Post: #1

Hey guys,

Growing up in Canada, and undergoing a deadly dose of liberalist thinking in my five years of university has led me to question the world a lot more. Luckily, due to school, I also found game and Roosh.

Now, with the recent election in my province of BC (with the Liberals, who are ironically the most conservative party running, losing their majority because of competition from the left), I have ruminated more and more about politics and the path that the world is taking.

After reading tons of Roosh and ROK articles, I have a better understanding of why you guys tend to lean so right.

But I just have a couple of questions that I need answering, before I fully convert to the right:

Don't you guys believe that people who are born into poor circumstances have less of a chance to "make it big," while those in power maintain their strength and keep those on the bottom? Therefore, shouldn't we help these poor people so that they have more opportunities?

For example, imagine a black boy born into the ghetto with a single mother and no father. His entire childhood is spent experiencing hardships, and he has little chance to finish school, get a good job, and live a "normal" life, mostly because he is exposed to early negative circumstances (like gangs and drugs) that strongly (but implicitly) shape his life course.

A white boy who is born into a middle-class or higher family has more of a chance to "make it big." His parents have money to put a comfortable shelter over his head, along with dinner on his plate every night. He graduates high school, goes to university, gets a good job, marries, and lives a "happy" life.

Now, I tend to read a lot of comments here that reinforce the idea that hard work leads to success, and that people who are poor just don't work hard. But according to the example above, don't you guys believe that there are some forces (out of our control) that are no doubt influencing our life course? Don't you believe that the boy and his mother in the first example should receive more state support, so that they can "rise" above their negative circumstances? In fact, wouldn't you argue that the black boy probably works even harder (e.g., begging for money, looking for food scraps in the garbage, dealing drugs while trying to survive), and thus deserves even more than the white boy (who has almost everything handed to him)?

As you can see, I have been brainwashed heavily by liberal thinking, and this is exactly the kind of question that has been nagging at me the most over these past few weeks. Please discuss and help me counter this argument, so that I can see both sides of the story!

The only argument that I can think of is: more social policies = more tax to corporations and middle-upper class families = failing economy with no clear hierarchy.

Am I getting this right? Please discuss!

Post: #2

"before I fully convert"

Post: #3

The "forces (out of our control)" are perverse governmental incentives that give more money to mothers the more kids she shits out. Less money if there's a father in the home.

When you subsidize bad behavior, you get more of it.

Post: #4

I'm getting strong signals that this is written by a female. Particularly the use of the word "boys"...

Post: #5

The 'Liberal' and leftist position assumes everyone is equal in every way, and differences can only be explained by systematic injustices of one kind or another. Therefore government needs to control and force more policies on people to correct this.

Modern conveniences/technology have masked the vast intellectual differences between all sorts of people like women. We are heavily insulated from stupid decisions due to the innovation and sacrifice of intelligent people before us.

Ask yourself, does this look 'equal' to you?
   

   

One is Somalia, one is Germany.

Why do you think one created a breathtaking structure hundreds of years ago yet Somalia is still a primitive shithole?

Do you think a government policy can make them replicate the success of other peoples?

It's like the careless British women voting for open borders. Their ancestors created a modern, comfortable society for them and they can't comprehend much of the world is not like that, so they throw it all away to primitive invaders.

If the electrical grid goes down long-term, you will found out real quick about 'equality' when everyone is trying to survive.

Post: #6

(05-25-2017 10:04 AM)Dern Wrote:  Hey guys,

Growing up in Canada, and undergoing a deadly dose of liberalist thinking in my five years of university has led me to question the world a lot more. Luckily, due to school, I also found game and Roosh.

Now, with the recent election in my province of BC (with the Liberals, who are ironically the most conservative party running, losing their majority because of competition from the left), I have ruminated more and more about politics and the path that the world is taking.

After reading tons of Roosh and ROK articles, I have a better understanding of why you guys tend to lean so right.

But I just have a couple of questions that I need answering, before I fully convert to the right:

Don't you guys believe that people who are born into poor circumstances have less of a chance to "make it big," while those in power maintain their strength and keep those on the bottom? Therefore, shouldn't we help these poor people so that they have more opportunities?

For example, imagine a black boy born into the ghetto with a single mother and no father. His entire childhood is spent experiencing hardships, and he has little chance to finish school, get a good job, and live a "normal" life, mostly because he is exposed to early negative circumstances (like gangs and drugs) that strongly (but implicitly) shape his life course.

A white boy who is born into a middle-class or higher family has more of a chance to "make it big." His parents have money to put a comfortable shelter over his head, along with dinner on his plate every night. He graduates high school, goes to university, gets a good job, marries, and lives a "happy" life.

Now, I tend to read a lot of comments here that reinforce the idea that hard work leads to success, and that people who are poor just don't work hard. But according to the example above, don't you guys believe that there are some forces (out of our control) that are no doubt influencing our life course? Don't you believe that the boy and his mother in the first example should receive more state support, so that they can "rise" above their negative circumstances? In fact, wouldn't you argue that the black boy probably works even harder (e.g., begging for money, looking for food scraps in the garbage, dealing drugs while trying to survive), and thus deserves even more than the white boy (who has almost everything handed to him)?

As you can see, I have been brainwashed heavily by liberal thinking, and this is exactly the kind of question that has been nagging at me the most over these past few weeks. Please discuss and help me counter this argument, so that I can see both sides of the story!

The only argument that I can think of is: more social policies = more tax to corporations and middle-upper class families = failing economy with no clear hierarchy.

Am I getting this right? Please discuss!

Women and/or gays aren't allowed on the board. Sorry, have a nice day.

Post: #7

1st post newbs aren't allowed to post in the politics forum

Post: #8

Perhaps a troll, but I'll entertain. There's a lot here.

1. The poor and downtrodden are never fully taken care of because to a certain degree, it's a mindset. There will always be poor (relative to the rest of society).
2. Societies, especially Western societies, have always taken care of the poor. From my apartment I can walk to probably 8 different privately-funded homeless shelters, not to mention all of the churches and their reach out programs.
3. There are a ton of problems with institutionalized (government forced) "charity". For one, it's not charity, because the funding came from pointing a gun at other citizens and taking their money with threat of prison. Second, governments are the least efficient places on earth, so why not leave it to the private sector.
4. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you give an institution guns and power, and you give them the ability to spend and give your money to whomever, you give up your freedom. Let's give as little spending ability to that institution as possible.
5. Actually, #4 pretty much covers your questions.
6. It's not whether we should offer that poor black kid charity. It's whether we guarantee $ handout to all the poor people in the country. It's the long-term effect. If you offer money to not work, more people will work less.
7. The more free the economy and society (again, more freedom means less government influence and spending), the more economically mobile the citizenry. To add to #6, you're two scenarios assume institutionalized handouts of money for subsistence for no productivity for 50% of the population makes it more likely that the one poor black kid will get out.

The question isn't about the one poor black kid. It's whether, out of 1,000 poor people, more or less of them will pull themselves out of being poor when you guarantee $ handouts every month (for guaranteed food, shelter, water, education, and entertainment) . It's common sense, actually.

Private institutions are careful not to simply be a handout. They operate more as caring individuals. Governments develop departments and hire thousands of people to collect money, then dole it out every month with no strings attached (or if any, they're formal things like reporting you went on job interviews that you can bull-shit). Good luck getting rid of all those government employees and pensions.

Read about individualism. Read about freedom. Read Ayn Rand. Read about wealth creation. Look at statistics. Look at history. Broaden your scope beyond North America. You have to get nerdy to get it. Otherwise you'll get hung up "it's about the children, the children" and not see the long-term effects.

And quit being a tard and posting dumb questions.

Post: #9

Tits or GTFO.

Post: #10

(05-25-2017 10:04 AM)Dern Wrote:  For example, imagine a black boy born into the ghetto with a single mother and no father. His entire childhood is spent experiencing hardships, and he has little chance to finish school, get a good job, and live a "normal" life, mostly because he is exposed to early negative circumstances (like gangs and drugs) that strongly (but implicitly) shape his life course.

How about you go first and "convert us to the left?"

Why don't you explain to us how the welfare state has been so beneficial to the black community over the past 70 years, specifically with regards to family formation and illegitimacy rates within that community.

Post: #11

Ok so pretty much if we provide state subsidies to people, it will motivate them to work less.

Post: #12

Hi babe, let's meet up and I will convert you - I will convert you real good.

Post: #13

Sounds like a chick getting anecdotes for Grad research. I also get the strong female vibes from the wording choices and structure.

Post: #14

> 1st post
> "Convert me"
> "so before I convert"

No, convert yourself, this is not a hugbox

Post: #15

If the waste, lost opportunity, hypocrisy, brokenness, and misery of the liberal condition isn't enough to convert you nothing is.

Post: #16

Genre: Informal
Female = 1270
Male = 896
Difference = -374; 41.36%
Verdict: Weak FEMALE

Weak emphasis could indicate European.

Post: #17

Laci, is that you?

Post: #18

Like LOL guys, plz convert me.


heavy pretty much answered everything that needed to be said.

Now like has been said before TITS OR GTFO.

Post: #19

The simplest answer is that the government can't be your parent. That's the fundamental difference between your hypothetical black boy and white boy. In your scenario, the white boy's parents put a lot of effort into making sure he has every opportunity to succeed. They want him to succeed and are proud of him once he becomes an independent adult. Furthermore, the white boy can see that his parents have to work to produce the resources they spend on him. The black boy's parents are deadbeats and all the support he gets comes from the government, an unfeeling bureaucracy. Even if the government spends ten times the resources on the black boy than the white boy's parents do on him, it should be obvious to even the lowest post count troll which one is likely to succeed in life and which one will develop a severe inferiority complex and all the destructive personality quirks that entails.

Post: #20

Nah man, you can stay on the left. It's okay.

Post: #21

Quote:But I just have a couple of questions that I need answering, before I fully convert to the right

I do too.

1: How is it that even from text I can tell a female or low T beta male wrote this?

2: If female, how big are your tits and what would you rate yourself? Pointy elbows aside. I don't care about skin colour as I love all types of ice cream.

Post: #22

Dern Wrote:Don't you guys believe that people who are born into poor circumstances have less of a chance to "make it big," while those in power maintain their strength and keep those on the bottom? Therefore, shouldn't we help these poor people so that they have more opportunities?,

Of course we believe that people born in poor circumstances have less of a chance to make it big. That's why we universally value America, England, Belgium, and many other places over Africa. When the earth was created, it was just like Africa, but when the richest and best of men worked on the earth, it became America, England, and the many other civilized places.

A poor man, dutifully cared for, will never love you, because love requires strength of mind, body, and character. A strong man, like the members of this forum, may love you or may utterly reject you. That's why we're scary. But, unlike the poor man, we at least have the ability and option to love you.

Post: #23

(05-25-2017 12:03 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Quote:But I just have a couple of questions that I need answering, before I fully convert to the right

I do too.

1: How is it that even from text I can tell a female or low T beta male wrote this?

2: If female, how big are your tits and what would you rate yourself? Pointy elbows aside. I don't care about skin colour as I love all types of ice cream.

Even the thread title alone makes you think, that sounds like something a girl would say, maybe I won't click.

Post: #24

That was entertaining. I used to try and convert my friends but they always saw it as a funny joke.

I raised my hand at the state of man conference a couple years ago and asked about helping people swallow the pill, was told that people have to come to it on their own. It has been a long time since I've tried to convert anyone else.

Post: #25

Post is troll. But for a hypothetical honest young male:

You should be on the right because the left has gone insane.

1. Borders. The left-wing position on border control is completely out of touch with reality and the well-being of national citizens. The left has demonstrated absolutely no capacity or willingness to discuss the issue reasonably. When talking is impossible, as it is with current leftists, political activism is the next alternative (this is why Trump won in 2016).

2. Victimhood and Identity politics that scapegoat all the world's problems on white males. Even if you are not white, this mentality is dangerous for everyone. The brutal genocides of the 20th century all began with false assumption of victimhood by the eventual perpetrators of the atrocities. If young men allow left-wing identity politics to continue at their current pace, the outcome will be white male genocide, civil war, or Islamic conquest.

And that should be all you need. I personally hold quite moderate views on economic policy, but economic policy takes a back seat to open borders and anti-male social policies.