There was a study upon adopted descendants of the survivors of the Holocaust. The study was to find whether traumatic experiences affected a person at the genetic level, and if these genes were then passed on to the next generation.
The study found that where the descendant came from a female survivor of the holocaust, that desecendant was far more likely to experience trouble sleeping, anxiety problems and exhibited many of the problems that a Holocaust survivor experienced.
The conclusion was, and is, that a Woman, being more susceptible to her environment than a Man, changes at the biological level when faced with trauma, and passes on her 'trauma gene' to her children. The link exists within Men too, but it is far less apparent.
It seems ironic at first glance how the most modern science endorses a very traditional viewpoint - i.e. that a Man needs to protect Woman because she is fragile - but then is this really ironic? Or is this just common sense, so common that our ancestors knew it for thousands upon thousands of years, and the other 5 billion across the globe still know this today.
They're just not that important. Good for tourism and some people like the novelty of it all, but you don't really see the 'Royalist proper', anymore.
And the anti-elitists don't really feel antagonised by the Royals because they're old money. The new monetary elitist works in finance, and the cultural elitist wears sandals - the latter here are the ones that patronise society these days, not the Royal family.
I would suspect to see far more politcal opportunism on the subject, in the fashion of Cameron and Merkel, who both denounced multi-culti in such a blatant attempt to curry popular opinion. The establishment will verbally attack it, but continue the neo-Liberal economics which promotes multi-culti for the purpose of driving down wages of the working man and the promotion of globalism.
The so-called Left are the biggest disgrace in Western political history for not recognising that what they support makes the poor suffer in the name of their 'values'. They are the scum of the Earth for what they have done to their children and the future of this country.
Let them form together, we need to know where we are aiming. Let them believe they are untouchable, their arrogance only serves to enflame the passion of the British further.
Already there is a substantial number of British men and women shaping up to resist Islamic fundamentalism, the political parties that represent this will of the people are the only growing political movements in the nation. The opposition, the out-of-touch and treasonable neo-Liberals are an ever-shrinking pool, their cosmopolitan, decadent and elite values are beginning to be openly rejected by the masses of the people, especially amongst the youth.
The tide is on our side, from here it is only a matter of time. One more economic catastrophe could trigger it all. In any case, the country is changing, the younger generation will not stand idly by as this cancer supplants our culture. We will not rest until this plague has been eradicated from the British way of life.
But I would say that pissing in the yard and going to strip clubs is not gentlemanly, and I would also say that we(many of us)do understand feelings, we're not thick, we just know that unchecked pandering to emotion is insular, self-centred and weak.
1. Door-to-door salesmen, telesales, anything like that.
2. Coffin-dodgers who insist on driving. Then when they do so they drive inbetween lanes, brake for no reason, and travel at least 10 miles per hour below the speed limit no matter what the speed limit is.
They tried that last century. It lead to a sycophantic post 1960's corporate world where the definition of a good person lies in talking like a Liberal and sealing yourself off in suburbia, and from there shovelling the problems of society on to the poor and then looking down upon the poor for being intolerant towards the problems the quintessential Liberal would never have to face.
If you had a brilliant politician with well thought out and practical ideas that would curry the favour of the people, would you not vote for him if he happened to be an Atheist?
I usually attempt to meld the two sides of a debate in to some kind of third position by examining the fundamentals of each side and the concept in question. I'm rarely drawn to one particular side because each side is always the product of the other.
The real change will come when the West stops pretending and the East stops believing(for its own short term ends)that Western currency is worth the paper it isn't printed on.
And when the change comes you'll absolutely hate it.
I believe that the Arab spring was in the making facebook or no facebook.
The exact same thing happened in Europe in 1848(it's where the 'spring' part in Arab spring comes from)needless to say this was a long time before facebook. Communication is the easy part as long as you stay connected with normal people on the street. It's the courage and the will that rising up requires that's the hard part.
By the way what happened in 1848 quite arguably made things worse, which is something to keep in mind.
The reason for charging you high interest is because you're such a risky investment. If you were like the Germans and worked properly at proper jobs you'd find it easier to borrow, simple.
And I still reckon we'll lose out for giving you the chance, but time will tell.
Yea, there's almost always a physical motive, even if it's not necessarily material/money.
Even if you do a decent job because it you makes feel proud/that makes you feel like you're doing a good thing, you're doing it because it makes you feel good inside. So even then that's self-interest.
Ambition isn't a disease. Humanity isn't diseased. The animals don't struggle to survive because they are diseased. It's nature and survival of the fittest, that's what it all boils down to.
It would be if things were different as money motivates a lot of people to contribute their upmost. However, you get paid less for being a doctor or an engineer than you do for being a banker or even a bureaucrat in some cases. This is wrong in my opinion because it encourages many intelligent people to become less than their potential.
As the supposed tenet of America is 'best man for the job' and not 'best man for the made-up job'.
It is interesting how the Right-wing has changed its tune, it used to care about that thing called merit. Now it protects the wasters almost as passionately as the Left.
Bring on the economic collapse, let nature and necessity separate the wheat from the chaff if politics doesn't have the balls for the job.
TrueBlue1986 Forum Posts (1,322)
Down with the 21st century eunuch.
RE: men must be stronger than women mentally
That's good thinking.