It's bad enough that kids will have to pay the debts without having to blame them for the debts, too. This is where the Western debt comes from: paying for a load of makework and middle class living for people that should have been sent down a mine or drowned at birth.
If the person I'm dealing with is a feelings soup with no logical concept of their own behaviour, then I'm not going to listen to the logical part of my brain apart from where it confirms my instinct. You can't reason a woman into bed for instance, if you could then chess club would be teeming with clunge.
I'd have said that the last thing anybody could describe me as being is indifferent. I sound pretty angry for somebody who's just indifferent. Was that meant for me?
What I'll simply is that the projections are based on continuing as we are, they don't account for the reaction of the British public which there will be one as the problem becomes obvious to those previously unaffected.
Depends where you go. I used to live in Earl's Court which is central-west London, and that's multi-ethnic wealthy and not crime ridden, but as for any sense of Human decency or soul then you can forget it.
London is like New York. Filled with the absolute lowest of Humanity, but there's enough money in some areas to keep the crime at bay. Still, London is a very good night out and there's lots to see and do.
Taken over is not how I'd put it, initially it would be more of a falling apart as the Muslims begin to exempt themselves from British laws. Bradford will be an early one to begin calls for autonomy, and this will create a massive Nationalist backlash against the Muslim population that would make the EDL look like kittens.
I see two scenarios.
1) The state becomes bigger and more draconian. If all the races fear the gov then they won't fear each other. The state will stop the races from fighting and allow the Muslims to continue to outbreed us until we're such a minority that they can simply replace the state with a sharia state. The Democracy through the womb scenario.
You're in London, Glitch. Which is a different world to the rest of the country. London is a proper cosmopilitan/mongrelised soulless, unfriendly, third-world esque concoction of "vibrancy", but it doesn't have a Muslim problem per se.
It's the rest of the country where it really is about Muslims taking over. Come to Manchester or any of the betrayed Northern post-industrial towns and look at just how many of them there are. It is a different world up North, and not for the same reasons as it used to be.
Youth have energy and vitality whereas people become bitter, hopeless, jaded and expectant as they grow older - they call this wisdom. But they are wrong, the people of these Western times grow older and none the wiser.
Egoism is the opposite of "know your station". And most animals are below us on the food chain. They are beneath our station. Therefore eating meat is not egoism.
Sounds like he has divided loyalties, which I wouldn't judge him too harshly for because family means something in Poland. It's not like the English where if we want something it's just a case of want dat/gimmedat, this makes me happy, therefore I'm going to do it. No, the Poles have loyalties to other people beyond themselves.
Anyway, you want him to make up his own mind, don't pressure him to betray his family's wishes because deep down he may never forgive you.
More true for your culture than mine. The Sword of Damocles hanging over your heads is a surefire way of ensuring that people face reality. However, in a softer society improvement becomes a choice and not a necessity - you don't need to strive to avoid death - and so in place of self-criticism comes self-rationalisation; i.e. placating yourself with comforting lies that are affordable because they won't get you killed(also known as decadence).
You really can't find evidence to support anything - we went through the enlightenment to defeat this way of thinking - but yes you can warp statistics by broadening them to disguise other factors. Which is why I like to keep mine very specific: e.g. if a validated study says that Wives are divorcing their Husbands more when their Husbands share the housework then it's becasue Wives are divorcing their Husbands more when they share the housework.
And yes, what I mean by criticising yourself and the world is because you need to do the latter to figure what you want from the world and the former to get what you want from the world. But I'd still say that you do need to change. We're changing all the time. Nobody is born with experience, and experience is change.
I may or may not adopt a child, but I wouldnt make two children adopted to protect my own feelings. To do this you'd also have to explain one day why your child was kept away from its real parents. I'm not surprised to see that your sole consideration about an exchange would be how it makes YOU feel right there and then.
The only other way of making race superficially not matter is for all the races to be more afraid of their own government than anything else. Give the races something they all fear and they'll focus on that instead of each other. Think of Yugoslavia, all was "peaceful" under the Stalinists, get rid of the monster government and what happened? Race war!
So yes you can maintain equality - Equality under tyranny, and this is where the Liberals are going.
Over the next few years you want to stock up on some supplies, learn to be as self-sufficient as possible and move to a community where everyone's the same colour as you are(if you're middle class, this is probably already the case)because things are going to get ugly. Race matters in a society that isn't kept by fraudulent and easy money with soft-living: Liberal paper ethics are about as real and true as Liberal paper currency.
Too soon. China won't allow the West to crash until they have all the best science, technology and education; they'll continue the Western gravy train economy until the Chinese are at their absolute peak.
Too many Chinese people are still at Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge learning everything they need to hammer the final nail in the Western coffin. And of course the West is happy because we get a few dollars in student fees to prop up the gravy train - "Yippee! Free money" says the Liberal.
Yes, I think I probably would. It'd feel like crap doing it, but I think this pales an insignificance with the long term conseuences of not exchanging. I mean, what are you going to say in 17 years time when your own biological child comes looking for you? "Yes kid we knew all along but we felt that any baby would do, and that's why you've grown up all your life with doubt and uncertainty over who you really are, sorry".
But you could still remain in a loveless husk of a marriage. You can't choose how you feel, but you can choose whether and how you act on these feelings.
Because they're objectively hot. Whether there are other men around her or not is irrelevant. He fancies her based on what she acts/looks like and not what his mates think. So yes he'll compete and fight against his rivals, but it's not because of his rivals that he fancies the woman.
I'd say that women may struggle with the idea of having a man that her friend didn't want... "He's not good enough for her, but he's good enough for me" - is a woman going to take that kind of a kick to her ego? Only with great difficulty.
But if it was the reverse - he dumped her - then this becomes "my friend's not good enough for him, but I am" - ego preen and love tingles.
This is because, and it's scientifically proven, women prefer taken men and woman want men more when other women want him and less when other women don't want him. This psychology doesn't apply to men. And so the man's priority is in not breaking his loyalty or causing harm to his friend.
Obstinance_Works Forum Posts (3,514)
RE: Poverty
I think you're missing the point of what I'm talking about.And I'm touched at the thought. You warm my heart