repeal of women's emancipation is religiousness and moral values. Unless our societies transform to a more communitarian and religious structure, I doubt there will be any change. This is also extremely unlikely but far more likely than the reversal of feminism. Now what is more likely to happen is an "apocalypse". Which means societal collapse and rise of groups seeking to take power and fix or revitalize the old empires. Another likely scenario is that countries that have kept high birth rates will take over those that haven't once they collapse. Now if either of those were to happen, death will come all over those failed societies and general rights will regress for both the average man and woman. Which is why I hope that my 2 mostly unrealistic solutions come to pass.
    1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024.  @alFaCentauri16  So there are 4 components to this but it's mostly ingrained to us due to evolution. 1. Paternity A woman's worst nightmare is getting violently r*ped in the streets by thugs, the equivalent to the male side is raising a child that it's not our own without knowledge of it. Paternity therefore cannot be insured unless said woman is not promiscuous. When a man has 4 wives and all get pregnant, we know who the father is and who the mother is for each one. When a woman has 4 husbands and gets pregnant we only know who the mother is. Promiscuity is the most reliable indication that paternity is not insured. A virgin woman who has only slept with you can only be pregnant from you. 2. Physical component. The female body is not created to handle promiscuity. It is far easier for women to contract STDs. It is far easier for women to be injured during s*x. It is also impossible for a woman to procreate multiple times at the same period while a man can procreate unlimited times at the same period. 3. Trauma It's a saying, that trauma builds a man while trauma breaks a woman. A woman that has been through several relationships and several s*xual partners has endured trauma that takes a lot of time (if it's ever accomplished) to heal. Men don't want to take on the baggage that she chose to carry by going with certain and several men. It's also one of the most conducive components for a failed relationship. 4. Relationship failure and adultery A promiscuous woman is far more likely to commit adultery. Adultery is the second highest degree of betrayal for a man. The first being, adultery along with paternity fraud. It's also documented that the higher the bodycount the higher the likely of a failed marriage or relationship (it is for men too, but a lot more pronounced in women). The main reason being that the chances of surpassing all of her past partners in all of the areas they excelled is close to 0 and that she will always have it in the back of her head that her current bf/husband is inferior to this ex partner in this area. That pretty much sumarises it.
    1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036.  @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
  2037. 1
  2038.  @joek600  Guess what? I never disagreed with you on that. I despise ND and PASOK and didn't for either of these corrupt sh*tshows. But we have to be realistic here. You think SYRIZA isn't a lying ,incompetent and now destroyed party? SYRIZA accomplished nothing. So what's the alternative? I voted for a small party but I know that they won't do sh*t either. So the average person will go for the lesser of two evils. Which in this case it's ND. At least ND will give SOME economic opportunity compared to the rest of the big parties. My dad didn't get a few "gigs". You clearly have 0 idea how the construction industry works. And no he has 0 ties with political parties and neither do I. Well even if the unemployment isn't as low as 10-11%, it's lower than it was under SYRIZA. And that's a fact. It was lower last year and it is even lower this year. Denying that is being delusional. SYRIZA didn't bring any economic development. ND at least brought some. If we had an actually economically competent leader who is not fully and utterly corrupt (like Trump was to the Us) we would be 100 times better. But we don't. We have to choose between corrupt incompetent people (PASOK), incompetent liars who are somewhat corrupt(SYRIZA) or corrupt and somewhat competent(ND) or extremist clowns (like KKE, Mera25, Elliniki Lisi). Of course the average person will choose the lesser of the evils which is clearly ND in this elections. I have hope that maybe one day a competent non corrupt (or at least not utterly corrupt) leader will come and sweep Greece. But it's clearly not now.
    1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070.  @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
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116.  @skyak4493  How do you disagree with my interpretation? How can Japan improve by adopting clearly failed policies that Germany and the Us implemented? Germany is still a country with one of the lowest birth rates in Europe. Even after importing millions of immigrants and problems. The architect of that importation Angela Merkel has even admitted that it was a mistake. German people know it was a mistake hence why they are voting for AfD. The Us is a crumbling society. Their corruption is so high that they went as far as to rig an election. Their economy is failing, their foreign policy is failing, their army is failing and they are more divided than ever before. They also imported the world's migrants and even millions of illegal ones and how is that working for them? Even higher crime rates? Drug and human trafficking? If Japan adopted an open borders policies it would even be a worse failure than Germany and Sweden. It would be socially and economically devastating. Most highly homogenous countries are aversed to outsiders because it's culturally devastating when they are not. Sweden was a prime example. The most immigrant friendly country failed to support the hundreds of thousands of migrants that came in during the EU migrant crisis and now they have closed borders and a bunch of problems steming from these batches of migrants. Immigration can only be beneficial if it's highly selective and only allowed for people willing to fully assimilate. As for your last points. Yes they are true. Japan failed to address the cultural issue that has driven them to population decline and so has most of the modern world.
    1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158.  @M_SID21  This is an old comment but here you go. I use average as median although it's probably not the same. Median is a better indicator. Here's the median japanese monthly salary pretaxes : 471,000 JPY (3,470 USD). Which aligns with what I wrote aka 2300 USD after taxes. Now again studying statistics and actually having the IQ to discern what's real and what's not are two very different things. I am currently studying one of the toughest engineering degrees you can find and I had to learn very high level math to get into my uni. I understand statistics very well and statistics don't lie, people lie. I brought statistics before you, I didn't just state a mere opinion. Greece is paying for the price of corruption, socialism and EU expansionism. Our politicians were corrupt which is half of the reason for our financial ruin, the other half is that our citizens got comfortable with the idea of extended welfare and pay outs and government spending. But after financial ruin was achieved EU came to the rescue. Oh wait, they didn't. They actually did everything to benefit themselves. Greece became a puppet state which was ruled by Germany and France AND the euro was prevented from falling behind the dollar and the pound. You think they "paid" to save us? They paid to save their as*es and they expect every penny back with a decent interest on top. I can attest you that I'd prefer for our generations to suffer twice as much and our country to be rebuilt in the next 20-30 years than have EU "bail us out" and be an EU puppet state for the next century.
    1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162.  @obitouchiha6439  Social theocracy can 100% exist. Public humiliation and shaming tactics have always been the main core of religious punishment and not legal means through the past centuries in Christian countries. Marriage was never an institution prior to Christianity. At least not in the sense of how it was codified in law in Western countries and how the rest of the westernized world (Japan, South Korea etc) adopted it. It was a Christian institution, hence why it was purely monogamous and hence why the grounds for divorce were adultery and severe abuse only. The only 2 instances where the Bible allows divorce. Since then the government has fully hijacked the institution and made it into a clown show. Marriage, family and relationships are at their lowest point in the history of the West and I don't think anyone can disagree with this statement. "since they won't be subject to arrest or imprisonment for making life choices that don't align with a religious doctrine". My issue is not people living non religiously or having non religious lifestyles, my issue is normalizing those lifestyles and showing them publicly and glorifying them. Example: Do I believe people that have homosexual relationships should be locked up for it? No. Do I believe that these same people should be able to show off their lifestyle to children or in public? Nope, I don't. Bitterness? Maybe at the modern liberal globalist government but even then I have come to an understanding that I cannot do much about other than to sit back take care of myself and my family whilst everything goes down and gets destroyed. The West's days are numbered if we keep going this trajectory. And yes westernized countries like Japan are included in this.
    1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 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
  2234.  @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
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. 1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. Absolute bullsh*t. The PLA only managed to keep North Korea due to their sheer numbers. They didn't win. In fact they push all the way to Seoul and then were defeated back to the line that now divides South and North Korea. Nato didn't lose to the Taliban. Again you seem to be confusing political losses and military losses. The taliban were absolutely destroyed by Nato when it comes to the military aspect of the war. Luckily for them they had vast mountains and caves to hide and continue fighting. At the end the Taliban took over due to the incompetency of the Biden administration and didn't win a single battle against Us or allied troops. Pakistan and India have nothing to do with Nato so why did you even include that? France didn't lose to the Vietnamese who had Russian equipment. Israel didn't lose to Hezbollah fighters with Russian equipment. In fact Israel has won every single war against Russian/Iranian backed arab attackers besides a single stalement in Lebanon. Spoiler alert, stalement doesn't equals loss. The Houthis didn't defeat anyone. Yemen is still divided between Saudi backed and Iranian backed groups. The Us and the allies have a by far better military than any country or alliance in the world. They can anihilate their opponents swiftly and effectively if they so wish for. The issue is that the Us government and the military industrial complex profits if the wars continue. Why do you think Trump destroyed the Chaliphate very swiftly even though Obama "struggled" for years. Trump wanted to end the war, and the Nato forces had the power to do so. They just didn't because of special interests.
    1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. 1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356.  @gijsieboyo  Nah that's just bullcrap. All this CO2 and nitrogen garbage are part of the plan of big corpos. There is a reason why big farm owners are getting more and more. They are destroying the small farmer so the lobbyist one win. There is also the whole idea of controlling the food source. In the Us that's already happening by the way, billionaires like Bill Gates have purchased an incredible amount of farms. Using government policies to destroy the market competition is one of the most key things in corporatocracies and sadly the entire world is moving towards that system. This entire climate change bullcrap has been in their playbook since the 50s. First it was global cooling, then it was global warming now it's climate change. Sure, let's believe that the "scientists" who in reality have little to no idea how the climate on earth works that they can predict the trends when they've failed again and again. But people are easily guillible. There are larger environmental problems like the ocean waste that is the size of entire countries or the deforestation in 3rd world countries. But no one really gives af. The Us propagated the biggest CO2-polluting disasters in history when they blew up the North Stream pipeline. These are the same people that are full on the "green" "no gas, less CO2" bus by the way. Do you really believe those people when they spew about climate change and then go and buy beach front property? Or when Exxon and BP are funding anti-petrol campaigns and pouring millions into solar and wind? We already have a no-CO2 and ecofriendly energy source yet the green party and every green party in Europe are against it. Nuclear. The safest and most ecofriendly and efficient energy source. Why are they not pushing for that? Why are they putting policies that are resulting in the close down and sell out of small farms?
    1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374. 1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377. 1
  2378.  @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
  2379. 1
  2380.  @fedyx1544  Japan is not the opposite example. Feminism is 100% the driver of low birth rates. Japan is 100% a feminist society, they push women to have careers and be politicians, vote, have sexual freedom etc. Japan's conservative part is what makes it even worse. Feminism in combination with wanting to preserve traditional values DOES NOT work. In fact it worsen things. Feminist countries with no conservative values like Germany, Sweden etc have low birth rates but feminist countries with conservative values have even lower birth rates (Japan, China, SK, Greece, Bulgaria). In Japan women prioritize career and living life in their early years and when they want to marry and have children it's already too late. Why? Because men have standards and because all women have a biological clock that is ticking. Limiting one gender's agency can definitely be a solution which you will probably witness in countries like China in the coming years but there are other solutions. Like taxing childless and unmarried women more and redistributing that wealth to women with children and a husband. Another major part is a cultural wave, limiting exposure to feminist ideals for young women in school or social media. Also you clearly lack knowledge of political systems because fascism and authoritarianism are not nearly the same. Those policies are authoritarian not fascist. Same way taking away the right to bear arms is authoritarian or forcing people to wear masks and get vaccines is authoritarian but I bet you supported all these policies.
    1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386.  @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
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391.  @RichelieuUnlimited  EPP is not against asylum. EPP doesn't support remigration. EPP supports mass legal migration. So nothing right wing on your first point. Being against illegal migration is just the center stance on migration. Which makes the stance centrist. 2nd point: Data retention is practiced by all sides. The most prominent example is the Us, the progressive Democrats used social media data harvesters to spy on citizens just as much as the Republicans. In fact they used it more to censor journalists and citizens which makes them technically worse. Right-wing libertarians don't aspouse data harvesting and retention. That's just an authoritarian practice which can exist on both the left and the right. As funny as it may sound to you, "protecting the environment" doesn't have 1 way to happen. For example, any person with understanding of electric grids knows that the establishment of multiple nuclear reactors are far more beneficial to the environment than grounding thousands of acres of land to put solar panels and wind mills that are not recycled when they die, cost far more and produce less than 5% of what the nuclear reactor does. Nuclear waste is by far the easiest waste to contain. Yet the "Greens" are not pro-nuclear. Is it maybe because they have an agenda? How about cleaning up the seas. How can you do that without lifting other countries from poverty? If we fix India's and China's waste management, we can prevent 85-90% of the waste that ends up in the oceans.
    1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395.  @zeltzamer4010  Having a completely uninformed opinion and then watching sh*t that challenge NADA of that opinion and just watch things that just reiterate the same opinion over and over again is exactly what's sheepish about it. You clearly haven't challenged yourself and actually put your critical thinking skills into action. You can have surface level opinions like "I dislike Tate but I do not have enough information to actually form a fully opinion" or vice versa but saying that you hate someone when we both know for a fact that you have not consumed their content nor have you sat and listen to what they have to say is the definition of sheepish. I don't have insane time these days due to uni and work but from time to time I like to challenge my opinions on things by consuming opposing content. One example was : Hassanabi. I had heard he was an insufferable communist hypocrite and instead of reiterating that opinion I went on and consumed 1 hour of his content which in turn actually proved that opinion true. Another example of research actually proving the opposite of what I was hearing or thought I knew was Tate. I had watched a few clips a couple years prior to his fame trip and thought he was an a*shole but did not really think anything about it. After he got famous I got exposed to variety of his clips that contradicted my opinion on him (60/40 disagree/agree) so I decided to watch a few hours of his content. I found out that I actually agreed with 80% of what he says and that he is actually entertaining and that as*hole persona was absolute comedic genious.
    1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. 1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. It's completely the opposite. Men nowadays have extremely low standards. I have far more standards than most men out there and I still don't expect half of what you described. I just want an attractive woman (30-40% of women instantly qualify for me), that has been waiting till marriage, is young enough so we can have many children (24 and below) and is a devout Christian that abides by Christian doctrine and family structure, or at least be ready to be taught about it. If she refuses to abide by the Christian doctrine of "Wives submit to your husbands like the church submits to Christ and husbands love your wives like Christ loved us" then nothing can be done about it. I don't care if she likes what I like, although usually feminine women that are into a guy adopt some of his habits and hobbies and it would certainly be optimal, it's not even close to be a demand. If she can't abide by the most basic standards my grandma abided by, then why would I even pursue a marriage with said woman? If she can't be a virgin, young, Christian woman that is moderately attractive then there is no point on pursuing sh*t. Even the Christian part can be worked on as long as she is "coachable" or otherwise ready to be taught. The other 3 are not even difficult requirements yet modern women have a hard time with them. As for girly stuff she might like. It always depends. There are many modern stuff marketed towards women that are extremely harmful to a healthy relationship like reality shows or sex and the city esque shows, social media validation etc. But there are also certainly neutral or at least harmless girly hobbies that women should be able to enjoy. So I get your point on that one.
    1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. @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
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666.  @michaelhames6652  The message of the show was laid out perfectly by the after credit scenes. It's a bitter sweet ending, Eren's friends get to live full lives and so do their children and many generations to come, but Eren doesn't . The war and the destruction of Paradis was inevitable even if it became a reality 2000 years after the death of Eren. As for the sacrifice, to me it really was Eren. I came into this despising Eren and wanting him to die for his crimes, yet I came into sympathizing with Eren. Into understanding his reasoning, his feelings and his struggles. I still believe Eren had to die for their friends to live but I was utterly devastated when the moment did happen and it felt like Eren was indeed the ultimate sacrifice. That's masterful storytelling right there. The kids of the heros and friends did live happily for generations to come. The ending happens 2000 years later which is a lot better than the manga ending that happened 80 years later. Every person you saw fighting there was at the top of the cadets. They were talented and skilled and they polished said skills through endless war and fighting. The difference between Levi/Mikasa and them is still stark clear though. As for the people with titan powers being more powerful than their predecessors. It's kind of valid. My own explanation would be that this wasn't their full power but only an empty shell of what they used to be. Gabi's shot was in the end pointless and only aided to the torture of Zeke staying in the paths for thousands of years waiting for Eren to wake up. The "slow" form as can be clearly seen is infinitely more powerful than any titan form. It's enormous and it allows Ymir to create titan shells from it's own bones. And besides that, it's not really slow since it has a far higher true speed than Eren's bipedal form. The bipedal form could outrun it for maybe a few minutes or so with full effort sprinting but that's about it. He didn't save anyone else, because he couldn't. It was predestined. Eren's head was mashed by the elimination of time as well. My only criticism is the lack of explanation on how Zeke escaped the paths and allowed Levi to kill him. It was amazing ending, befitting an amazing show.
    1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686.  @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
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. 1
  2702. 1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. 1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711. 1
  2712. 1
  2713. 1
  2714. 1
  2715. 1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. 1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. 1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. 1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. 1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741.  @Wozza365  Turkey is seen as an "ally" by the EU and NATO yet not a single NATO or EU member recognizes the legitimacy of the TRNC. Why? Because it's illegitimate. It's an illegal occupation of a territory. Being an ally to a country doesn't automatically mean that you recognize their illegitimate puppet states. Russia has 3 puppet states as of now: Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Guess what? Not a single country recognizes them besides Russia. The TRNC is just one of those illegitimate states. In fact it's even more illegitimate because it's an illegal occupation of an entire region unlike some of those puppet states. "In reality the Islamic state is its own state with a functioning government, different laws etc and there is a very hard border between the two". Someone would say a few years back. Yet no one recognized it as a state. No one made the idiotic claim of "Well Syria must be reunited first before becoming a country eligible to join organizations". Why? Because no one recognized the islamic state. So you can say "Um akshually🤓👆" but ACTUALLY even though they have a different government, different laws etc they are still not a country because effectively no one recognizes them as one. So there can be no trade, there can be no international relations, there can't be no joining organizations. Making it effectively a non-state. Another analogy would be this: I am a track athlete and one day I make a record breaking run whilst training. But when I go to claim my title as a record holder no one is recognizing my record. Perhaps I have broken the record. But guess what? Effectively I have not. It's like my record never happened.
    1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. 1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. 1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. 1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. 1
  2786. 1
  2787.  @diogorodrigues747  I am in total opposition to what you're claiming in the first paragraphs but in order to answer I need to do extensive research on it which I do not have the time to do. On the last paragraph. Yes the demographic problem can be traced back to the 70s-90s depending on the country in Europe. I agree that the issue is not "happiness" and I never claimed it to be. It's more of a wide moral degredation that caused this. Now when I am talking about men-women relationships it's the phenomenon that we observe lately with the complete break down of relationships and the shift of women to the extreme liberal and men to conservatism. A LOT of men have completely opted out of the dating market and a lot of women are engaging in polygynous relationships (knowingly or unknowingly) and/or sleep around. By 2030 more than 50% of women ages 20-40 will be childless and unmarried. The problems started with moral degeneration of the populous and the destruction of the foundations of our societies. Feminism was a direct attack to the Western system and it achieved its goal of destroying the Western family (aka patriarchy). Materialism has replaced religiosity amongst the people of Europe and other Westernized nations which is also a big cause of low birth rates and marriage rates. "Of course I'm not saying there isn't a problem with migration or security, the point I'm making is that there is a huge media campaign on social media, partially financed by countries like Russia and China, to boost this issue too much when it's not that bad. " This is just false. If migration was not so bad, Russia and China would adopt similar policies since they are also suffering from low birth rates. They aren't though. Statistically speaking, migrants from africa and the middle east are overwhelmingly a burden on the system. They were brought to curb the reduction of the work force but it only postponed the issue and created a variety of other issues. When you see Europe experiencing terrorist attacks or mass r*pes by migrants and say "it's not that big of an issue" then you are co-signing to the conquest and destruction of your lands and society. An islamist literally attacked politicians campaigning on the street in Germany and killed 1 police officer. And in that police officer's comemoration an islamic priest was preaching the Quran with the support of the government. European societies are falling rapidly, the question is if we as Europeans will lose our societies completely or be able to rebuild them once the liberal globalist order reaches the tipping point and collapses.
    1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. 1
  2793. 1
  2794.  @Jaguar-hs4fo  Again I never said the USSR achievements weren't "real". You clearly don't get my point. My point was that the government put all their resources into the top people and sciences to artificially boost their results and they still lost. Western scientific achievements happened naturally through the competition that the free market created. The USSR achievements happened artificially. The government spent copious amounts of resources to create the results whilst most of the population was below the poverty line. It's also ridiculous trying to attempt to say that the moon landing was fake, when it happened multiple times. The reason why it hasn't happened again is simple. There is no point in doing so. It costs a lot and it gives no profit. You literally cannot compare the Poland, Baltic countries, Romania, Hungary etc now and under the USSR. That's a ridiculous thing you're trying to attempt. They are a thousand times better now than under the USSR hence why they're so anti communist. Of they'll still be poorer than the Western countries. The Western countries had decades of head start on them. Yet all of the countries you mentioned have had some of the fastest growths in Europe the past 2 decades. The destruction that communism brought upon them still has its effects though. The Us has lost much of its power due to corruption after corruption. Trump was the only non-corrupt Us president in the last 3 decades. On the contrary Russia now has a president that actually cares about the country and is not a communist. The Us now has the most corrupt and incompetent president in history. And no the Us still boasts the strongest military in the world as much as you don't want it to be true. Of course it's far weaker after the scam wars that Obama, Bush, Clinton and Biden have started and after they introduced progressive LGBTQ ideology to the army but it's still strong.
    1
  2795.  @ledlight1487  So Turkmenistan with 5% debt to gdp ratio has a strong economy? Yes having lower debt is indeed a lot better for the economy. But the idea that nodebt=good economy is just economically untrue. It's like saying that me as a homeless guy with 0 debt am in a better financial situation than the guy who has taken a mortgage equal to 60% of his yearly salary. Again all of the ocuntries you mentioned are not only better. BUT FAR BETTER than the socialist times. I have family in Romania and I know for a fact that now it is 1000 times better unironically. Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia are all the same. You claim the people there are nostalgic of the communist times yet the communist parties in these countries barely pass 5%. In Bulgaria the furthest left party is a social democratic one (which is not socialism btw). In Poland the furthest left party is also a social democratic one. Slovakia and the Baltics are the same. The biggest parties in those countries have anti communist sentiments. If they were nostalgic about the communist times one would think that they'd vote for a communist party right? In Greece they do, even though there never was a communist Greece since they lost the civil war. Then you make other dubious claims like "life quality in the USSR was good". Really buddy? Is that why people in East Germany would travel hundreds of km by foot to go around the wall and end up in West Germany? Then you claim that the Western education system was and is bad. Which is also a ridiculous statement but has more merit as of now than before. Before the West absolutely dominated the scientific and academic world. Yes there is a good reason why the moment the USSR was dissolved and people under the USSR could move out, people actually moved out. Wow it seems like when you don't force people to stay in poverty they will leave. :hand-orange-covering-eyes: See how the large migrant waves from those countries started mainly after 1991? Isn't that a little weird? And as those countries advanced less and less people left? It seems like if the USSR allowed their subjects to immigrate out, that on top of the 30 million killed by Stalin, they'd be another 30 million that left the USSR.
    1
  2796. 1
  2797. 1
  2798. 1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1