Comments by "Shorewall" (@shorewall) on "Whatifalthist"
channel.
-
478
-
152
-
139
-
132
-
129
-
@MrCrunch808 Space has a ton of resources. But the elites don't want surplus resources. They will hold back space exploration until they need it. Just like they are trying to hold back Nuclear Power and Fracking.
Even now, we are constantly developing new technologies to allow us to access more resources. In medieval times, oil was just poisonous sludge. In ancient times, coal was just crappy rock. In modern times, sea water is worthless, until we develop a cost effective way of desalinization. Global Warming is a problem until we build enough solar satellites to absorb or reflect excess sunlight. (Or just put enough particles in the atmosphere to block out the right amount of sun.)
I agree that we should be forward thinking, but that includes innovation and progress. We are seeing innovations in our time that are changing the equation, but you won't see that on the news. Doom and gloom, pessimism, everyone loves sucking down the Doomsday Kool-Aid.
Existence is not a bad thing. Existence is a good thing. Without Mankind, there is no morality, so how can you have morality without man?
108
-
105
-
95
-
89
-
86
-
80
-
The major difference is that Spain relied on Resource Extraction Operations, whereas modern US is cutting edge in every tech field, and tech sharing in those it isn't. Spain was great because they got the gold and plantations of the New World. US is great because they used their head start to make friends with every major power it could, and subordinate them willingly into a cool kids club.
Spain had to fight the other major powers in Europe. USA doesn't really have to fight anyone. Hell, they don't even have to fight China or Russia at all. Ukraine is fighting Russia pretty well right now, and a Naval blockade on China would be devastating.
I always say, as an American, the US is a blessed country, we have crazy advantages, and we need to make sure we do the right thing. God blesses the righteous, but if we turn from Him, and our leaders and the Elites definitely have, but if the people turn from Him, then we will be blessed no more and suffer even more than others.
77
-
67
-
65
-
64
-
62
-
60
-
58
-
58
-
Yeah, that section was a rapid fire of stereotypes. I think people don't think they will be balanced if they just talk to a Mormon to find out what we believe and our history. It's funny because I like that about these videos, that he is a bit irreverant and off the cuff, but it's gives you pause when he is really wrong on a topic you know well.
Although it is true to what I've experienced in my life. People want to believe the worst about Mormon ideology and history, and I think it's because then they don't have to act. They don't want to believe that Mormons are vitalized, global, prosperous, and yet traditional, family oriented, Christian. They say we are good hard working people, and then deride or ignore our deeply held beliefs that are the reason we are that way.
I think most people have no clue, and like it that way. :D I'm glad to see the return of traditional values for a lot of the younger generation, but we Mormons have been here the whole time, holding it down and taking heat for the team. We actually held to our traditional principles, whereas now the Millenial Generation are just discovering theirs.
57
-
54
-
I majored in Sociology, just for my 2 year degree (then went into the workforce), and it was a tough time. My first prof taught it as an objective way of looking at the world, and was funny and balanced, and that's what kept me going. But every other prof and course, while interesting, was full of the woke propaganda, to the point where I started feeling guilt and shame over being a white man.
Ironically, that's what turned me away from the SJW cult, because I didn't want to embrace an ideology that made me feel bad just for being born. I think studying Sociology helped me a quite a bit though, because you see where the lefties are coming from, and you see the gaps in their logic. That's where I first was taught that stats can say anything you want them to, if you move the parameters around enough.
54
-
47
-
41
-
41
-
39
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
@clamum9648 People need something to believe in, that is for sure.
When I studied Sociology in college, they said one of the 5 features of any civilization we have ever discovered, was Religion. Because people need to explain the unexplainable.
Science is great, but it cannot explain everything. There are things we do not know, or don't even know we don't know. And there are other things that are moral judgements, like what is happiness, what is the good life?
Science cannot answer that, because Science is a tool, a method. We need to decide what we want, and what we want to be. Equality, justice, these things are not scientific. They are moral, ethical, religious in nature.
34
-
34
-
31
-
That's what I tend to think. The forms are metaphysical ways of thinking about the world.
I always thought of it kind of like what the video said about the catholic church, in that God created the world, so if we learn more about the world, we learn more about God. If God is truth, or the forms, then as we pursue truth we will get closer to these forms, and vice versa.
I also see a distinction between the forms and our real world as helpful in combating ideology. Things that work in pure theory, might not work in the real world, because the real world is not pure.
Then again, I see the video's point, but I've always loved Plato. I am of a philosophical bent myself, so maybe I am Plato's target audience. 😀
I do differentiate in not wanting a centralized rule by philosophers or intellectuals. No matter how smart a person is, they are still dumb. The world is too vast and complex for humans to fully comprehend. And I think intellectuals suffer plenty from the pretense of knowledge. The smarter one is, the better they can defend their bad arguments.
31
-
The IRL Crusader States made much use of castles to hold territory, and since Utah would be surrounded by Goat herding raiders/tribals, and the Horse Tribes on the Steppes, it would make sense to use them here.
Geopolitically, there appears to be little reason for the Mormons to expand into the Plains, causing conflicts with the hordes. They have a geographically secure location in the Rocky mountains, and are the only real overland route between the West Coast and Eastern America. Except for...Religion.
The Mormons have many holy Cities in the Mid West. Far West Missouri, Liberty Jail Missouri, Carthage Jail Illinois (where Joseph Smith, the first Prophet, was martyred), Nauvoo Illinois, Kirtland Ohio, and even into New York state, where the Church was started and the site of the First Vision.
Much like how the Crusades didn't make sense from a rational point of view, but were driven by religion, there isn't a real reason for the Mormons to fight the Steppe Tribes, except for religion. Hell, St. Louis or Chicago could send out a call for help, like the Byzantines did in our time. And if there is a surplus of young men in Deseret due to Polygamy, Crusades could become part of the religion. And if the Mormons are used to irrigating the deserted Salt Lake Valley, they might see the Steppes as a step up. (sorry)
And these crusades, if successful, could then cause a problem for Eastern America, where they suddenly have a bunch of random heretics from the desert on their doorstep. The Mormons are big on Proselytizing as well, so they could swell their numbers and make allies from weaker powers.
Looking west, they could also conflict with or cooperate with the West Coast trading empires. Once again, I think cooperation should win out. West coast specializes in water transport, and Deseret handles the overland routes, especially if they can conquer or treaty with the Plains Hordes. Then again, religion may queer the deal, if the West Coast is too godless. If Crusades become an accepted part of Church Doctrine, there may be a call to chasten the Heathens of the West Coast.
People don't really know that the Mormon pioneers included a lot of British and German immigrants who were converted by missionaries in Europe, and then immigrated to the Promised Land. So Mormons are very Yankee, with a heretic religion thrown into the mix. Proselytizing and pioneering culture combine for a rough and ready travel culture. And Deseret is in the literal desert, so expansion into new territories would make sense from an economic standpoint.
In Summary, Deseret is a cozy little place, that no one else wants, that would connect East and West (along with the horse tribes). It is defensible, and allows the Mormons to deal from a position of strength with their neighbors. On the other hand, religion and crusading could give plenty of reason for another path, and conflict with neighbors.
But since the Church sees itself as peaceful, there would need to be some sort of organized Casus Belli for it to make sense. Reclaiming the Eastern Holy Lands, and Humbling the Western Infidels all make good sense. And this would be amplified by the Yankee industrious trader spirit. After all, the Protestant Work Eethic is strong in Mormon culture as well.
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
I generally see deflation as better than inflation. It empowers savers. It removes housing as an investment vehicle, which prices them out the reach of those who need them. (Houses should be like cars. They both inherently provide value, and everyone needs one. They should not be speculative and overpriced.)
With inflation, debt gets smaller, so bad loans are often issued. With deflation, loans must be carefully considered with an path to profitability. You can save for a house, you can save to start a business. Inflation requires debt to do anything.
And deflation is just more human. Normal people can understand a deflationary economy. Inflationary economies are anti-human, and require unnatural moves that the common person doesn't understand. Investment, debt, financial constructs, it's all a scheme. Normal people want to save, they need enough, not more than that, they want to work at one place for a long time.
21
-
21
-
21
-
19
-
I agree, but that all kinda goes with the video. Europe isn't currently designed to be a world power. It needs a lot of things, but it has that potential. I believe in the future of Europe, but we can't say it's on that track. It's not on the road to ruin either, but it needs to wake up a bit. :D
I do agree on Russia. Long term, I think the Sino-Russian alliance is gonna end in tears, especially when the Polar Ice Caps start melting, being mined, and China realizes they can just walk into unpopulated Siberia and get access to all those resources. That ain't gonna end well for either side, and if Strong Man Putin ain't around, who knows what will happen.
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
12
-
12
-
Yeah, my biggest problem with it is the anger at asking simple questions. It ticks off my BS detector. If it is a real concern, then the Proponents either don't know what we should do about it, or don't care.
Like the video said, recycling goes in the trash, and anything we do on a personal level is way outstripped by the industrial nature of the world, and is worse in Asia. Going further, if Industry is the cause, then the cure is worse than the disease. Going back to pre-industrial levels would mean famine, genocide, and war, far beyond the worse estimates for Climate Change. Which leads me to believe that just like Covid, it is a power grab. The current elite trying to hold onto their power in a changing world.
Climate Change might be real, but if it is, we will deal with it using industry. We can build levees to hold back the sea, we can launch solar reflectors into space to correct how much sun light we are getting. Hell, we could even launch ash into the atmosphere like a volcano, at a really cheap cost. The reality is that the elites don't want to solve Climate Change. They want a big problem to scare people with, in order to justify their power.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
I was just reading a passage in the Book of Mormon, that was talking about how in our time, preachers will deny the God of Miracles. They will say, God has done his work, there is no more, now we just live our lives.
The point being made was that the true church of Christ needs miracles, needs faith, needs revelation and prophets. That kind of goes along with what you are saying about Christianity needing that esoteric and transcendant quality that it once had.
There was a Mormon leader who said that laughter is of God, because when he laughed purely, he felt the spirit of God. And Mormons believe in having dances and parties, but also in morals.
There are things like addictions that dull our spiritual sensitivity. People online even talk about how things like Porn, drugs, alcohol, etc. don't make them happy but actually make them miserable. But you need something to replace that lifestyle. We all have a hole in our hearts that we are trying to fill. The concept of a loving God who wants us to succeed is meaningful. And in these times, we need something greater than ourselves to hold onto.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
I think he talks more about in a Geopolitical way. As long as the US props Europe up, they have little to fear. But others have little to fear from them as well.
But if they want to stand on their own two feet, they need to get over the World Wars, start having kids, and believe in something more than comfort. Something that motivates them through discomfort, which any worthwhile undertaking requires. I don't know what that is, but that is what is required.
It can happen, but I think the American Safety blanket makes it politically unfeasible for now. I think the bubble will have to burst, and hard times come, for Europeans to gird their loins and stand up.
It might require a more pan-european effort, especially due to the bad demographics. Less national, and more civilizational, which this channel has mentioned in the past. I think it can happen, and while the EU might not be its final form, I do think that is the right direction.
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
On the comparison to WW1, I think back then the populations and patriotism were so healthy and strong that people wanted war. That is different from today. Nowadays most people would probably rather overthrow their own government than go invade or defend some other country. Which is why I like the 30 Years War analogy of this video so much.
I agree on nukes, the Major powers have too much to lose, and have thought about it so much, that I don't see them ever using nukes. Even the hardest red line I can imagine, if China invaded Siberia, I question if Russia would use nukes even then. But the smaller, less stable countries, who knows what could happen?
As populations decline, I think the US will form a new Global race. Specifically with Hispanic and East Asians being merged into the White Identity. And depending on how bad it gets, like with the colonization of the New World, Americans might go to Japan, Germany, other places, to bolster and repopulate these areas. Especially if those countries don't want just "any" type of immigrants.
Aside from that, migrations are something to watch. I have my eye out for the famines and destabilization in Africa and the Middle East to lead to another, much greater migrant and refugee crisis. If Europe does not control it, Europe will be overwhelmed and become New Africa. I think they will choose to work with Turkey, and the Maghrebi Nations in North Africa, to control the situation, but it will turn bloody, and millions will die either way. It will be ugly.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@JaneDoe-dg1gv There is a old book I heard of called "Garden Cities of Tomorrow", by E. Howard. He wrote that communities should be limited in size, and if there are more people, build another town some distance off. And to combine the town and country, into town-country, having the benefits of town, and the benefits of open country and space. I haven't fully read it, but I am fascinated by the concept.
Isaac Arthur, the channel that this one recently did a collab with, has done videos on Arcologies, which I think are really interesting and kinda go with the idea of autonomous factories that allow smaller settlements to be materially viable. I think the potential is there to redefine our reliance on overcrowded cities, which are anti-human in so many ways.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yeah, I think some Mormons wanted to continue on to California, but we would have just ran into the same thing there. We picked the least desirable place in America, and made it work for us.
The Mormon Corridor extends from into Canada to into Mexico. It's concentrated in Idaho, Utah, and Arizona. Mormons settled and colonized this land, including building Las Vegas as he said (though the Mafia was responsible for the Sin City Part).
We also sent the "Mormon Battalion" during and after the Mexican America War, which ended up building a fort in San Diego, Los Angeles, and then working in Sutter's Mill when Gold was discovered. They stayed to get some gold, but then headed home to return to their families. I consider the Mormon Battalion almost like Forrest Gump in their proximity to US historical events. :D
4
-
4
-
4
-
You're right, but it does feel weird for me to distinguish, even though there are very real differences. I do agree that I like people who want to come and be a part, but that also counts if they are allowed to be a part.
I think an overlooked aspect of Hispanics is that a lot of them consider themselves white, and some even have green or blue eyes. That's not all of it, but I think the closeness, intermingling culture, and hard work ethic has allowed them to make a place for themselves. I think both right and left took for granted that Hispanics were Democrat property, but people have a mind of their own, and in my Hispanic family, the younger generations are all conservative.
I guess once you get past the immigration issue, Hispanics are religious and family oriented, which are conservative values.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I think the MSM promotes hang ups on Trump that a lot of people just don't care about. The reason he is so popular, among Hispanics and otherwise, is because most of the world is not PC. But the political elite and MSM are PC, and eliminate anyone who wants in and isn't PC enough. Which eliminates candidates that care about and speak to the majority non-PC constituency. I remember when Trump first ran in 2016. He talked about things that the average American cared about, that no other candidate was talking about. Sometimes it feels like Politicians are campaigning to each other, or to the big money donors. Trump talked to the people. Anyone could have done it, but they don't, because they know where their money comes from.
The Left are now getting most of the corporate donations, while the Right, started by Trump, are turning to Populism for their base, and it is working. It doesn't help that the left has become complacent about their minority coalition. In the 2016 election, there were leaks from the DNC that spoke poorly of Hispanic voters as a sort of captive voter, ie throw them some bones and they will be loyal voters for generations. But the truth is that people are rational actors, looking at their situations and choosing the choice that looks to give them what they want.
Furthermore, many Hispanics consider themselves white. So the anti-white Critical Race Theory that is popping up on the Left would not appeal to them. This channel has talked about it before, but I also think that Hispanics and East Asians are close to being accepted into the White Mainstream. They don't want the crumbs of the Left. They are succeeding in America, and in some cases, even attacked by the left, as seen by prosperous Asians who don't want to play POC games. Why accept victimhood, when they are winning?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I think Iran should come out on top, since they are more isolated from other powers, whereas Turkey is surrounded by people they are pissing off.
However, my pet prediction for WW3 is Turkey allying with China and Pakistan, and turning on Russia and Iran, in order to secure Central Asia, the Russian Far East, and the Black Sea. Also, Iran and Russia are not friends with the West, so they are isolated diplomatically. But if the West sees the threat, then anything goes.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Whenever it come to inequality, I think it's only going to get worse. The US, for example is rich and educated, which puts it in a strong position to deal with Climate Change and Automation, etc. We are going into space, where we will have access to vast resources and energy. And the US can only do that because we are rich and educated.
Compare that to African or South American Countries. They will never be equal with the US. But I also believe that people today, even in Africa and South America, are more prosperous then their ancestors. The world is better off today than it was in the past.
I think the World will turn a corner when we realize that inequality is not a problem in and of itself. If we feed everyone on earth, and wipe out disease, will it matter that Jeff Bezos has a net worth greater than 50% of the Global population? Only if we think he will use that power to oppress. So the only downside to inequality is potential oppression. As long as we preserve our liberty, then we will be able to survive. Which is why free speech and conscionable objection is so integral.
And that is why Social Justice will fail, because it turns the power of censorship over to Google, Facebook, and Twitter, which is more unequal and dangerous than Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates Net worth.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I agree, except what is the unifying vision of the EU? For the USA, the unifying vision was created after a war of Independence by the Founding Fathers who were idealists visionaries. As it expanded, each state was born fresh in a way, as a new baby state, as part of the US. So the states have rights, but they are also creations of the USA, its children, or more like its fingers and toes.
Whereas the European Nations are adults already, with their own ideas and myths. Allying or trading together is one thing. But how do they align without consensus? How do they make hard decisions? What vision leads out? The US had a Civil War where the North did not allow the South to seceede. Will the EU fight a war to keep countries from leaving the EU? Western Europe fighting against Eastern Europe, for example?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think also their religion/culture venerates education, even back to the times of Jesus, where the elites were the Rabbis, the learned, the people who could understand and teach from the Torah, and also break it down and apply it. It seems similar to the Bureaucrat class in China, and Chinese people have also been called the Jews of East Asia.
And at the same time, it makes sense that this would be resented by the mainstream. In the modern day, people mistrust lawyers, banks, corporations, because they hold tons of power. If you go into these fields, especially if you are a minority, you would be resented. Heck, in many places and times, a conquering power would exalt a minority to do their dirty work, because they knew the minority depended on them for power. We can see this all over history, with the Jews, but also with other groups. Hell, the Greek inhabitants of Constantinople rose up and slaughtered the Italian Quarter because they felt they were being ripped off and oppressed. The mistake is thinking only Jews had to deal with this.
2
-
@eswalker02r38 In our world, the Mormons colonized Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, Las Vegas, and even sent a group with the US army during the Mexican-US war, that built a fort at San Diego and Los Angeles as new US possessions, then went to San Francisco and Sutter's Mill and were there when gold was discovered, before heading back to the Salt Lake Valley. The culture is a mix of getting out into the world, and staying close to home, so I think they would definitely have influence and contacts all over the place.
2
-
It's from a book by Thomas Sowell, talking about how what we today consider Black Culture, was similar to Scots Irish culture in the South, and when African Slaves were freed, the cultures permeated and wove together. Fact is, African Americans don't act like Africans.
It's a way to show that current Black Culture is not an inherent part of "Blackness" and to overcome the harmful antipathy against "White" pursuits like education, family, and law abidingness. Reality is that Blacks can succeed in America, if they do the things that lead to success. But a lot of Racial Identity is tied up in these self destructive behaviors, that Sowell, an African American Economist, argues aren't even inherently Black.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The thing is, China can't focus on just one. If China can focus on the Indian Front, they may do well. But they have to guard every inch of coastline and their Russian and Central Asian Borders as well. They are in a similar situation to Germany in the World Wars, with similar advantages and disadvantages.
Since they are central, they can move troops around to the different fronts easier than any attackers can. But they have to defend in all directions. They have India to the South, which can match Chinese numbers, and be supplied by the Western Allies. They have the Pacific, which is the domain of America and its allies, to the East. They have weak and unstable countries in Central Asia to the West, which could be a route for American Allies to go through. And they have an unreliable pseudo-ally in Russia to the north, who could, and maybe should, go against them in order to expand their power in Asia.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For me, 9/11 is the cutoff. Before that, the Cold War had ended, the West had won, and everything was going gucci.
After 9/11, the culture of fear took hold. TSA treating you like a criminal, , School shootings (which started before 9/11, but became epidemic over time), terrorist attacks, constant war, refugee crisis, Climate Change, SJWs and Cancel Culture, China is gonna overtake the US, Housing Market Crash, Swine Flue, Bird Flu, SARS, Covid-19.
I mean, bad things were happening before, but the attitude was different. Now people just want to be left alone in their own homes.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm Mormon, and I heard that foundational Mormonism was more loosy goosy, kinda like a lot of new protestant churches at the time, but the death of Joseph Smith, the founder, as well our expulsion from the US, and a massive wave of English and German converts helped to turn it in a more conservative way.
Also Brigham Young, Smith's successor, was a tough old bastard, which was what was needed to lead the way to Utah, which was outside the US and a desert wasteland at the time. The Mormons almost went to California, but wanted to live as far away from others as possible, due to fear of persecution, which is a Puritan trait after all. :D
So it may not have started very Puritan like, but it became that way. And while I never had a problem with it, I do see how you're either in or out. In CA, I woke up at 5:30 before school to go to bible class, all through High School, and I served two years as a missionary. The Church asks a lot of you, so you're either in or out. :D
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not only that, but modern pizza, Taco Bell, Chow Mein, a lot of so called ethnic foods are really created by immigrants to America, and then exported to the world.
You can go to the USA and make something new. American culture is Pizza, is Chinese Food, takes the best from all cultures.
American Culture steals, which is why it assimilates. Other cultures aren't overwritten or destroyed, they are assimilated and join in, making a stronger whole. Which is why it is so successful.
Compare to Russification, where the Russian Empire tried to force conquered peoples to only speak Russian and convert religion. Now their neighbors want nothing to do with them and try to stay away.
America says bring your culture, and add it to ours. Which is why America's destiny is to take over the world. The only ones who could rival us are joining us. Who would fight us, when we don't want to destroy you, we don't want anything from you. We just want to be friends and get along.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dave_sic1365 Really, the problem is with the Marxist subverters in University. I remember being told that everything bad in the world is the fault of White Men, specifically Europeans, to the point that I started getting depressed. I eventually had to throw off the shackles, and I only went for my two year degree.
Most of what we see in the west is the result of brainwashing in the Universities. Young people are taught a Marxist Conflict Theory of history, and try to atone for it. It started in the 60s, and only now is starting to die out in the younger generations, and only because the world is not going well enough for such lies to be comfortable anymore.
I really agree with this channel putting Social Justice as a religion, but its been around for a while. It's the Marxist professors teaching the kids to regret being born, and hate their race. Some people grow out of it, some never do, but Western Society is sick from that Marxist disease, even as the 3rd world has benefitted from Western inventions and methods in the Post War period.
I think times are going to get worse before they get better, but as a result, the lies are gonna be seen for what they are, and people are going to turn to common sense answers to the crisis of our time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sluggo206 Gentile mean non-jewish, and that's how Mormons use it too. We consider ourselves Gentiles too, unless we actually had jewish ancestry.
The one difference is that we believe that all people can join the family of God, and become part of the House of Israel, or God's chosen people. That's also why we do baptism for the dead, to give them the opportunity to accept. No force.
It would feel foolish to call anyone a Gentile, because we are Gentiles too. :D
And finally, I think its funny that people throughout the country are agnostic, atheist, or non-practising, but they are quick to pass judgment on our beliefs. I'd say we are the most fervent large sect of Christianity, not Protestant (and proud of it :D), and the proof is in the pudding. We are successful, and even well liked. When the worst thing people can say about you is that you are odd, I'll take that. Better than accepting this world's slide into moral decay.
Now everyone wants to talk about traditional values, but we Mormons organized and helped pass an anti-gay marriage amendment in California! Before the Supreme Court overruled the States. We are organized, we are conservative, we are family oriented, and we did it when it wasn't popular. We took flak for our beliefs. We believe in the US Constitution, and freedom of religion and speech.
The Mormon Church has more members outside of the US than inside the US. We have churches and temples all over the world. We have lots of Hispanic and Pacific Islander Members, and I hope we continue to spread. I served a mission and saw people's lives change when they joined the Church, for the better. It was like night and day.
I really think people need something to believe in, something to work for, that goes beyond this life. I think religion can be that thing, but you have to see what fruit it bears. If you look at the fruit of the Mormons, you will see that it is good.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
UK had a dictatorship under Cromwell, then went back to Parliament. We could see something like that. I don't think many Americans believe that just because a man is great, that his son is automatically entitled to his power. How many people support Trump, but wouldn't support his son, Don Jr?
I could see us following a great leader, a Caesar, who takes pains to show respect and deference to the Constitution, while doing what needs to be done. And when he dies or leaves, either restarting the old system, or appointing a popular and qualified successor. Of course, then we run into similar problems as the Roman Empire, but if we believe in Cycle Theory, then it will need to happen anyway.
2
-
2
-
I think that hits true, except that the world stands still for no one. Africa and Middle East are growing and overpopulated and poor. When Globalism dies, which is happening right now, those 3rd world countries will starve. And they will try to migrate to Europe, which will destroy Europe as we know it. Just like the Migration period after the fall of the Roman Empire.
And as its happening, each European Country will burn with unrest and violence. Europeans who don't want to stand by, immigrants who don't fit in, 3rd world mentalities crashing into 1st world mentalities, Technocrats trying to hold onto power, and new leaders who are willing to try something new when the old ways are dying.
It doesn't matter what Europeans want. They will either die in a firey train wreck, smothered under a 3rd world tide, or they will find their balls again and fight for their survival. It's one thing to live out your days peacefully in the retirement home, it's another thing when the zombies come breaking down the doors and windows to kill everyone inside.
And with whatever comes in that aftermath, the USA, in its isolation, will gain leverage to pick winners and losers. So those who come out on top, will cosy up to the USA, weakened, but still alive. It will be a new order.
2
-
1
-
1
-
@Sebomai-b8i Yeah, especially because this isn't in a vacuum. The existing powers will still have a say. I would say Iran is too far removed, compared to the others. Turkey is closer, but is kinda going into business for themselves. They are not West European, so for the US, the preference would be for France to exert that influence.
To counter that, Turkey would have to play China and US off each other, while also warding off Russia. The best way for Turkey to expand is to side with China in a new order, but that puts Russia against China, since they are against Turkey. And it takes away the great strength of NATO for Turkey. I don't think it's worth it for Turkey in a holistic sense, although for expansionism it a gamble.
Whereas for France, all it has to do is reach out and take it, solidifying its Mediterranean Hegemony. France gets to be a big player, allying with Spain and Italy, and the US doesn't have to expend resources in that area. It hems in Turkey and Iran, and it really is a kind of status quo for a western European nation to be keeping the peace in the Middle East.
(My pet prediction for WW3 is China, Turkey, and one other [probably Pakistan] going all out to upend the established order. China takes the Russian far east and Turkey tries to push them off the Black Sea. Turkey and Pakistan pincer Iran with help from China, to bring Central Asia under control. Isolate and neuter India. With that base, the New Axis will have secure interior lines to exert influence into the Middle East, Africa, and SEA. Their opponents would be whoever wants to stop it from happening, ala the US, India, Russia, and NATO.)
1
-
1
-
@ryanhouk3560 I'm thinking more from a Medieval perspective, without telephones.
In medieval times, the "duchies" of England, Scotland, etc. were "kingdoms". And Empires were the Roman Empire, based around a Major Sea, China and Persia, which were connected by land and Relatively concentrated, and the Mongol Empire, which even with their advanced logistics and transportation, didn't last long before splitting into more manageable chunks.
That's all because without electric communication, there is a limit on how much you can really control.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lol, the SOUTH lost the Civil War because they always had less people and less industry. As well as a large enslaved population who wasn't loyal.
Nowadays, it's the other way around. The Left has less numbers and less rationality and mental health, as well as a diverse coalition that isn't loyal, and only sticks around for the handouts and feels.
The Right isn't just the Right, it is everyone who cannot tolerate shitty woke entertainment, or forever foreign wars, or they are people who are mentally strong, or want to have families, or want to better themselves, work hard, get ahead, etc.
Neither side is particularly industrialized. But the Right has way more territory, which works like an invasion into Russia. What part of the US do you take to finish the Right? Whereas the left is isolated to the Cities, which are easily surrounded and cut off, and are so overcrowded and diverse that if there isn't food for a day, that city will explode into violence. We've already seen this kinda stuff in the BLM riots, and Chaz project.
If a second US civil war kicks off, the rest of the world is gonna immediately break down into squabbles and score settling in their own backyards. The only reason countries can even project power is because the US is the director and main driving force. And if any country does try to get involved, they may have to deal with their own civil war, because this isn't only an issue in the US.
Don't be blackpilled, that is the easiest victory for the forces of evil. It won't be easy, it won't be simple, but pressure over time breaks stone, and the Elites and Governments and Corpos are feeling the pressure. The times are changing, and nothing stays the same forever. It is hubris to believe that Man can control their full reality. The times change, and we adapt to the times. Men do not control the tide, they merely surf on it.
1
-
1
-
It will definitely undercut all of the Dictator Resource Depots in favor of Technical Capital rich countries. Russia, bleh. African Countries, bleh. That part of China's economy, bleh.
We'll be able to get any mineral from asteroids, plenty of solar power from satellites, and even offshore manufacturing to orbital factories. It will literally be a revolution, and I could see a major war from the Have-nots (anyone not in the good graces of the West and the USA in particular) desperately trying to muck things up.
Along with Automation, this will be industrial revolution 2.0, taking power away from traditional geography and such, and giving it to the people who can invest and innovate in technology the most. USA, Japan, Europe. If China can keep up, them too. But I think China's hash will be settled by then, otherwise it could get ugly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're so biased your brain filled in the blanks. He said the South started the Civil War because the North was growing faster and would have the votes to end slavery.
And Black people have been oppressed, by White Liberals, enabling abortion which is a genocide on Blacks, enabling drug use which holds them back, pushing for gun control which leaves Blacks defenseless and give pretext for a lot of black arrests, and demolishing the Black Family, which is an institutionalized destruction of the Black people.
Look at every Democrat run city, with Police Chief, Mayor, City Council all Blue, and see how the Blacks suffer. But black people are told by the Dems that they are victims, they are children, they cannot make it on their own. Democrats are like controlling parents that make you scared to leave them. Hispanics and East Asians are already leaving the Reservation, all you have to lose are your chains.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why would anyone want the Desert? The West Coast can trade up and down the coast. Unless they want to send caravans overland through the desert, and then through Cowboy Mongol Territory, there is nothing for them on land. And it minimizes their greatest strength, which is naval matters.
They would arguably be better served going even further south to Central America, where the overland journey is short, to trade with traders from New Orleans and the East Coast. Going overland would the hardest and least profitable way to do it.
Especially if they're going to fight Deseret. It might be doable if they contracted with Deseret to take their goods across in caravans. But if they want to fight Deseret, there would be no Colorado River Basin to conquer. Deseret would cut off the Colorado River to make sure there is nothing to take. It would be so easy to deny supplies to any force coming from the West.
The West Coasters aren't desert warriors, they are coastal merchants. I think they would leave well enough alone, and try to find a trade route to China. :D
As for Alexander the Great, he conquered a centralized state, where the people barely noticed the change in ownership during their day to day. And the Greek hold gradually wore away under his successors.
Rome conquered everything it made sense to conquer, which was the land around the Mediterranean Sea. They didn't conquer Egypt, Egypt allied with Rome, and then got merged into the Empire with the partnership and then death of Antony and Cleopatra. The Romans conquered Mesopotamia once, but almost immediately gave it up. And Deseret would be even more isolated than either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ingold1470 Like Victoria 2, where capitalism means having the computer, in the guise of capitalists, choose how to build your factories. Or you can choose a more planned, centralized economy, where you get to choose what factories are built and where. :D
In a video game, you have limited scope, near perfect information, job security, restart ability, and the ability to call in the army to slaughter rebels. :D And none of it is doing harm to an actual human.
Like you say, the video game that makes the best option to just let the market work would be pretty boring. I think that's why it's not so popular irl too. People want to be doing something, even if its counter productive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The idea that feeling good for doing good is self interested is so wrong. It's like saying that because exercise makes you feel good it is addictive.
Exercise is hard, which is why even though it feels good and is good for you, most people don't do it unless they have a more self interested reason, like picking up chicks, being good at sports, or getting positive attention from men. Sure, some people can be said to be addicted to working out, but if you compare their numbers to everyone who feels good from working out, you can see that exercise is not very addictive.
Likewise, doing good is often hard and requires self-sacrifice, which is why most people don't go out of their way to help others. The feel good is not determinant, otherwise selfish people would do good just for the feel goods.
If a person does good just for the feel good, then that is as selfless as a person can be, because that is based on their conception of doing good. Not everyone feels good from doing good. Many feel terrible from doing good, because of how they view it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, what is your society? I agree that a nation, or even an ethnicity or religion is too broad, although there are cultural touchstones.
I work my way out. Myself, then family, then friends and extended family, neighbors, etc. I think a Local Tribe, which could equate to small town in size is just about right.
Even then, you could be taken advantage of. So you have to put yourself first, not maliciously, but judiciously, and then work your way out as you see fit. Some people can't trust their family, but their neighbors are always willing to lend a hand. It depends.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We are not on track to have a civil war. The divide in modern America is between the major cities and the rest of the country. Major cities have huge economies, are diverse, have lots of crime, and are lefty. The rest of the country is poorer, more conservative, and spread out which eases tensions.
The cities can't fight the rest of the country, even though they contain about half the population, because they import everything they need to survive. Until now, they have also called the shots.
But rather than the rightys succeeding, the tide is turning. The Leftys will howl, but they can't do much about it, except burn down their cities and maybe commit acts of terrorism. But it won't lead to an official war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't think the next Civil War will be between Left and Right. As you said, the left is a joke militarily. But the left and right will still be on opposite sides of the conflict.
The next Civil War will be the Corporations against the People. Corporations already hold so much power, and the inequality in society is the real conflict. It's not even about rich people anymore, but these corpos like Google, Apple, Amazon, and the Federal Government and bureaucracies working together. The Left Populism has been coopted by Corporate pandering to Social Justice, but the Right Populism has solidified around Trump, and seeing as the Establishment is persecuting him continually, and others as well, then this will be the conflict.
And it makes for a real war, instead of the rofl-stomp of left vs. right. The cities are the financial centers, banks, corporate HQs, political capitals. In the case of a war, they have the potential to lose all of their power. They will lead the way, with mercenaries, propaganda, and perhaps SJW brand terrorism. This will be high stakes, not just a grudgin'. Either side winning leads to a drastically different outcome. This will be destructive and painful.
I think the cities will want to get outside assistance, and the rural areas' success will be determined on if they can interdict that assistance. Considering that the rest of the world is not in peaceful, prosperous mode right now, the US may have the dream scenario of limited outside interference in the time of most internal vulnerability.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jfaulk5717 It is interesting. I think City Living has historically had a lot of pros, but also a lot of cons.
The middle class is what we should try to help everyone to become. Everyone cannot be rich, but we want to help people rise up out of poverty and be educated. Which means middle class.
And yet modern life seems aimed at deconstructing the middle class, leaving elites living on top of skyscrapers, and those in poverty, living in crowded slums subsisting on government handouts.
There is so much land for people to live on, and as tech advances, you could have a water purifier and powered greenhouses on your property. With the internet, people can be educated and work from home. Automation even gets rid of the need to create our products.
Cities are becoming an outdated concept, and the only reason is to keep people crowded, angry, under supervision, and under pressure. I don't think a violent revolution is necessary, but rather a great awakening.
1
-
@Gerwulf97 Yeah, Russia is looking weak, even if they aren't. Perception can be as important or more so than reality. And Russia also has a limit to how much it can draw from other sectors.
Russia's trump card is looking like the big bully. But Ukraine is the little guy saying, "I'm not afraid of you anymore!" and winning. And that perception is rotting away at Russian "soft" power. If one country can hold off the Russians with supplies from the West, then how much more can NATO?
Europe now knows they don't have to be scared of Russia, and they are also defanging the threat of Russia's energy stranglehold, which cannot be tolerated now that Russia has shown its true colors.
I would say that Russia's strength on the World stage, militarily, diplomatically, and economically, has eroded like a sand castle because of this blunder of an invasion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Peter Zeihan talks a lot about it, and it is basically a result of industrialization and Urbanization. In the old days, children were an asset, manpower. In the modern age, children are an expense. You want to get them the best stuff, healthcare, education, all of which cost. Plus women having more choices instead of staying at home having kids.
So birth rates plummet, but at the same time people were living longer so it masked the decline. But now we are coming to the crisis point where old people are retiring without the younger people to make up the numbers. And this is happening all over the world, even in 3rd world countries, China, Mexico, etc. Some are worse than others.
I think the longer forecast is that eventually this can turn around, but the real problem is that countries will not be able to maintain their economies and current pension setups, so things will revert to semi-pre-industrial levels. Standards of living will go down, and that will cause stress and conflict, which makes it harder to fix things.
I recommend Peter Zeihan's books, which go over a lot of this. He just came out with a new book, The End of the World is Just the Beginning. It was pretty depressing. :D
1
-
That doesn't address it at all. It's a matter of production. Young workers are inexperienced, and have lots of expenses starting families, so they can't produce or save as much. Middle aged are experienced and have less expenses (kids are grown), so they can produce more and save more, which becomes capital for investment. Once they retire, then they don't produce anything, and all their expenses must be paid, either out of their savings, which takes away from capital, or by taxing society, which takes away from productivity and capital from savings.
This is true in any economic system. Countries with aging population do not have people following the aging generations. If there are less children than the retirees, then those who remain must contribute more with less, and that isn't feasible. People will most likely try to leave, because they feel they have no future. If they aren't allowed to leave, then they will forment revolution. Young and skilled workers are fleeing Russia. Which makes their demographic crunch worse. The same can happen in China, and anywhere. And that makes the situation worse for the country losing their future producers. Not to mention the need of young people for the army.
Automation may alleviate this to some degree, but to what extent is hard to say. And countries with healthy demographics can use automation to widen the gap, just like rich countries can use drones as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I completely agree. We are going to see the USA become something new rather than fall. The US is not overstretched like the Roman Empire was when it fell. The US is currently ready, willing, and able to pull back from its global commitments, which the Roman Empire wouldn't or couldn't do.
It reminds me of the video game Total War: Atilla, which is set at the end of the Western Roman Empire. One of the best strategies to survive as the Western Roman Empire is to abandon the far reaches of the empire that are underperforming, pull back to core territory, and rebuild your strength, before expanding again.
The US is self sufficient, so it doesn't have to keep a tight grip on the rest of the world. It can turn inward and become isolationist, while the rest of the world really can't. And when the US is ready, it will turn back to the world stage, usually after their rivals are done beating each other up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Who is strong enough to project so much power to destroy another? We thought Russia could, but it turns out they can't. We suspect China can, but that is a dicey situation going up against the US, with a naval blockade really hurting them.
Even the US, which has the most proven power projection of all, and many allies, has things that are just off the table in terms of ability to execute. Imagine the US wanting to invade Russia or China? Not gonna happen. The US might be able to do it, but it would devastate the US and guarantee a Civil War or Uprising, especially since they would probably need a draft to do it.
The Big players aren't afraid of being invaded. They are afraid of collapsing internally. And this goes for Europe, Africa, South America, all of the Globe. And one failure will pile up into the next, since we are all so intertwined. Poland is buying and developing tanks with South Korea right now, to give you an idea of the complex supply chains that are normal right now.
The world will know war, but it won't be one side against another, until Unconditional Surrender. It will be like the wars in Africa and the Middle East from the last few decades. Instability leads to chaos, leads to conflict and war to establish some kind of favorable order.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I take Peter Zeihan's idea, that the USA gave up its own economic growth, to basically bribe the rest of the world into an alliance against the USSR. Since the end of the Cold War, and I would say since 9/11, which kinda popped the bubble of the Post Cold War good feelings, Americans are frustrated with endless wars, with China selling us cheap shit and then using that to try to overtake us, and yet in the USA, we don't feel like the system is working for us.
So I think the American people are tired of being world police man, with little benefit seen by the average joe (the corpos see all the profit). And while the elites love the current system, that is why you see the conflict in US politics, where the people want leaders who will put America first for a change, which will lead to more isolationism. I would say that is why people voted for Trump, and Zeihan even says that Biden, who ran as the Anti-Trump, and even Obama to a certain extent, were already moving in this direction. It's a large scale political shift, and it will be a while before the USA deals with its internal problems and even wants to look outward.
The American People don't really hate anyone, but they also don't see the world as their problem. And since the world is globally connected, that means that the current order that has been built since the Post War, is going to suffer the removal of the USA for a bit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Zeihan talks about the US using special forces and drones to engage in limited wars without involving the US population. Especially now that Americans are worn out from Iraq and Afghanistan, and don't want to die for any war the US might get involved in. Heck, maybe even mercenary units, as this video mentioned.
The American People want to isolate, but the government, and especially other governments, want the US to stick around. So that is a central issue they'll have to address. Just look at our involvement in Ukraine. I think most Americans support Ukraine, but don't want us to get directly involved in the war. But we are sharing intel, weapons, training, and strategy with the Ukrainians.
Same with a potential war against China. US Navy would be involved, but it would probably involve a lot of Korean, Japanese, and potentially Indian soldiers as well, in order to fight that conflict. (I'd say a naval blockade, with maybe China trying to invade into the Middle East directly, opening up a front with India.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What's so scary about that? Once we get into space, nukes will look like children's toys. Hell, biological weapons already do that too. Whether you believe COVID was manmade or not, the idea of something like that being created and unleashed on the world makes nukes look like children's toys.
Factories changed warfare to be way more destructive. Train, guns, artillery, bombs, planes, submarines. You fear the wrong things. Our world is filled with things that can kill you. People fear sharks more than bees, yet bees kill more, and mosquitoes even more.
Cars are more dangerous in a mass killing event than any gun. But we don't fear the car, because we are familiar with it. Familiarity doesn't take away the danger, but it takes away the fear. Dogs can hunt and kill, but we call them Good boy and have them sleep in our houses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimmyatoms4438 I grew up in LA and then moved to the Suburbs of Salt Lake City. A big difference is that stuff costs less, but you also earn less at jobs. It's best to save up at a higher paying job in the city, and then move to a reasonably priced suburb or rural area to live like a king.
The other difference is less people. Less traffic, less crime, less stress. I think cramming people into cities is anti-human. This video itself talks about how humans have mostly been agricultural, and we are still adjusting to industrialization. Well, that includes cities. If you live in a city, you will have less. Less space, less time. Maybe more money, but also more costs. It's not worth it. Everyone needs to spread out.
I remember seeing an old book from the 1920s that said that the ideal community was no larger than 40,000 people. Because more than that and the city can't administrate effectively. It's like overcrowded classrooms. People get a bad experience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is interesting to think about what comes after the Demographic crisis. I mean, history won't just end. But the truth is that in order to have a nation, a state, you must have enough of a people to do so.
The USA is in a good place because anyone can become an American, and the American Identity is strong. Take East Asians and Hispanics who are assimilating as this video mentioned. That keeps the American "bloodline" strong, so to speak. Even Europeans can become American.
But the USA was started as an ideal creation, whereas European nations were created as ethnostates. France for the French, Germany for the Germans. The names even reflect this. England, land of the English; Scotland, land of the Scots; Denmark, land of the Danes; etc. It is harder to accept foreign people and assimilate them, when you never had to do that before. They don't have a universal ideal and vigor that could assimilate the new immigrants. So it backfired.
And with Africa and the Middle East growing with young populations, and the coming end of globalism putting the hurt on those same areas, there will be a massive wave of immigration from those areas to Europe. But I think Europeans are tired of it by now. The truth is that Europe would be destroyed by the influx, but the alternative is an Iron curtain over the Mediterranean, that I wonder if the EU and its nations have the stomach for. But if they don't act, Europe will seethe and burn.
1
-
1
-
Latin America has less ties with Europe than the US does. Yes, Latin America was settled by Europeans, but so was the US. When the US increases ties to Latin America, it will be finally fulfilling the promise of the new world instead of clinging to the old.
It's like the adult child finally moving out of the parents home and getting married. The US is the big shot, but the Europeans want to do things their own way, and have veiled contempt for the US. When Europe is ready, the US will come back.
The US has more natural interests in South and Central America, the Caribbean, and Canada, than in places like the Middle East or Russia, which are European concerns.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ezra Taft Benson was President of the Mormon Church, but before that he was the Sec of Agriculture for Reagan. He said he met with a higher up from the USSR, and the guy said that Communism was going to come to America. And of course Benson said no way. But then the other guy said that when Communism came, it would be welcomed with open arms.
You look at the Yuri Beznev interview and what we know about the Commie Marxists, and it runs 100% true. Patriots who stand by the Constitution and traditional Christian Values are the only one who will stand against it, and I see tons of people waking up to that fact these days. It justifies my faith every day.
Mormons are US Patriots. We love America, it is part of our religion. We think America is the Promised land. To me, everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon now that things are getting bad, but there is always room for more. :D The tide has turned, and the Swamp is terrified. God Bless America, and may we live as to be worthy of that blessing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markm2092 The modern world is so wealthy, that to be merely rich by historical standards is seen as poverty. Plus we get to watch on tv and streaming, the wealthiest parade their wealth, while in olden times, the poors would have no idea of what the rich were up to, or accepted it.
In our time, we have no reason to accept it, and enough knowledge and wealth to see it. If someone is truly poor, they aren't in the west. Most of modern inequality bait is not aimed at the truly poor in the world, who are out of sight, out of mind, but that we the middle class can't live like the rich we idolize. Just like the marxists and communists leaders were bourgeoisie themselves.
The poor in the US are the rich by comparison with the Global and Historical population. In order to solve that, you either have to make everyone poor, which helps no one, or colonize the rest of the world, or space, in order to make everyone wealthy. I was taught in college that in order for the whole world to live like the US, there would need to be 3 other Earths for manufacturing, and 9 other Earths for the pollution.
Equality is only the equality of the grave. In order to better people's lives, we need more inequality, because we need excess of capital to innovate better ways to live. It's the concept behind taxation to fund social spending. People like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk make the world a better place, even if they don't let their workers take bathroom breaks.
Nuclear power has a huge start up cost, yet could provide cheap power to the people. Even green tech like solar and Wind requires so much capital before it can even start to help people. All of these technologies are being developed by the West, because it is rich. And that will benefit the whole world.
Western tech and corpos are involved around the world in infrastructure projects and innovation that is making the world a better place. Is it unequal? Hell yeah. Does people on this planet now have access to miraculous tech that the richest emperors and kings of the past would have given their whole fortunes to obtain, and yet could not? Hell Yeah.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I mean, we know there are chinese spies in the west, we know the corona virus came from a lab in Wuhan, we know our cheap consumerist crap is made in China, we know that corporations in the west are picking up oppressive and censorious elements in order to work with China, and we know that China is bullying their neighbors, including long time Western allies South Korea, Japan, Australia, and India.
Further, I don't really see much anti-sino sentiment anywhere, except in a generalized sense. Most is hyper focused on the CCP, as it should be. In the 30s, people praised Nazi Germany. It was only afterwards that it was condemned. The CCP is the Nazi Party. Concentration camps and aggressive expansionism for resources and irredentism provide the reasoning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@innosam123 I'm not talking about being Asian or not. In terms of Culture, Sinic or Chinese influence is found through most of East Asia, including Japan. But through many experiences, Japan has also had influence from the west, forming a unique cultural group, that could include South Korea, and is labeled in a map in this video as Nipponese.
Likewise, LatAm was settled by Western Culture from Portugal and Spain, but also has plenty of other cultural influences, so it still has influence from the West, but it is a unique Cultural Group.
1
-
1
-
I think Russia and China have invested in psyops to demoralize and confuse, so that in the confusion, they can snake some conquests. China with Taiwan, if not a few others, and Russia with Ukraine, if not a few others.
I also think there is a marxist anti-west cult that pushes self-destructive behaviors, like LGBT, drugs and casual sex, CRT. It is a artifact of the Cold War, Soviet attempts to demoralize, confuse, and weaken the West. But it has survived in Universities and Hollywood, where these ideas have spread like mold, and infect the products they put out.
And third, I think the current elites in the west are trying to hold onto their centralized power, when the zeitgeist and spirit of the times is trending towards more individuality and decentralization. The internet was a big part of giving people a voice, and populism is on the rise. So we are seeing short-sighted and illogical decisions from the elites in order to hold onto power for just a little longer.
1
-
I would compare it to the Tower of Babel. When God changed everyone's languages, they couldn't work together. Diversity doesn't just mean skin color. We need to agree on things like murder and rape. We can't have diversity on that for a functional society. We need to agree that we should work together in society, we can't have diversity on that.
Look at the US, which takes in immigrants, and allows them to assimilate. Mexicans don't become Anglo, but they do become Americanized. If they didn't, then there would be a subversive pocket in the US, which wouldn't strengthen the country. When Hispanics, or Europeans, or East Asians, come to the US and feel enfranchised and able to be successful, then they contribute and assimilate. But if they couldn't, or if they didn't want to learn English, they would not assimilate and would not succeed.
Diversity drives innovation, but also causes war and conflict. The Mediterranean was a hotbed of diversity, with the Byzantine Romans, the Italians, the French, the Austrians, the Spanish, the Arabs, and the Turks, Christians and Muslims and Mongols, and so many different types that technology and innovation flourished. But it was through war and conflict. Same with the Nations of Europe developing through war with each other. Diversity can lead to growth, but it is often through war and survival of the fittest. The losers get killed.
That's why the modern idea of diversity is kinda wrong. We can't all be right. If people don't want to change, then how do you have a unified state or organization? A nation that is divided will fall, a nation that is united will stand. They will work together better and conquer their divided neighbors, and we've seen that time and time again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1