Post: #26

Cities serve a purpose as a centre of finance and economic power output. They were founded on rivers and the coasts as a means of export/imports. I'm sure the founding fathers of London, NYC did not expect them to grow to the size we see today.

Humans rely on a hub for activity - which could be anything.

If you squared off cities to combat whatever ills you believe them to have you're just making the problem area larger and not addressing the one thing creating the problems, which are humans.

Lets take a look at the homo scene of two cities, San Franc and London. San Fran is notorious for this and the city/state has enabled this behaviour. They came together to fuck each other. You don't find communities of homos way out in the sticks because it doesn't serve their needs.

London has Soho and many other dens of degeneracy but again, it serves a purpose and fulfills their needs.

You'll never solve the problems of any urban area with a lot of people by re-designing it.

Post: #27

It's the lifestyle that makes the difference. Ranchers and farmers are naturally red-pilled because circumstance dictates it's so. Gender roles are obvious because women see men doing things they literally can't do i.e. spending the day hauling hay, using a post hole digger putting in fence, lifting 60 lbs. railroad ties, hauling a calf out of a gulch. This eliminates gender competition. Not to mention no man who spends his days doing those activities is going to let his wife run his shit. It's quite astounding just how large of a correlation there is, though this is just based on my anecdotal experience.

I don't think it's the city that makes the difference so much as the lifestyle that accompanies it. Even if you spread cities out the lifestyle would be effectively the same. @questor70 was right - industrialized farming fucked society over. It resulted in a mass exodus to cities (i.e. urbanization) and the degenerate over-civilized pussification that comes with it.