My antagoniser is my friend. Not everybody accepts criticism - from others or from themselves -, but the less of it you're accustomed to the more likely you are to resist it, like a child.
I draw no distinction between positive and negative criticism. All sound criticism only serves to make things better so long as the receiving ear is not too vain, selfish and egotistical to hear it. And besides, you might flip at the sound of criticism at the time, but on reflection come to accept this criticism.
I'd say that all of society "interferes" with a person; if mans' organisation didn't interfere with the individual then there would no civilisation, progress or nice things. So my point on schools and the young is not so much about more/less intervention, but about the way that we currently do things not working.
Although, on this whole issue I would say that in more functional times the productive bulk of the group would marginalise, discourage and condemn the dysfunctional in ways that we don't do today. And more effort would be made to prevent people going off the rails(instead of handing out welfare checks when they do)in place of today's hyper-individualism. People of the past had a duty to civilisation which included upholding its expectations and providing(en masse)what it needs to survive - this involved accepting that the world doesn't end at your own nose.
We certainly have the right to judge; no one has the right not to be criticised. We are not in nursery anymore.
Interfering is a bit different. I believe that students and the young need some directiona nd intervention in school and life to avoid the all too common paper degree/mountain of debt/job in a call centre scenario. And to help them find employment and avoid benefits. But there comes a time when you just have to let a person rot.
At the end of the day it has to be the people in total; voting and non-voting alike. Stupidity, greed, corruption and always looking for the easy way out, as politicians do, are things true to the rest of society. Politicans are drawn from and kept by the common lot; politicians are this way because the people are this way.
Look at the Russian state - corrupt as sin. Look at the Russian man - a lazy, corrupt drunk(stereotypes are true).
The people ultimately get the government they deserve.
That is the hope, really. The hope that today's decline will teach people(en masse)how to function and survive through familiarity with the brutal truth.
Tomorrow, the truth will reign, over a rejuvenated West or bitter wasteland. Either way, the truth will reign.
They're also more likely to know what the truth is to begin with. The manipulative power of the sociopath comes from the ability to see truths in people that don't see themselves, and then exploiting this. There is nothing like the psychopath's eye for detail.
What is truth in an emasculated culture is not what is factually spoken, but what is well spoken. Not what is right, but what sounds good. Which is why for the multitude the truth is whatever it continually reads and hears.
Anybody against the norm and who grasps an element of essential truth is sure to commit so many minor errors in his expression that he defeats himself before he can establish his own point. Meanwhile the Lords of Lies continue unabated with all the moneypower and armies of unblinking sophists they have at their disposal.
And here we have a typical woman response. A mock. Emotionally imposing that what I say must be without merit. No fact or rational argument is brought forward to say why and where I am wrong.
Women like mystery in a man. Men like maths more than women. Women are more emotional and subjective.
No one could logically refute the above, they can only emotionally attack it and they does so because it threatens a comfort zone.
And what's the best-selling female novel of recent times called(and what's it about)? Fifty Shades of Grey! I mean, how much clearer can it get than that. How much more obvious can it be that the female desire and tingle rest in a confounded world where right and wrong don't really exist and only emotions matter. I know we live in an infantilised world, but it is embarrassing and vain when Humanity can't even face itself for what it actually is.
Another general example of this how men like sport and women like fashion. In a game of football there is one definite objective: to get the inflated piece of leather into the back of the opposition's net. In fashion there is no right way, and what is best is subject to change at any given moment. Fashion is fickle, subjective and whimsical which is why it is womanly. Women mostly occupy this plane where all is perception and illusionary and the facts or truth of the matter count less.
And yet, because women are bent on destroying what they desire most(it's how they test the strength of a worthy man), they demand things that run almost contrary to her actual desire: I.e. how women publicly hate a womaniser, but privately adore him. How women call for compassion and trust from men, but swoon for, sleep with and obsess over the nearest bad boy and alpha male. The gap between the stars is less than the gulf between what a woman says and what a woman does.
The whole truth and nothing but the truth ruins love.
She demands mystery and a certain uncertainty to keep that loving feeling. The woman in the relationship imposes this need for the unknown because it allows her fantasy and imagination to roam freely. Women don't like definites. Women don't like maths, science and being objective. They don't like right/wrong, black/white, true/false concepts and they'd much prefer to talk about reincartion or something where the "correct" answer is whatever she imagines it to be. This mentality from women extends into everything, including and especially her dealings with men.
We all missed our playpen during those dark days of no CS.
CS is like a boxing ring where you don't come away with any bruises. I know that when I don't win that contract or the girl that I like turns out to be a brainless mare, then I sign on here for a good rage at feminism and the state of society.
So true, just look at CS... The internet is the place where people are freer than they are anywhere else and it's also the place where people fight the most. The internet serves to show that it is in fact law, order, rules and being held to consequences that foil the worst instincts of Humanity. Freedom from authority is chaos.
If people are free then they will be free to fight.
If you want to limit violence then the best way to do this is to have an abundance of resources acquired at minimal effort and to turn the Human race into a Borg-like monoculture. Eliminating diversity, culture and competition is how you limit violence by removing the things that people fight over, unfortunately, these things are what make life worth living and these things are from where all Human progress comes from.
Of course millions of women wouldn't sincerely state that they believe. The first thing women do to a man, especially a confident man, is to try and kick him down to see what he's made of. She'd be failing herself as a woman if she didn't do this. She doesn't just surrender. He has to be worthy.
That's what I'm saying. Believe it or not I actually say a lot less in real life; I tend not to tear into the woman's subconscious motivations on the middle of the date.. it spoils the romance.
Cougar or HOW? The cougar will be happy with whatever she can get(the age gap makes up for his total lack of anything else that's attractive), but the hot older woman doesn't want a novice. A hot older woman will only have a younger guy if she believes that he does well with women his own age, which he obviously doesn't if he needs "experience" so badly.
You can only get a hot older woman if she doesn't think that you're after her for her age, and so she can genuinely believe that she's rivalling slender babes that are 10+ years her junior - unlike the cougar.
In the street battles to come the indigenous and naturalised will be outnumbered by the anti-British; We'd lose to the aliens if both sides were armed.
And actually if the bourgeoise Hipsters, Leftoids and Liberals had any foresight they'd be encouraging guns as this way they could ensure the extermination of that wrong kind of White people which subconsciously motivates everything they say and do. White suburbians of Britain will cry a river for Africa or some marginalised group which supports their posturing cred, but they wouldn't piss on one of their own if he was on fire.
Not here, we're banking on the fact that the WWC(White Working Class)is physically harder than most of the barbarian horde. Apart from the Slavs the toughest White men on the Earth are Northern English and Scottish men; British thugs are amongst the best around. Anyway, guns would be the equaliser that allow the lesser to beat the greater, that allow quantity to beat quality.
Obstinance_Works Forum Posts (3,514)
RE: Prog Rock Revisited....
More from the Proggish