Post: #201

(11-25-2016 11:14 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  and the lunatic obsession of the web right -- including, sadly, some guys here who should know better -- with the supposed existence of "child sex rings" in pizza parlors, Satanic rituals, "pedo code words" in hacked emails, and "proofs" of all this nonsense by the mildly-to-moderately mentally ill.

This is dad-trolling, concern-trolling, and shaming language. Check yourself.

And you have no right to paint all of the 'web right' with the same broad brush, nor to mock those who suspect foul play. Foul play is always done in secrecy, child sex rings do unfortunately exist, the satanic or at least occult rituals are completely blatant in the case of 'spirit cooking', and the only thing that sniffs out this stuff is suspicious types. What they do is thus a service, not a pathology. And Roosh himself has written some articles about occult/satanic ritual stuff by elites, including the 'Is hollywood run like a satanic cult' thread. You calling him a lunatic too?

No-one here is interested in your psychological diagnoses of us. We didn't ask for them, and we don't recognize them. We are all healthy minded individuals and we don't recognize your moral or medical authority or your right to shame or demoralize us for any of our interests or positions. Regardless of the quality of prose and formatting that shaming wraps itself in.


And your concern-trolling doesn't bear the same weight it once did, and you know why.

Quote:Here is what Trump must do if he's to have a real chance at winning this election:

He must get back on the teleprompter wagon and stay on it. Nothing matters more than that. Stick to script; deliver his message, bask in the applause, and leave. Give the media hyenas NOTHING.

Beyond that:

-- Only offer limited and quite anodyne remarks about his opponent.
-- Be relentlessly positive, calm, composed and often smiling from here on in. He must remember: scowl less; smile more. He has a great smile and women love it. USE IT.
-- Limit rallies and speeches. They are of relatively limited use at this point. He must have some but his base is already fired up -- and insufficient to win the election. It's all about making himself acceptable and plausible to Republican leaning white women in swing states; the risk/reward calculation from the rallies is just not good enough.
-- He must do well enough in the debates; he doesn't need to "crush" Hillary -- which he will not -- nor does he need to try. He needs to appear calm, thoughtful, positive, serious and presidential. I'll have more to say about this later.

That is all. If he does all these things going forward he's got a real chance; otherwise, he will lose and he might lose surprisingly badly.

====

Trump has learned nothing over time about how to speak like a politician -- I mean nothing whatsoever. He doesn't have a practiced patter, nothing he says ever sounds smooth and polished. And increasingly he just rambles and loses the thread.

He's actually gotten worse, not better, in this context over time. Back even a few months ago, he was hungrier and more taut, and he had a certain thinking edge in his replies. This has disappeared -- now, it's just slack, incoherent babble.

===

The unceasing flattery of "Mr. Trump" that is so pervasive among his fans is doing him no favors, and will not leave anyone happier on the second Wednesday of November. There isn't much time left.

===

(10-06-2016 09:09 PM)Rush87 Wrote: Â We now have under a month until the election, Trump is Trump. He isn't changing, and there's nothing we can do to alter that fact. Moving forward, keeping the base motivated should be priority numero uno for his supporters. That's the one thing we can impact on a daily basis.


No. 30 days is still plenty of time if the changes start now.

Trump needs to be told some very simple shit:

1. Never talk about yourself or your "business" again, ever.

2. Only talk about what you're going to do for people.

3. No "stories" that go nowhere; just give details of what you will do.

...and when you start talking about Obamacare (which he should hammer from now until the election -- it's a f'ing disaster), don't end by talking about Rosie O'Donnell.

It's really not too much to ask.

===

Gmac, it doesn't take an oracle to state the obvious. If Trump changes certain simple things, he might still win; otherwise, he won't. That's really all there is to it.

===

I think HRC has a clear lead, but doesn't lead by as much as the most extreme high quality / live telephone polls are showing. If I had to bet, I'd say she's leading by about 5 points now and will win by 3-5 points on election day.

===

Pennsylvania should be called soon, and with it the presidency. All the votes left to be counted are in GOP leaning areas.
Senate just called for GOP. Wall to wall wins.

I submit to the forum that presentation and content are two different things. Only the latter means wisdom, not the former. I submit that this member, who has repeatedly claimed to be wiser than Trump, and who claimed at the last minute that he was going to lose (no doubt due to not following his genius advice to the letter), has no authority to talk to us in this fatherly manner.

Post: #202

(11-26-2016 12:15 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 11:14 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  and the lunatic obsession of the web right -- including, sadly, some guys here who should know better -- with the supposed existence of "child sex rings" in pizza parlors, Satanic rituals, "pedo code words" in hacked emails, and "proofs" of all this nonsense by the mildly-to-moderately mentally ill.

This is dad-trolling, concern-trolling, and shaming language. Check yourself.

LOZ has been guilty of concern-trolling, but this time that's not the case. He's simply saying what a significant chunk of the RVF membership is already thinking.



There's a sizable constituency here who have been very polite during the forum's "Trump Era," but are completely not on board with much of the alt-rights beliefs, goals and extremes.

Blindly jumping to endorse every conspiracy theory that fits your cause is no different than the behavior of the feminists of the left.

Post: #203

Suits Wrote:Blindly jumping to endorse every conspiracy theory that fits your cause is no different than the behavior of the feminists of the left.

Since you're not explicitly stating so, should we infer that's what you think people are doing re: the pedo business?

Post: #204

(11-26-2016 01:08 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

Suits Wrote:Blindly jumping to endorse every conspiracy theory that fits your cause is no different than the behavior of the feminists of the left.

Since you're not explicitly stating so, should we infer that's what you think people are doing re: the pedo business?

If someone who didn't have a history of champion every conspiracy theory convenient to their cause was to promote a specific conspiracy theory, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

When someone is onboard with every conspiracy theory (that conveniently fits their pre-existing worldview), then I take great care before believing anything they say.

Post: #205

(11-26-2016 12:58 AM)Suits Wrote:  There's a sizable constituency here who have been very polite during the forum's "Trump Era," but are completely not on board with much of the alt-rights beliefs, goals and extremes.

Blindly jumping to endorse every conspiracy theory that fits your cause is no different than the behavior of the feminists of the left.

A. Trump era is only just beginning bro, and it's going to be in the whitehouse, not just this forum

B. No, just because we don't criticize some folk for pursuing conspiracy leads, doesn't mean we're endorsing them. There is a middle ground between "all conspiracies must be true!", and "anyone who believes a conspiracy is a lunatic". That middle ground is called being reasonable. If out of being reasonable, I avoid calling conspiracy theory claims 'lunatic', because I'm aware of someone called Snowden who proved the biggest one that ever existed to be true, I'm not 'jumping to endorse'.

Post: #206

(11-26-2016 01:27 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(11-26-2016 12:58 AM)Suits Wrote:  There's a sizable constituency here who have been very polite during the forum's "Trump Era," but are completely not on board with much of the alt-rights beliefs, goals and extremes.

Blindly jumping to endorse every conspiracy theory that fits your cause is no different than the behavior of the feminists of the left.

A. Trump era is only just beginning bro, and it's going to be in the whitehouse, not just this forum

The Trump Whitehouse era is going to be a period of disappointment as he doesn't live up to the outlandish expectations of many of his extreme supporters.

(11-26-2016 01:27 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  B. No, just because we don't criticize some folk for pursuing conspiracy leads, doesn't mean we're endorsing them. There is a middle ground between "all conspiracies must be true!", and "anyone who believes a conspiracy is a lunatic". That middle ground is called being reasonable. If out of being reasonable, I avoid calling conspiracy theory claims 'lunatic', because I'm aware of someone called Snowden who proved the biggest one that ever existed to be true, I'm not 'jumping to endorse'.

I'm all for reasonable. I think it's reasonable to avoid any association with people who I do not share the same values as.

I'm not the member of any movement. I think for myself.

I personally was shocked by the blowback from the Snowden leaks, because I'd always assume that that sort of intelligence gathering had been going on all along.

I'm less impressed by those who are intent on educating me about the presence of the "lizard people overlords."

Post: #207

The though of an ethno-state scares/worries people because they have never thought it through comprehensively.

There are many actual ethno-states and some de facto examples, eg: nations that have an ethnic majority or singularity, but it isn't the explicit policy of the respective government; and nations that have nativist policies and/or culture.

Probably the strongest example is Israel, they sterilise Ethiopian Jews, and DNA test certain European Jews for racial purity. Perhaps it's stuff like that which causes the worry and fear that comes with the ethno-state idea. The LARPing Nazi faction of 'Alt-Right' would probably approve of Israel's methods, but they're the low end of the scale(in terms of understanding and ability to hold nuanced ideas) and prioritise racial purity over other factors.

Then you have the realistic ethno-nationalists, who understand that extreme violence is not going win people over or produce practical solutions. So generally an American of European heritage who wants an ethno-state, would probably settle for policies that maintained a white majority in America. This can be achieved with different immigration policies and only deporting the criminals. It doesn't have to involve mass deportation/total removal of non-whites. It might get joked about on dailystormer.com but more serious thinkers understand that operating an ethno-state like Israel is not good.

In the West we're conditioned to think bad things about ethno-nationalism, it's almost a taboo. But historically ethnic majority states and nations have been very successful and had high levels of cohesion and trust. There are also many studies that show ethnocentric behaviour is positive for the group.

It's natural to favour your own group, and many groups in society already operate in this way, it's only bad when Whites do it.

Post: #208

With the rapid / rabid / vapid 24/7 news cycle.
Now that Jill Stein is running a scam & Castro just died.
I'm not really seeing anything of note about Spencer or Nazi's.

Guess that's an indication of just how important or relevant ol' Spencer is...

Post: #209

Funny how it's usually guys who live in big cities who say overpopulation isn't a problem or in some cases doesn't even exist. Yes what a great idea, let's keep increasing the world population size until we either run out of food and have to ration it, or we are constantly surrounded by an urban backdrop and there is always noise and other people.

Currently, Nigeria has a population of around 180 million. By 2050 (which is now only just over 30 years away, so in 1 generation) it is expected to have a population of 400 million. Ethiopia, the country which is apparently starving, will rise from around 95 million to 190 million. Niger, with a population of 15 million today will rise to 72 million in around 33 years.

If you are referring to Western countries, then yes, perhaps overpopulation isn't a concern. But the world can only hold so many people.

Post: #210

(11-26-2016 04:36 AM)britchard Wrote:  Funny how it's usually guys who live in big cities who say overpopulation isn't a problem or in some cases doesn't even exist. Yes what a great idea, let's keep increasing the world population size until we either run out of food and have to ration it, or we are constantly surrounded by an urban backdrop and there is always noise and other people.

Currently, Nigeria has a population of around 180 million. By 2050 (which is now only just over 30 years away, so in 1 generation) it is expected to have a population of 400 million. Ethiopia, the country which is apparently starving, will rise from around 95 million to 190 million. Niger, with a population of 15 million today will rise to 72 million in around 33 years.

If you are referring to Western countries, then yes, perhaps overpopulation isn't a concern. But the world can only hold so many people.

Presents a rather awkward conundrum for people of the future.
I'm not in favour of eugenics, in & of itself.
Yet the earth is a finite size...

Post: #211

(11-26-2016 04:36 AM)britchard Wrote:  Funny how it's usually guys who live in big cities who say overpopulation isn't a problem or in some cases doesn't even exist. Yes what a great idea, let's keep increasing the world population size until we either run out of food and have to ration it, or we are constantly surrounded by an urban backdrop and there is always noise and other people.

Currently, Nigeria has a population of around 180 million. By 2050 (which is now only just over 30 years away, so in 1 generation) it is expected to have a population of 400 million. Ethiopia, the country which is apparently starving, will rise from around 95 million to 190 million. Niger, with a population of 15 million today will rise to 72 million in around 33 years.

If you are referring to Western countries, then yes, perhaps overpopulation isn't a concern. But the world can only hold so many people.

How are the populations in those countries supposed to grow so much, if they're having resource problems now? That doesn't make sense. Is the expectation that the first world will just keep shoveling more and more resources to them?

I haven't studied the overpopulation problem but I do know Mother Nature has her ways of correcting things. War, disease, catastrophe. Something will knock the shit out of us if we get too big, if our systems get too fragile.

Post: #212

(11-26-2016 05:46 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

(11-26-2016 04:36 AM)britchard Wrote:  Funny how it's usually guys who live in big cities who say overpopulation isn't a problem or in some cases doesn't even exist. Yes what a great idea, let's keep increasing the world population size until we either run out of food and have to ration it, or we are constantly surrounded by an urban backdrop and there is always noise and other people.

Currently, Nigeria has a population of around 180 million. By 2050 (which is now only just over 30 years away, so in 1 generation) it is expected to have a population of 400 million. Ethiopia, the country which is apparently starving, will rise from around 95 million to 190 million. Niger, with a population of 15 million today will rise to 72 million in around 33 years.

If you are referring to Western countries, then yes, perhaps overpopulation isn't a concern. But the world can only hold so many people.

How are the populations in those countries supposed to grow so much, if they're having resource problems now? That doesn't make sense. Is the expectation that the first world will just keep shoveling more and more resources to them?

I haven't studied the overpopulation problem but I do know Mother Nature has her ways of correcting things. War, disease, catastrophe. Something will knock the shit out of us if we get too big, if our systems get too fragile.

Africa has grown because of massive food subsidies and aid from Europe and America. Countries and populations that cannot support themselves paradoxically reproduce and multiply at an increased rate. The thinking is that if you pump out 3-6 kids, some will die off, some will survive and will be able to support you in your old age. Repeat that for every family and you have a population explosion. It's also a reproductive strategy where the parents don't invest much ressources into each individual child like schooling, college etc. Best example is white birth rates in Europe: parents are more focused on first acquiring a sufficient standard of living and wealth before they get their first kid, and then focus alot of ressources in that kid's education.

This is the r/K reproductive strategies
https://www.cs.montana.edu/webworks/proj...ge003.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

Post: #213

^

I just didn't realize we were dumping that much aid into Africa. Obviously, that should stop.

Quote:Let Africa Sink

Kim du Toit May 26, 2002

When it comes to any analysis of the problems facing Africa, Western society, and particularly people from the United States, encounter a logical disconnect that makes clear analysis impossible. That disconnect is the way life is regarded in the West (it's precious, must be protected at all costs etc.), compared to the way life, and death, are regarded in Africa. Let me try to quantify this statement.

In Africa, life is cheap. There are so many ways to die in Africa that death is far more commonplace than in the West. You can die from so many things--snakebite, insect bite, wild animal attack, disease, starvation, food poisoning... the list goes on and on. At one time, crocodiles accounted for more deaths in sub-Saharan Africa than gunfire, for example. Now add the usual human tragedy (murder, assault, warfare and the rest), and you can begin to understand why the life expectancy for an African is low--in fact, horrifyingly low, if you remove White Africans from the statistics (they tend to be more urbanized, and more Western in behavior and outlook). Finally, if you add the horrifying spread of AIDS into the equation, anyone born in sub-Saharan Africa this century will be lucky to reach age forty.

I lived in Africa for over thirty years. Growing up there, I was infused with several African traits--traits which are not common in Western civilization. The almost-casual attitude towards death was one. (Another is a morbid fear of snakes.)

So because of my African background, I am seldom moved at the sight of death, unless it's accidental, or it affects someone close to me. (Death which strikes at strangers, of course, is mostly ignored.) Of my circle of about eighteen or so friends with whom I grew up, and whom I would consider "close", only about ten survive today--and not one of the survivors is over the age of fifty.

Two friends died from stepping on landmines while on Army duty in Namibia. Three died in horrific car accidents (and lest one thinks that this is not confined to Africa, one was caused by a kudu flying through a windshield and impaling the guy through the chest with its hoof--not your everyday traffic accident in, say, Florida). One was bitten by a snake, and died from heart failure. Another also died of heart failure, but he was a hopeless drunkard. Two were shot by muggers. The last went out on his surfboard one day and was never seen again (did I mention that sharks are plentiful off the African coasts and in the major rivers?). My situation is not uncommon in South Africa--and north of the Limpopo River (the border with Zimbabwe), I suspect that others would show worse statistics.

The death toll wasn't just confined to my friends. When I was still living in Johannesburg, the newspaper carried daily stories of people mauled by lions, or attacked by rival tribesmen, or dying from some unspeakable disease (and this was pre-AIDS Africa too) and in general, succumbing to some of Africa's many answers to the population explosion. Add to that the normal death toll from rampant crime, illness, poverty, flood, famine, traffic, and the police, and you'll begin to get the idea.

My favorite African story actually happened after I left the country. An American executive took a job over there, and on his very first day, the newspaper headlines read: "Three Headless Bodies Found".

The next day: "Three Heads Found".

The third day: "Heads Don't Match Bodies".

You can't make this stuff up.

As a result, death is treated more casually by Africans than by Westerners. I, and I suspect most Africans, am completely inured to reports of African suffering, for whatever cause. Drought causes crops to fail, thousands face starvation? Yup, that happened many times while I was growing up. Inter-tribal rivalry and warfare causes wholesale slaughter? Yep, been happening there for millennia, long before Whitey got there. Governments becoming rich and corrupt while their populations starved? Not more than nine or ten of those. In my lifetime, the following tragedies have occurred, causing untold millions of deaths: famine in Biafra, genocide in Rwanda, civil war in Angola, floods in South Africa, famine in Somalia, civil war in Sudan, famine in Ethiopia, floods in Mozambique, wholesale slaughter in Uganda, and tribal warfare in every single country. There are others, but you get the point.

Yes, all this was also true in Europe--maybe a thousand years ago. But not any more. And Europe doesn't teem with crocodiles, ultra-venomous snakes and so on.

The Dutch controlled the floods. All of Europe controls famine--it's non-existent now. Apart from a couple of examples of massive, state-sponsored slaughter (Nazi Germany, Communist Russia), Europe since 1700 doesn't even begin to compare to Africa today. Casual slaughter is another thing altogether--rare in Europe, common in Africa.

More to the point, the West has evolved into a society with a stable system of government, which follows the rule of law, and has respect for the rights and life of the individual--none of which is true in Africa.

Among old Africa hands, we have a saying, usually accompanied by a shrug: "Africa wins again." This is usually said after an incident such as:

a beloved missionary is butchered by his congregation, for no apparent reason

a tribal chief prefers to let his tribe starve to death rather than accepting food from the Red Cross (would mean he wasn't all-powerful, you see)

an entire nation starves to death, while its ruler accumulates wealth in foreign banks

a new government comes into power, promising democracy, free elections etc., provided that the freedom doesn't extend to the other tribe

the other tribe comes to power in a bloody coup, then promptly sets about slaughtering the first tribe

etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.

The prognosis is bleak, because none of this mayhem shows any sign of ending. The conclusions are equally bleak, because, quite frankly, there is no answer to Africa's problems, no solution that hasn't been tried before, and failed.

Just go to the CIA World Fact Book, pick any of the African countries (Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi etc.), and compare the statistics to any Western country (eg. Portugal, Italy, Spain, Ireland). The disparities are appalling--and it's going to get worse, not better. It has certainly got worse since 1960, when most African countries achieved independence. We, and by this I mean the West, have tried many ways to help Africa. All such attempts have failed.

1. Charity is no answer. Money simply gets appropriated by the first, or second, or third person to touch it (17 countries saw a decline in real per capita GNP between 1970 and 1999, despite receiving well over $100 billion in World Bank assistance).

2. Food isn't distributed. This happens either because there is no transportation infrastructure (bad), or the local leader deliberately withholds the supplies to starve people into submission (worse).

3. Materiel is broken, stolen or sold off for a fraction of its worth. The result of decades of "foreign aid" has resulted in a continental infrastructure which, if one excludes South Africa, couldn't support Pittsburgh.

Add to this, as I mentioned above, the endless cycle of Nature's little bag of tricks--persistent drought followed by violent flooding, a plethora of animals, reptiles and insects so dangerous that life is already cheap before Man starts playing his little reindeer games with his fellow Man--and what you are left with is: catastrophe.

The inescapable conclusion is simply one of resignation. This goes against the grain of our humanity--we are accustomed to ridding the world of this or that problem (smallpox, polio, whatever), and accepting failure is anathema to us. But, to give a classic African scenario, a polio vaccine won't work if the kids are prevented from getting the vaccine by a venal overlord, or a frightened chieftain, or a lack of roads, or by criminals who steal the vaccine and sell it to someone else. If a cure for AIDS was found tomorrow, and offered to every African nation free of charge, the growth of the disease would scarcely be checked, let alone reversed. Basically, you'd have to try to inoculate as many two-year old children as possible, and write off the two older generations.

So that is the only one response, and it's a brutal one: accept that we are powerless to change Africa, and leave them to sink or swim, by themselves.

It sounds dreadful to say it, but if the entire African continent dissolves into a seething maelstrom of disease, famine and brutality, that's just too damn bad. We have better things to do--sometimes, you just have to say, "Can't do anything about it."

The viciousness, the cruelty, the corruption, the duplicity, the savagery, and the incompetence is endemic to the entire continent, and is so much of an anathema to any right-thinking person that the civilized imagination simply stalls when faced with its ubiquity, and with the enormity of trying to fix it. The Western media shouldn't even bother reporting on it. All that does is arouse our feelings of horror, and the instinctive need to do something, anything--but everything has been tried before, and failed. Everything, of course, except self-reliance.

All we should do is make sure that none of Africa gets transplanted over to the U.S., because the danger to our society is dire if it does. I note that several U.S. churches are attempting to bring groups of African refugees over to the United States, European churches the same for Europe. Mistake. Mark my words, this misplaced charity will turn around and bite us, big time.

Even worse would be to think that the simplicity of Africa holds some kind of answers for Western society: remember "It Takes A Village"? Trust me on this: there is not one thing that Africa can give the West which hasn't been tried before and failed, not one thing that isn't a step backwards, and not one thing which is worse than, or that contradicts, what we have already.

So here's my solution for the African fiasco: a high wall around the whole continent, all the guns and bombs in the world for everyone inside, and at the end, the last one alive should do us all a favor and kill himself.

Inevitably, some Kissingerian realpolitiker is going to argue in favor of intervention, because in the vacuum of Western aid, perhaps the Communist Chinese would step in and increase their influence in the area. There are two reasons why this isn't going to happen.

Firstly, the PRC doesn't have that kind of money to throw around; and secondly, the result of any communist assistance will be precisely the same as if it were Western assistance. For the record, Mozambique and Angola are both communist countries--and both are economic disaster areas. The prognosis for both countries is disastrous--and would be the same for any other African country.

Africa has to heal itself. The West can't help it. Nor should we. The record speaks for itself.

Post: #214

The issue with people of third world nations breeding like rabbits is that other nations want access to the resources in those crappy countries and so they provide chickenfeed to the ruling junta in return for oil rights etc.

Nothing to give a shit about, until those bedraggled illiterate masses decide to up stakes and trek to, oh let's say, Germany.

So sadly the only way the first world is going to stay the first world is by engaging is protocols that will outwardly appear to be racist, regardless of the actual motivations. In that regard we must be prepared to act in a way that seems racist, and if we cannot get over that hurdle then we are definitively fucked.

Post: #215

(11-26-2016 06:10 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The issue with people of third world nations breeding like rabbits is that other nations want access to the resources in those crappy countries and so they provide chickenfeed to the ruling junta in return for oil rights etc.

Nothing to give a shit about, until those bedraggled illiterate masses decide to up stakes and trek to, oh let's say, Germany.

So sadly the only way the first world is going to stay the first world is by engaging is protocols that will outwardly appear to be racist, regardless of the actual motivations. In that regard we must be prepared to act in a way that seems racist, and if we cannot get over that hurdle then we are definitively fucked.

^
and with this, we've finally closed the circle of biology, nature and countries.

In an ideal world, each country would be able to support and sustain itself with food out of its own power, and we'd just trade the luxuries and exotic stuff with each other. That is also the fantasy world were most economists live in. In reality, there are a lot of completely dysfunctional countries and entire continents which simply are ALLOWED to exist and reproduce in such huge numbers out of the benelovency of the first world. But such a state is simply not sustainable over the long term. These countries also have much malice and resentment to the first world because they feel they are being exploited and not given their right due. This forments an entitlement attitude like they have a RIGHT to immigrate and live in the first world, simply because it's better there.

Therefore, all policy that is focused on protecting your people and working for the interests of your people is bound to seem racist. But it's inevitable. Europe is small, it can't feed and house the whole world. To keep the living standard high, you HAVE to exclude other people. Tough and unfortunate for the outsiders? Yes, sure, no doubt. But such is life.

Post: #216

Overpopulation is a big issue in England. We are the most densely populated major country in Europe.

54,786,300 English citizens in June 2016 across 130,410 km2 gives a current density of 420 people per square Km. For comparison the United States has just 35 per square Km.

This creates enormous pressure on housing. Most young working people cannot afford to get on the property ladder. Benefits spongers and migrants of course get housing and everything handed to them on a plate which working people then also have to pay for.

We have areas surrounding major cities called the Green Belt where new housing development is severely restricted or banned to prevent urban sprawl.



For a lot of English the Green Belt is sacrosanct. Unfortunately the government looks to be selling out under pressure and Sajid Javid,



...Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has just approved 6000 homes on Green Belt land outside Birmingham.

Quote:Sajid Javid served notice of a more aggressive house-building agenda yesterday, when he revealed that he had approved new homes on a green-belt site in Birmingham.

The announcement by the communities secretary raises the prospect that where local authorities push for residential development of the countryside he might well give permission.

His decision comes before a white paper on housing that is due within months and is expected to address the shortage of accommodation. According to government calculations at least 220,000 new homes a year must be built in the next decade to keep up with the population growth.

He doesn't give a fuck if it sets a precedent that leads to the destruction of the Green Belt and the urbanisation of our remaining countryside. The house building lobby are greasing palms with corrupt MP's like Jarvid.

Post: #217

Quote:There's a sizable constituency here who have been very polite during the forum's "Trump Era," but are completely not on board with much of the alt-rights beliefs, goals and extremes.

You are incorrectly conflating Trump support with alt right support. There is overlap, of course, but we will take only the best ideas out of the alt right that serve men and their respective countries, and adopt them.

The Trump Era on the forum is just beginning. If you are truly a Trump hater, and you are posting in political threads, there will be conflict that will not go well for you. One can look at Iknowexactly to see what happens if you isolate yourself on political issues. Thankfully, there are many non-political sections of the forum.

Post: #218

(11-26-2016 07:05 AM)rotekz Wrote:  Overpopulation is a big issue in England. We are the most densely populated major country in Europe.
...

This is why a declining population is not necessarily a bad thing if you're not suffering under suicidal immigration and trade practices.

Our productive capability per man hour is so advanced that most of our populations in the first world are now doing the equivalent of make-work, either as feckless public servants or contractors working directly on pointless government projects.

A shrinking population, managed wisely, can be just fine. The problem is that there are too many fat, happy scumbags with too much to lose, namely the bankers who's whole operations rely utterly on inflated real estate prices piggybacking on insane fractional reserve banking laws.

Post: #219

(11-26-2016 07:41 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:There's a sizable constituency here who have been very polite during the forum's "Trump Era," but are completely not on board with much of the alt-rights beliefs, goals and extremes.

You are incorrectly conflating Trump support with alt right support. There is overlap, of course, but we will take only the best ideas out of the alt right that serve men and their respective countries, and adopt them.

I'm glad that this is your perspective. Complete ideological commitment is a dangerous thing in my experience.

The "politeness" I mentioned does not refer to forum guys who don't support Trump, but rather members that support Trump, but have different reasons for supporting him than many of the reasons discussed in political threads.

(11-26-2016 07:41 AM)Roosh Wrote:  The Trump Era on the forum is just beginning. If you are truly a Trump hater, and you are posting in political threads, there will be conflict that will not go well for you. One can look at Iknowexactly to see what happens if you isolate yourself on political issues. Thankfully, there are many non-political sections of the forum.

I'm a Trump fan. One doesn't really have a choice in an age when Hillary Clinton is a viable Democratic candidates, but I think I would like him even in a different political climate.

I was sold over a year ago when I read his policy on foreign relations, specifically China. His mindset on how to deal with China is exactly what the world needs.

Plus I like the idea of the USA having a president that actually treats people with respect. There are thousands of anecdotes of him being an outstanding person, treating others well and not letting his wealth go to his head.

I think that there are very few men on this forum that aren't fans of Trump, based on the many that I've spoken to in the last year. However, their reasons for that support and the level of faith they place in his ability to follow through varies.

I like what you said in one of the videos you did to respond to questions from the forum members. You stated that you expect many to be disappointed. I expect the same. I believe that Trump has the best of intentions, but change takes time and there are a lot of powerful people who will do everything in their power to resist powerful change.

I look forward to seeing what Trump achieves and am hopeful, but in the meantime I will continue to work hard to improve myself as an individual and I will continue to encourage every other forum members to do the same.

Post: #220

(11-26-2016 12:58 AM)Suits Wrote:  LOZ has been guilty of concern-trolling, but this time that's not the case. He's simply saying what a significant chunk of the RVF membership is already thinking.

You're accusing people of group think, while using the number of likes a post gets to prove its merit.

And it's even more ironic considering we're talking about LoZ, who could make a 1,000 word post about the different kinds of farts and get at least 10 to 20 likes.

I love the guy, but part of this forum stays so far up his ass I'm surprised he can even sit down.

Quote:Blindly jumping to endorse every conspiracy theory that fits your cause is no different than the behavior of the feminists of the left.

Another tactic of the left is avoiding actual debate and then making sweeping personal judgements on people over opinions you disagree with.

Not only is there no real argument being made, it's in a totally different and unrelated thread. The only comment you've offered on the subject of discussion has been gifs.

Post: #221

(11-25-2016 05:45 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Let's be honest here, a white ethnostate could never be formed peacefully and would require deportation campaigns along with genocide. I would read about the Armenian genocide to understand what I mean. The Armenian genocide started up because there was a movement among the Ottoman Turks that advocated for Turkic nationalism (sound familiar?) and when enacted, the formation of a Turkish ethnostate happened through starting up large numbers of deportation centers and committing mass genocide of ethnic minorities.

My geography is bad, but is Armenia part of Turkey (and has always been part of Turkey) OR is Armenia a foreign tribe outside of Turkey?

Post: #222

(11-26-2016 10:08 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 05:45 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Let's be honest here, a white ethnostate could never be formed peacefully and would require deportation campaigns along with genocide. I would read about the Armenian genocide to understand what I mean. The Armenian genocide started up because there was a movement among the Ottoman Turks that advocated for Turkic nationalism (sound familiar?) and when enacted, the formation of a Turkish ethnostate happened through starting up large numbers of deportation centers and committing mass genocide of ethnic minorities.

My geography is bad, but is Armenia part of Turkey (and has always been part of Turkey) OR is Armenia a foreign tribe outside of Turkey?

It used to be part of the Ottoman Empire (or to keep it simple, Turkey) when the genocide was committed.

Nowadays, Armenia is an independent state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia

Post: #223

Phoenix,

First, my posts here are just what I think. I have no expectation of being seen as having some special authority. I would love it if guys find some of my posts interesting, or useful, or at least enjoyable; and I hope that sometimes they do. I also don't expect everyone -- or anyone, really -- to agree with all or even most of what I say, and one of the things I like most about this forum is that it's a place where vigorous and uncompromising disagreement can go hand in hand with affection, humor, camaraderie, and friendship. I wouldn't want it any other way.

As far as the last election goes: obviously, the main thing is that Trump won and that is an amazing and beautiful outcome that changes all of our lives unthinkably for the better. It was a very close call -- a mere percent or less in the states that tipped the election, PA, WI and MI. It would require a much longer post to analyze exactly what happened, where the polls were right and where they went wrong, and so on. I think that at the very least, caution was warranted and every last inch mattered in the outcome. We will never know if Trump might have done even better had he made fewer unforced errors, and happily it doesn't matter. It's worth noting that in the final 10 days or so -- after the Comey letter fundamentally changed the course of the election -- Trump ran an extremely tight and disciplined campaign, sticking very closely to the Conway script and being relentlessly on message at all times. I think it would have been even better had he done that even earlier, and I feared at the time it would not be enough. As it happened, I was wrong about the latter, and it never felt more wonderful to be wrong about anything.

Far from seeking to demoralize the men on this forum, my goal at all times is the exact opposite of that. I know that morale can be a fragile thing for some men, and I do the little I can to keep it, not so much high, as steady and even. I was truly dreading what this place would be like if, as seemed likely to me, Trump would fall just short; I worried about the effect it would have on some guys' lives. It is always better to be delighted and surprised by a good outcome than to have one's unreasonably high expectations shattered. To the extent that any of my posts played a small role in tempering guys' expectations and keeping them on a steadier keel, that is something I do not regret. The time to celebrate is after the buzzer. For us, that time is now.

As far as the current 'sphere preoccupation with "child sex rings", "Satanic rituals" and the like goes, I stand by what I said in my earlier post. I find the belief in the widespread existence of such things exactly as preposterous as the SJW mythology -- which crested during the UVa rape hoax case -- that college fraternities have for decades held "initiation rituals" that included "gang rape", or that "one in five" females are "sexually assaulted" on college campuses but everyone looks the other way in the face of this "rape epidemic". Both ideas require similar levels of willed hysteria, suspension of disbelief, and abdication of good common sense -- all qualities that I think are closely associated with the kind of feminized discourse I discussed in that post.

The plain truth is that such obsessions -- essentially symbolic and numerological in nature, seeking evidence of the occult and the hidden just under the day-to-day fabric of life -- have indeed always been the stock in trade of mild to moderate mental illness. That in itself is nothing new. What is more unfortunate is that the feminization of public discourse that I was discussing in the earlier post is leading too many normal men to suspend their common sense and their grasp on prosaic everyday reality, and to indulge in the fever dreams of their particular ideological side. The true masculine virtues are a certain lack of credulity, a rough-and-ready feel for possibilities, orders of magnitude, and basic realities; it is what women, in their proneness to hysteria and unhinged emoting, singularly lack. I'd like to see these simple, unglamorous, but extremely valuable masculine virtues restored to their pride of place in today's culture, and I continue to think that Trump's election offers us a golden opportunity to do just that; I hope it will be taken.

Post: #224

(11-26-2016 10:08 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(11-25-2016 05:45 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Let's be honest here, a white ethnostate could never be formed peacefully and would require deportation campaigns along with genocide. I would read about the Armenian genocide to understand what I mean. The Armenian genocide started up because there was a movement among the Ottoman Turks that advocated for Turkic nationalism (sound familiar?) and when enacted, the formation of a Turkish ethnostate happened through starting up large numbers of deportation centers and committing mass genocide of ethnic minorities.

My geography is bad, but is Armenia part of Turkey (and has always been part of Turkey) OR is Armenia a foreign tribe outside of Turkey?

Before the Ottomans, Armenia was much larger. It goes back thousands of years, but was often sandwhiched between aggressors and conquers, ranging from the Roman wars with the Parthians to the Mongol, Muslim, and Turkic invaders.

Armenia was quite large, but a lot if it's history is mixed into that of Persia over the centuries.

Post: #225

(11-25-2016 01:52 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I wouldn't call it "a lot." I'm fairly certain these people doing the salute were plants.

But it was a totally unnecessary error, in multiple dimensions.

I suggest watching Aurini's latest stream. Roosh is on it. They summed it up best: what comes out of this at the end of the day is this - we need to be able to say to people "look, you fucked up, and I'm going to say so" but also at the same time not tone police ourselves to death.

And for the love of God, don't ever invite the fake news hoaxers into your events. We drive the news now. They need us. Us being broadly defined.

Unfortunately these idiots exist and we'll be dragged into it in some way no matter what. We just have to be prepared to get off it and counterattack when shit goes down.

Like LOZ said so eloquently quoting Trump - "you're really into this, aren't you?"

Thanks, brother, the livestream is here (fairly tight, in my opinion; we kept it to an hour). To clarify my position, I condemn the event, not the man. Spencer's partial retraction was manly, he took accountability without grovelling.

What frustrates me about all of this is the bad strategy. As I said in the opening of the stream, what are we doing here? Are we looking to vent? To show off? To argue with Liberals? Or are we trying to change society for the better, to win?

For sake of argument, imagine that you buy in to the extreme version of the ZOG theory: Jewish/Israeli controlled media, culture, institutions, with an implicit plan to destroy Western culture through feminism and multiculturalism, so that all countries become enslaved to Jewish banking interests in Israel. If this is your opponent, how do you counter them? If the holocaust were a complete fabrication, and Hitler was a heroic Aryan ubermensch trying to free the Europe from subversive tyranny, what do you do to carry on his legacy?

I submit that walking around in 1940s cosplay is the last thing you should be doing.

Think of the Skokie case: at the time Holocaustianity was unheard of, until a group of NeoNazis decided to march through the largely Jewish city. The optics were terrible (from the NeoNazi perspective): the Jews came across as true Americans who did nothing to stop this expression of Free Speech, while the NeoNazis came across as foolish bullies. "Never Again" followed from this, and has become one of the planks used to undermine healthy Nationalism, as if the only way to prevent genocide is to dilute the ethnic homogeneity of White countries.

One of the strategies used by the Left is to engender frustration through passive aggressive abuse - think of the woman who needles her husband about drinking, pushing him to drink more, until one day an event happens (DUI, fist fight) that allows her to force him into Alcoholics Anonymous. The Left pushes, so that regular Americans act out in displays of anger.

He whom the Gods would destroy, they first make angry.

I understand the frustration, but allowing it to rule us turns us into a useful part of the Hegelian dialectic. The Left needs a villain to fight, and they're goading us into becoming that stereotypical opponent. When you're fighting Big Brother, the last thing you want to become is Emmanual Goldstein. We need character and decency - not reactionary egoism.

And as for not attacking allies on the right - in my experience it's the 1488 crowd who are the first to attack anybody who disagrees with them, no matter how minor the point. I'd love to believe that they're all nothing but a bunch of agitators funded by the ADL, but my experience suggests that a lot of angry fools fall into the trap laid out for them by the establishment.