Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters"
channel.
-
708
-
497
-
475
-
426
-
377
-
350
-
296
-
240
-
206
-
187
-
187
-
167
-
163
-
146
-
136
-
130
-
127
-
127
-
126
-
120
-
120
-
116
-
116
-
103
-
101
-
97
-
93
-
91
-
84
-
77
-
77
-
75
-
71
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
64
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
51
-
47
-
46
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
It is exceedingly difficult to be sure.
All I've had to go on so far is applying the more basic military realities to the situation.
Like, I can be pretty sure that Russia isn't "winning" right now. I make this assumption due to several factors. First it's always harder to attack and take territory than it is to defend territory unless the numbers and equipment are ludicriously uneven. Attackers usually have to account for heavy casualties initially, until they manage to break through.
Second, the taskforce that Putin put together for this invasion is relatively small considering the mission they are expected to carry out.
We're talking about a couple hundred thousand troops, expected to take a country with a population in excess of 40 million people, and it's not a "small" country by any stretch either.
That said, nobody can argue that Ukraine is winning either, because while they are dug in and defending, the Russians definitely have mobility on their side.
So the Russians can almost strike at will, at any target they like, but they're facing difficulties in capturing and holding territory for extended periods of time. The Ukrainians can hold territories better, but they can't kick the Russian forces out of the country either.
Note, I make these conclusions based on numbers and equipment alone. I won't even bother with news sources, because the propaganda war on both sides is in full swing so no news reports can really be trusted at all.
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
I hope the Daily Wire don't opt for putting out "conservative" childrens shows. All they need to do is put out some "politically neutral" entertainment for kids.
I mean, when I grew up I liked shows like TNMT, Swat Kats, The Pirates of Dark Water, He-Man And the Masters of the Universe, Lucky Luke, Asterix and Obelix and Tintin.
There weren't any "political messaging" in either of those. Sure, some of them were violent, but the violence was often pretty tame and just that regular level of action that appeals to young boys and make them excited.
But I can't remember a single situation where they came off as "preachy" or trying to spread political or ideological messages aside from regular human decency stuff along the lines of: "bullying is bad" or "protect those who aren'r as strong as you".
You know, ideals that anyone can agree with, regardless of political views.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@peterfireflylund You make a mistake in assuming that just because a lot of exposure is taking place it equates to having accurate information. But nothing could be further from the truth.
For starters, the Ukrainians and the Russians are basically using the same design of tanks, apc's, helicopters and even jets.
So if you see a wrecked Soviet looking tank and somebody slaps on a text saying "Russian tank destroyed", you have no way of knowing if it's actually Russian or not.
In fact, not even markings are helpful, since it's very easy for someone to just spraypaint a "Z" onto the wrecked hull of the tank and claim it belongs to the Russians, while it might just as well be a wrecked Ukrainian tank.
Unless you are well versed in being able to spot the later upgrades that Russia have installed on their tanks, that the Ukrainians do not have, you won't be able to separate truth from fiction.
And make no mistake, both Russia and Ukraine have a vested interest in spreading a narrative that their respective side is winning, and both employ psyops units as we speak.
So you can't just run around and assume that what you see in social media and news reports as being accurate information.
People believed in all of that "Ghost of Kyiv" and "Last stand at Snake Island" bullcrap too. But it all got debunked in the end. And the footage from the first was from a freaking video game.
That's how fast lies and fiction spread through social media.
So like I said: more exposure =/= accurate information.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
There are no rights devoid of compulsion. That's just a fantasy of liberalism.
Even the rights that might not by themselves require anyones labour to make happen, you'll still need to rely on labour from someone else in protecting them.
Like the right to freedom of speech for example. Doesn't cost anyone anything for you to speak. BUT if someone tramples on your right to freedom of speech, who's going to defend it from their abuse? You, the individual?
Might work if you only have one or two antagonists to go up against. But what if it's an entire gang or an army? Are you still going to be able to defend your right to freedom of speech on your own? No, you'll probably die in the attempt.
You need help. From policemen, soldiers, courts and government. They are compelled to do their duty in protecting that basic right, so that you can enjoy it.
If all of them decide that they're not going to be compelled to help protect your right to freedom of speech, then you, de facto, have no right to freedom of speech.
So all rights, no matter how basic or cheap in terms of resources and labour are always derived from compulsion and duty.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Never4534 @Never4534 Ah, that's a shame.
Nevertheless, know that you're not alone in thinking about these issues and that you want to see some change.
That's why the msm and social media sites are working overtime on trying to shut the topics down. They want us to feel isolated and alone with our views, because they fear our opposition if we realize just how many people there are out there that shares our sentiments.
It's a good thing you've chosen to follow the issues and not just keeping your head down to avoid rocking the boat.
If there's no one IRL to talk to, then do continue keeping yourself informed about it. And if there are other people, women especially, that you can broach the subject with then that would be grand as well.
As a man (not british, but faced with similar consequences of mass immigration and harmful cultural influences from abroad) I can honestly say that it's more challenging than it needs to be to raise the issue, when you see and hear a bunch of western women come out and attack you for it.
It's not like i'm a likely target of muslim grooming gangs or r@pists. They are. And I don't think it's possible to ever tackle the problem if the general consensus is to stubbornly refuse to talk openly about the foreign cultural and religious aspects to the problem.
I mean, or course there are white, western rapists too. We can't eliminate them all, because crime will always exist. But there are sole glaring key differences between r@pists from different countries.
When you've got a western man prosecuted for r@pe, he'll deny his crimes and try to prove that he's a good man who doesn't want to harm women.
He knows what he did is wrong, but did it anyway out of monstrous and selfish reasons.
But then you look at some of the defendants in these grooming gang scandals, and they openly claim that they've done nothing wrong. Saying that their victims are just "white british slu..ts who deserved it" because british women do not and should not conform to islam1c standards of chastity, and they're very brazen about these opinions too.
Then comes the the fact that this problem is an unecessary and imported one. If immigration was significantly more limited, and higher demands were made of immigrants to abandon their home cultures and mindsets, these r@pists would never have had the opportunity to do their vile, monstrous acts.
But the more we just keep the floodgates open and basically let in anyone and allow them to stay regardless of how bad they behave living here, the problem is only going to increase.
I don't think it's western countries responsibility to act as safe havens for the r@pists and the criminals of the middle east and Africa. We have a right and a duty to keep them out in the effort of reducing the sexual predation on women and girls who live here, while also continuing to charge and prosecute those monsters who are born and raised here as well...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Melian_Dialogue No they're not. But you have to understand that the customer and service provider relationship is very specific.
Some customers are Karens, yes, but as long as they shop at the store, the employer will want their business.
Then you have to factor in the much broader customer base of normies who will basically just see an employee being disrespectful towards customers without a reprimand and might take their business elsewhere.
If you want to complain about annoying customers in private among a group of friends then that's more than reasonable.
I worked in retail twice, and even the managers complained about certain kinfs of annoying customers in the breakroom with me to blow off steam, so most of them will be understanding too.
But you just can't be "public" about it, because there's real risks of losing customers involved if you don't keep up appearances
That's just the reality of retail. The profit margins aren't that great in general, so you can't really afford to lose customers just to allow employees to badmouth them over social media.
And if your need to do this is so great, there are plenty of other businesses where there's more freedom to it (like being maintenance techs, which I am now. While customer service likes to handle customer relations, they understand that we might get grumpy enough to call tennants retards to their faces, but it's not like the tennants can take their business elsewhere because of it)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Personally I can't really relate to being proud of anything you exerted no control over.
As in the case of achievements of ancestors. I had no say in what they did since I wasn't even born at the time, so I can't take any pride from that since their achievements are theirs alone.
I think a more accurate feeling would be veneration. I venerated my ancestors for the good deeds they did, and may strive to emulate their example.
This same dynamic, of course, applies to bad things they did as well.
My duty as a descendant is to venerate the good parts, while also doing my best not to repeat the bad ones, and hopefully contribute to making our society better.
And I don't think veneration has to be mutually exclusive to condemnation either. One can certainly venerate just, moral and good actions of a person, while also condemning the unjust, immoral and evil acts of the same person (to a reasonable limit, for example no amount of good deeds would excuse child molestation in my opinion)
Pride is something I reserve for my own actions and achievements, as well as the actions and achievements of my own descendants.
Since I can make a reasonable claim that I played a part through my own action into their development and subsequent actions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Okay, if a woman has slept with a lot of men or many men have seen her naked, then sure, it gives me the ick.
But at the same time, plenty of women have seen me naked and I've slept with quite a few as well.
While the general attitude in society might be different towards men and women respectively, my rational mindset find it difficult to judge a woman for having a similar sexual past to my own.
I don't feel like i'm being "fair" judging a woman's past more harshly than I judge my own.
So I'd at least be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a woman like that, so long as I feel confident that she's a different person now, in the same manner as I'm a different person today.
I don't feel like I have a right to sleep around as much as I have, while also condemning every woman who has a sexually active past, so long as it actually stays in the past.
At the end of the day, I don't consider myself a "stud" for having slept with several women. My attitude towards it is more of lamentation over the fact that sometimes I exercised poor judgement with one night stands, and the other times represents relationship "failures" for me, since those sexual encounters eventually lead to an ending of the relationships in question.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russians aren't that anti-social though. From speaking to Russian ex-pats, one thing they all told me about is how strange they found it that neighbours in western countries seem so isolated from eachother.
Yes, the brutalist hab blocks of Russia may look depressing. But what tenants would do to spruce things up is set up some greenery near the bottom floors, and neighbours (as in not relatives) would go into these communal spaces with greenery to hang out in the afternoons, chit-chatting, gossiping, playing chess, drinking beer and maybe do some barbecue.
You know, the "squatting slav" stereotype, hanging out with some neighbours, eating sunflower seeds and having a beer.
But when you look at the west, how many tenants of apartment buildings actually "talk" or hang out with eachother? At best they might say hello if they bump into eachother in the staircase or elevators, but otherwise they keep themselves completely isolated from eachother.
As a western person myself, I too feel instinctually that it would be strange to have communal gatherings between neighbours in the afternoons when the workday is over. But for slavs, that's completely normal and a form of local community building.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@renkol123 You're not allowed to vote for policies. Only parties.
And when some parties have a monopoly on certain policies that you agree with/need, a lot of people feel they have to vote for that party, even if the party in question also promotes policies you dislike or even hate.
That is a thing with the Social Democrats in Sweden. Basically they have monopolized the issues of workers rights, labour code and so on. Legislation and policies that a lot of people depend on to get by.
Sadly they also took the woke pill, so they are (unofficially now) pro-immigration.
So the choice you're left with is either you vote for them and try to keep the labour code and welfare intact. While having to suffer the effects of migration.
Or, you vote them out of office, but then risk getting a rightwing government who will immediately proceed to start chopping up the labour code and destroy tax funded institutions that people depend on, just so they can give some tax breaks to the ultra wealthy and themselves.
They did it before after all, when they regretfully got into office for eight years... Oh and back then the rightwingers also were pro-immigration because they could use it to get cheap labour and undermine the labour code, since migrants don't know their rights nor are they likely to join any unions.
So I wouldn't trust those assholes further than I can spit.
This is the predicament that a lot of people find themselves in.
Me, I vote for the "racist" party who want to stop this crap. But while they are the fastest growing party in the country, it's a long way to go before they would have a majority in parliament.
Also, because of this whole war in Ukraine thing, they've taken a hit in the polls. Because now immigration is a "good thing" again, so the bleeding hearts liberals can "save Ukrainian women and children".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@benpark5074 I don't have any problems with being gay. So that's not really an issue at all. Frankly being gay would be kind of convenient since dating and relationships seems to be less complicated from my experience with gay couples.
If I see guys with a lot of fitness to their bodies, the only conclusion that I make is basically along the lines of "Hmm, that must be useful for heavy lifting or physically taxing activities".
But I don't see any beauty in it. Only utility.
It's like comparing a well engineered tractor with a souped up engine to a budget tractor with a weaker engine really. There's no beauty to either vehicle. The only thing that matters are the specs and capabilities.
I guess what turns me off the most from the male physique is their almost simian appearance. The jutting brow, the oversized chin, the hair. It reminds me more of some kind of monkey than an object of beauty.
Beautiful women don't have the same kind of simian characteristics to their appearance like men do, so that's probably why I can recogonize their beautiful features and tell them apart from the less attractive ones.
And before you ask, yes, everything I've said applies to what I see in the mirror too. But i've never felt bothered by it since looking "beautiful" was never a goal of mine to begin with, and I haven't experienced much trouble with romancing the opposite sex either. So, apparently my own appearance is agreeable with the women I felt attracted to. I don't really need to understand or relate towhat it is that they find attractive, only that they do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1