Social justice would be another priority. Wealth, status and rank would not grant the level of privilege that they do and each person would be chiefly selected upon merit. Society would invest its resources into those with the best genetics which is not necessarily those from the wealthiest backgrounds.
Your ability to pay would be vastly subordinate to your ability to perform. Private education would be banned as would private healthcare. In my ideal world if you were born wealthy, and yet you are talentless, then you will die a poorer man. And if you were born poor, yet you are talented, then you will die a richer man.
Maybe if there was less noise people would know how to listen better? My opinion is that there is too much opinion.
I write quite long-windedly on here, but in real life I'm more of the strong, silent type. And this serves me well. When you speak people tend to assume that what you say may be worth listening to.
America is a land heavily divided along the lines of wealth, race and culture in that unstable cauldron they call the melting pot. It's a land so polarised between winners and losers that it comes as no surprise that she is a nation of many, many criminals.
The above is politically correct as well as being true. The politically incorrect and more obvious truth is that Blacks and Hispanics commit a lot of crime wherever they go. And America is home to many of these desperados.
I feel sorry for him. His naivety would not make his death any the less tragic. He doesn't deserve to die for being a do-gooder. What's so wrong with trying to do good in the world, anyway?
No, the only do-gooders I don't like are the hypocritical do-gooders whose good intentions pave the road to hell for other people - e.g. White flighters who support open borders because it's politically correct. I'd much prefer it if ISIS removed the heads of some of these people.
The majority of people who are not very successful say and believe that it's about a positive attitude.
Most people who are successful - especially the extremely successful in business - are quite cynical and even negative. My personal outlook on life is to focus on the downside because the upsides take care of themselves.
'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing' ~ Edmund Burke
It depends on whether you demand yours dues as Human Beings, or, as would be in my case, demand your dues as Englishmen as to what your attitudes towards the world's evils will be. Are rights inalienable or are they inherited?
Do you believe your interests, your rights and the opportunities you have are nature/god-given and should belong to every world citizen? And thus it is your duty to take the world to task for the evils you perceive?
Or, are you the cultured citizen who believes that what you have and what you are have been worked for, earned by and inherited from your ancestors? And thus feel no right to impose upon other cultures and instead feel the duty to fight the evils at or threaten your home.
Whether you're a world citizen or a cultured citizen will determine what you think you should be done about ISIS. I support the fight against ISIS despite being a cultured citizen on the justification that the war in Iraq - which I opposed as a cultured citizen - created the evil of ISIS. Even though we never should have got involved it would be unjust to walk away from a mess we helped create.
I take after my Dad in so many ways even though I only saw him some weekends, and my Brother who did grow up with my Dad is more like my Mum. Both Brothers are more like the parent that did not raise them.
Like father, like son - in the blood, not in the nurture.
Tolerant in an apathetic kind of way, yes. Nobody cares much about anything so by default they become more tolerant. Nothing to love, nothing to hate.
But unity? That's a larf. People today are more uncooperative, unaccountable, irresponsible and anti-social than perhaps they have ever been.
And there's a reason why the words "common" and "unity" form the word "community" which many people, some deliberately, refuse to understand because they're delusional and stupid although that's not a very social thing of me to say.
Alcohol can be disgustingly cheap and the West is a high-primitive culture characterised by excess, hedonism and liberal and lax "do what you feel like" attitudes.
So you have a copious and cheap supply of drink, a weak sense of self-restraint and discipline and obsession with your own behaviour(what I mean by high-primitive), and parents and elders that are not really respected(arguably for good reason). Taken together this can explain the binge drinking problem we have.
I think that men are instinctively drawn towards creation on the upside, and destruction on the downside. Men are the builders and also the destroyers of worlds.
I think that women are instinctively drawn towards harmony on the upside, and stagnation on the downside. Women are the nurturers and also the wallowers of the world.
What I find is that if I provide the focus, the impetus and the overall mission then there is no part of this that cannot be improved upon by a woman. She can refine it, she can make it palatable. She will provide the spin to the substance. So much more can be achieved with feminine support.
It takes a truck load of propaganda and bias to pretend that the races are equal. Yes, a Black man can as good as his White counterpart in every way - and we all know of ones we like - but he's just significantly less likely to be.
Anyway, when a White does wrong to a Black the system makes a mountain out of a molehill to assuage feelings of White guilt amongst the White elites and sub-elites, and when the Black wrongs the White they call it random. Random like my choice to drink wine with dinner last night instead of kerosine.
Then there's always the old middle class Communist get-out - which is now a tenet of the Equalist Bible - of them all being victims of their environment. Always forgetting that it's people that make places what they are; Society is a racial construct!
I guess it depends on what you mean by emotionally reserved. A man is much more likely to say nothing about his own feelings, but a woman is much more likely to lie about her own feelings.
So which is actually being the most open about their feelings?
I don't know if that's quite how it works. Men are sort of more emotionally reserved, however, a man's more likely to tell you what he really thinks and release his anger openly and when anger explodes it usually gives way to forgiveness(or at least shame)in time.
It's when anger is veiled that it hardens into cold revenge. And I believe that women are more prone to disguising what they really think and feel and this ultimately manifests itself in passive aggression. And I believe that passive aggression is, when all's accounted for, the greater evil. Passive aggression may not be so visibly destructive(to self or other)as open aggression because it's cloaked in its own insipidness, but it slowly but surely undermines and corrupts everything.
They say that behind every good man is a good woman. And this is the motto of the beta male - The Humble Father of Civilisation - this is their incentive to be civilised and good. The woman's traditional duty was to provide this incentive to man. And incentives matter.
If things stay as they are there then will be an elite minority of masterful Alpha males surrounded by a harem of women in gilded enclaves. The social obligation of woman used to be to deny her tingle for the Christian Greys of the Earth and select the good men who may not be so flashy and/or exciting. I believe that something from the past needs to counter this individualistic spirit of "if it feels good, do it".
The nature of the liberal has changed a lot now that liberalism is orthodoxy. And what does the unique and original individual do when individualism is the stereotypical belief of the masses?
We're in a strange position today where individualism and liberalism themselves mean conformity.
What men who do this need to do is recognise when they've won to avoid losing. I see so many who've read stuff like this and they end up over-"gaming" because they don't understand women or why this works. They overkill.
Also, look at the woman in front of you and don't treat them all as one. If she's urban, feminist and/or liberal and describes herself as "strong" or "independent" then the greater the chance will be that these heads games are going to work. The more of a broken moderner with respect for nothing she is, the more attracted she will be to men(and people in general)who do not respect her.
Anyway, I find it's best to call time on these head games after a short while and just tell her that it is time to be adults now. Gaming your significant other never goes away even years into the relationship - she must always be somewhat on her toes - but these tricks are for getting you through the initial stages where women easily disqualify legions of men for being too nice and responsive. The best thing is to understand why this works, and then adapt a mild, subtle and sophisticated version which endures forever(or at least until you get bored).
I don't think strong people call themselves independent in the same way that funny people never call themselves funny. These things, if true, should be apparent without saying them.
I don't think grounded people place too high a value on independence. And I don't think successful people do neither. As both generally understand connectedness with others.
When I hear someone go on about their independence I think that they'll be selfish, competitive and insecure and not calm, collected and commanding.
You're not going to make two self-interested individuals into a selfless union by getting married, and I think many get married expecting perfection with their Mr Right without realising that they are from being Mrs Right(and vice-versa).
However, marriage is a way that those genuinely more altruistic express commitment and devotion to another, and marriage acts as a barrier for bailing on a relationship when things get tough. But simple co-habitation offers the perk of being an agreement easy to back out of which is of prime importance to those looking out for #1.
I think you're missing the point that a woman has maybe 20 fertile years of adult life to get pregnant whereas the man has many, many more.
Also, the fact that men are more likely to choose a job that is dangerous, risky, high pressure and/or economically sustainable means that many working men earn an independence in the way that not so many working women do.
I base my definition of Humanism on Human culture and what is that Humans do and need, and this is filled with dogma, superstition and sacred text those being the downsides of education, intuition and wise words.
And Humanism is not universal as it is relative. The worldview of the Vietnamese peasant is as validly Humanist as my views as the European White.
However, most Humanists worship cults of science and reason and to do so is decidedly inhuman. Intellect, rationalism and reason are tools that different cultures(and individuals)use in different ways based upon the yearning of the cultural soul which varies from land to land and evolves over time from the stages of birth to death. And whilst each stage has its hallmarks - all young culture-souls are marked by strong religiosity and patriarchy and all late-stage souls are marked by decadence, liberalism, materialism and cults of science; consider the parallels between The Fall of Rome and the Modern world as there are many, but this still doesn't mean that the modern Westerner understands the soul and worldviews of the last Romans despite our common decadency, values and shared sense of indifference to the future.
My Humanism is a Conservative Humanism basically and recognises Humans as non-rational. And I'm a classic0la world-improver which scarcely exists these days as most world-improvers are Liberals and Marxists. Humanism is not an absolute way for Humanity nor is it some next stage of evolution as it is seen by certain White-Liberal Humanists. My Humanism is based on what Humans do, what humans have always done, and how Human civilisations diverge from each other but retian similarity. There is definitely not one common way for all Humanity. My Humanism is not imperialism by another name.
It doesn't matter how educated the woman. Having children, raising boys to manhood and thereby laying the foundations of the future are more important than any wage-earning.
And it must be said that within the vanity city is where woman are the most self-important about their careerist ambitions and individual desires, and where they are the least interested in securing the future of the Human race.
And young girls are privileged to have this option.
Young men will have to work like a Japanese prisoner of war if we want kids of our own. Either that or get on benefits, but even this is becoming an increasingly less attractive loophole.
A man can bear fruit as he exhales his last dying breath. And we live in society's of wealthier older people and impoverished youth, so I can only see the young girl/rich old man relationship becoming more common.
The only thing I don't believe in is Atheism because the thing I do believe in is the absurd..(Hu)Man is not rational, the rational is not Man, and it's irrational for Man to be rational.
And one other thing I do surely believe is that Dawkins is a trousered ape.
Although, I still feel that better than any memorial day would be to build a civilisation worthy of the sacrifice their generations made. If my Grandad had known when storming the beaches of Normandy that he was fighting for a free speech that now applies to anybody except those against the current system, and for the kind of personal liberties that allowed the 1960s to happen, then I'm fairly certain that Grandad and his comrades would have turned their rifles on themselves.
Better than banning any pacifist rally would be to silence the daily sound of a million Grandfathers spinning in their graves.
With the one-worlder ambition to assimilate the globe into one culture, one economy and one Humanity - the definition of Human being the American liberal - now completely out of control and resistance against commercial and liberal values rallying from both within and without the West, I expect there to be much fighting in the years ahead.
But a world war? No. Asia becoming more powerful than the West will come with a lot of conflict. Europe will be troubled as the conclusions of the Marxist experiment become keenly felt by all. As for the US, I expect secessions in the long run, there's nothing cohesive about your melting pot, and to speak differently of diversity is simply to not live in the real world.
But I guess the fact that no one hears the term "Glass cellar" but everyone knows the term "Glass ceiling" says a lot about how people actually view equality. That is, equality only applies upwards - no one can be better than you and there are no social superioirs - and not downwards - rarely will a person even acknowledge their social inferioirs.
And so is it any wonder that the western world of equality where no one can be better than you but people can sure as hell be worse than you has created generations of selfish, narcissistic and egotistical lunatics?
Obstinance_Works Blog Comments (200)
RE: OUR PLANET
Social justice would be another priority. Wealth, status and rank would not grant the level of privilege that they do and each person would be chiefly selected upon merit. Society would invest its resources into those with the best genetics which is not necessarily those from the wealthiest backgrounds.Your ability to pay would be vastly subordinate to your ability to perform. Private education would be banned as would private healthcare. In my ideal world if you were born wealthy, and yet you are talentless, then you will die a poorer man. And if you were born poor, yet you are talented, then you will die a richer man.