Post: #1

The other day I saw a thread about Julia Roberts proclaimed (by People magazine) the world's most beautiful woman. /thread-62364.html

It's not major news, but part of a flood of news that makes me feel like Mainstream is batshit crazy.

When in history was "normal" as crazy as it is now, and what can we learn from it?

Post: #2

Never.

This current generation is making history.

"Yay"

Post: #3

Hasn't history always been crazy?

The last generation was afraid of getting nuked off of the face of the earth.
The previous one had massive armed conflict all around the world.

The world has always been crazy in all sorts of different ways.
Yet you sit here in your comfortable home, with a computer, food on the table, and all with electrical creature comforts whining about how today is the worst day for humanity!

So some old hags have been declared the most beautiful women in the world. Would you rather live in fear of nuclear annihilation, death by preventable disease, or starvation? Because the last two were up until around 100 years or so the most common ways to die.

Post: #4

(04-21-2017 12:46 PM)Svoboda Wrote:  The other day I saw a thread about Julia Roberts proclaimed (by People magazine) the world's most beautiful woman. /thread-62364.html

It's not major news, but part of a flood of news that makes me feel like Mainstream is batshit crazy.

When in history was "normal" as crazy as it is now, and what can we learn from it?

People trying to appease to a mass market will say that the lowest common denominator is okay or even superior. For example, Dove's products are intended for the fat as well as the thin, so of course they're going to say that all bodies are beautiful. That way, when fatso has to buy an economy-sized bottle of Dove to smear all over the many square inches of surface area of her body, she can think, "It takes lots of Dove to care for this much beauty."

The exceptionally beautiful don't mind that fatso is being equated with them, because they still have affirmation of their superiority in the fact that an ample number of quality men are still giving them attention. Besides, it poses less of a threat to a genuinely beautiful woman if an unattractive woman is declared beautiful out of charity, than if a fellow beautiful woman is declared beautiful because of merit (i.e. actual beauty).

Fatso, on the other hand, is content with being able to shame anyone who criticizes her fatness, and with getting to attract a man who now doesn't need to worry so much about people openly judging him for having a fat wife or girlfriend. Without people telling him, "Dude, you could do much better," he may not even realize he's underselling himself. Those men who have already made the commitment, on the other hand, have a vested interest in perpetuating the lie.

Same thing with politicians saying that all cultures, sexes, orientations, genetic heritages, etc. are equal, and passing legislation to ensure everyone treats them as equal. It's just more Harrison Bergeron stuff, because you can't forcibly lift up the inferior without forcibly pushing down the superior. Maybe that's why there's a demographic crisis in the U.S., with the more intelligent people not bothering to breed. What's the point, if you're no better than anyone else? You're just a fungible commodity, so why not do what you do best (i.e. use your intelligence to invent widgets), and let others do the breeding.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need! The unintelligent, lacking anything better to do, have a great need to breed. Meanwhile, the intelligent have great ability, so much must be demanded of them, even if it means they'll need to forgo breeding.

Supposedly, we've made this a kinder, gentler world by righting past wrongs through affirmative action. But there's always some downtrodden group whose unjust sufferings won't be acknowledged till later. Ironically enough, those that are oppressed the most are completely wiped out, and therefore have no posterity to whom we might later give the benefit of affirmative action.

In reality, the way suffering is alleviated in the long run is by species evolving and then using their superiority to push aside the inferior. One fish discovers it can wriggle onto shore to gain an advantage over other fish, and eventually it evolves into a bear that eats fish. Or one monkey discovers he can use a bone to beat the hell out of other monkeys, and a tool-using species arises. The tool-using monkeys should not be using those bones to kill a bunch of herbivorous creatures to share with the less advanced monkeys out of charity.

Or in modern times, beautiful, young, healthy women with hourglass figures should be outcompeting the ugly, damaged, post-wall chicks, so that some healthy babies can be born to mothers who are well-equipped to care for them, and the species can continue advancing. We should not be subsidizing the propagation of inferior genes and memes.

Nobody has much economic interest, though, in pointing out the truth sometimes. On the contrary, that's often a good way for a publication to lose advertisers. So the lies spread unchecked, till finally democracy destroys the economy and the people overthrow democracy in order to survive. Maybe we're in a time now that's like 1920s Germany or 1990s Russia.

Post: #5

(04-21-2017 03:52 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Hasn't history always been crazy?

The last generation was afraid of getting nuked off of the face of the earth.
The previous one had massive armed conflict all around the world.

The world has always been crazy in all sorts of different ways.
Yet you sit here in your comfortable home, with a computer, food on the table, and all with electrical creature comforts whining about how today is the worst day for humanity!

So some old hags have been declared the most beautiful women in the world. Would you rather live in fear of nuclear annihilation, death by preventable disease, or starvation? Because the last two were up until around 100 years or so the most common ways to die.

I don't think today is the worst in history at all. If anything I try to convince people there is less war, less violence, less rape than anytime before (I'm talking on a global scale).
What I think is crazy, is the disconnect between reality and normal.

To respond to fear of nuclear annihilation. Was it most likely? Probably not, but possibly, so it was a genuine threat.
This is not about Julia Roberts, it's about the flood of news like that, and opinions like that. We're not far from a Spanish Inquisition style of justice when it comes to anything that doesn't fit the narrative.
How is old hag Julia Roberts even close to genuinely being the most beautiful woman?

Post: #6

(04-21-2017 03:52 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Hasn't history always been crazy?

The last generation was afraid of getting nuked off of the face of the earth.
The previous one had massive armed conflict all around the world.

The world has always been crazy in all sorts of different ways.
Yet you sit here in your comfortable home, with a computer, food on the table, and all with electrical creature comforts whining about how today is the worst day for humanity!

So some old hags have been declared the most beautiful women in the world. Would you rather live in fear of nuclear annihilation, death by preventable disease, or starvation? Because the last two were up until around 100 years or so the most common ways to die.

If you don't reproduce because your culture influenced you to marry an infertile post-wall woman (much as it influenced fathers to send their daughters to college rather than into the arms of a good husband), that's the same result as if you had been born a few centuries ago and lost all your children to disease during their infancy. It just happens that the diseases we face now are insidious mind viruses that are rapidly spreading globally and threatening to take over. Our culture needs an antivirus.

Post: #7

(04-21-2017 04:41 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 03:52 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Hasn't history always been crazy?

The last generation was afraid of getting nuked off of the face of the earth.
The previous one had massive armed conflict all around the world.

The world has always been crazy in all sorts of different ways.
Yet you sit here in your comfortable home, with a computer, food on the table, and all with electrical creature comforts whining about how today is the worst day for humanity!

So some old hags have been declared the most beautiful women in the world. Would you rather live in fear of nuclear annihilation, death by preventable disease, or starvation? Because the last two were up until around 100 years or so the most common ways to die.

If you don't reproduce because your culture influenced you to marry an infertile post-wall woman (much as it influenced fathers to send their daughters to college rather than into the arms of a good husband), that's the same result as if you had been born a few centuries ago and lost all your children to disease during their infancy. It just happens that the diseases we face now are insidious mind viruses that are rapidly spreading globally and threatening to take over. Our culture needs an antivirus.

Spoken like someone who has never lost a child to disease or famine.

Back in the 19th century you did not have a choice of whether or not you got infected or starved to death, today you still have a choice even if you fail to make the right one.

To conflate the two is laughable hubris to the level that i'm not going to even bother arguing with you.

(04-21-2017 04:25 PM)Svoboda Wrote:  To respond to fear of nuclear annihilation. Was it most likely? Probably not, but possibly, so it was a genuine threat.
This is not about Julia Roberts, it's about the flood of news like that, and opinions like that. We're not far from a Spanish Inquisition style of justice when it comes to anything that doesn't fit the narrative.
How is old hag Julia Roberts even close to genuinely being the most beautiful woman?

Let's start with the easiest question here, who is the primary readership of the magazine that published that?

Julia Roberts is not attractive at all, however she is attractive to the boomers who read trash mags like that.

As for the Spanish Inquisition, it's already here. Thought crime can get you fired in certain jobs. The second the system falls into physical violence is the start of civil war. That's your metric for when to get the heck out of dodge.

Don't forget, it's men that have to drive the female centric narrative and there is no way they would be able to start anything of that nature. Men aren't stupid and in a battle of the sexes women will always lose if it is purely men vs women.

Post: #8

It was never normal, some people prefer to see history through nostalgia googles.

Post: #9

There has never been a time like the present. I'm not referring to a trivial example like the OP gives, but clearly the planet earth is undergoing rapid and accelerating changes, due to the explosion of technology in the last several centuries. We don't have a culture now, we have a temporary coalescing of elements swirling around which will be quite different in 20 years and again in 40 years. We are not "late" in history, we're very early savages running around being confused by the first signs of incoming non-savagery - probably an AI which will make biological life redundant.

Post: #10

Well watching people get slaughtered in the Roman Colossuem and in the Aztec is quite crazy.

Post: #11

For all the ailments of current time and society, I still think they are the best to be alive in.

We are the first generation of men that didn't HAVE to go to war (conscripted etc)

We have untold economic, religious, social and personal freedom and opportunity.

We have the best medical, nutritional and technological advantages since we climbed out of the trees.

Most of us can get sheltered, fed and laid without raising a sweat.

Crazy times indeed for the naked ape.

Post: #12

(04-21-2017 12:46 PM)Svoboda Wrote:  The other day I saw a thread about Julia Roberts proclaimed (by People magazine) the world's most beautiful woman. /thread-62364.html

It's not major news, but part of a flood of news that makes me feel like Mainstream is batshit crazy.

When in history was "normal" as crazy as it is now, and what can we learn from it?

(04-21-2017 04:15 PM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  

(04-21-2017 12:46 PM)Svoboda Wrote:  The other day I saw a thread about Julia Roberts proclaimed (by People magazine) the world's most beautiful woman. /thread-62364.html

It's not major news, but part of a flood of news that makes me feel like Mainstream is batshit crazy.

When in history was "normal" as crazy as it is now, and what can we learn from it?

...
Same thing with politicians saying that all cultures, sexes, orientations, genetic heritages, etc. are equal, and passing legislation to ensure everyone treats them as equal. It's just more Harrison Bergeron stuff, because you can't forcibly lift up the inferior without forcibly pushing down the superior. Maybe that's why there's a demographic crisis in the U.S., with the more intelligent people not bothering to breed. What's the point, if you're no better than anyone else? You're just a fungible commodity, so why not do what you do best (i.e. use your intelligence to invent widgets), and let others do the breeding.
....
In reality, the way suffering is alleviated in the long run is by species evolving and then using their superiority to push aside the inferior. One fish discovers it can wriggle onto shore to gain an advantage over other fish, and eventually it evolves into a bear that eats fish. Or one monkey discovers he can use a bone to beat the hell out of other monkeys, and a tool-using species arises. The tool-using monkeys should not be using those bones to kill a bunch of herbivorous creatures to share with the less advanced monkeys out of charity.

Or in modern times, beautiful, young, healthy women with hourglass figures should be outcompeting the ugly, damaged, post-wall chicks, so that some healthy babies can be born to mothers who are well-equipped to care for them, and the species can continue advancing. We should not be subsidizing the propagation of inferior genes and memes.

Nobody has much economic interest, though, in pointing out the truth sometimes. On the contrary, that's often a good way for a publication to lose advertisers. So the lies spread unchecked, till finally democracy destroys the economy and the people overthrow democracy in order to survive. Maybe we're in a time now that's like 1920s Germany or 1990s Russia.

I argue that there were lots of periods in history when this was the norm. Look at the Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, and Byzantines at their Civilizational “heights” for example. There was plenty of this concept of greed, aka freedom in the Rousseau sense, practiced by the average person notably in the average “women” who were not really women because just as a male (boy) must earn a title of man so should a female earn the title of woman. That is what separates Man from the apes, we have the conscious ability to peruse the lighter side of our nature {throughout} our lives or choose our darker side to reduce ourselves to that with lesser abilities then the common animal, since we are aware of our own misery in that state. None of this “normal” cultural or ideologically derived behavior is not necessarily new. The civilizations, that are dead by the way, where the most advanced beyond their ancestors and contemporaries, too big to fail, and none would dare attack the “enlightened” (which is not enlightened) since they had the latest and greatest military technology, economic power and technology, and comfortable living standards that did “not need” a Machiavellian style of values (early Roman Virtue) to maintain it. Most of these Civs. imploded with a mix of outside invasions (cultural and armed).

Every person has the equal compacity for digesting and practicing a culture, yet clearly not all cultures are equal. Cultures largely serve as an adaption to an environment and all those applications have meaning. An ideological feminist female has no problem being choked in bed (hamster) but publicly hates “men” because they are developed extreme coping mechanisms by her group to the environment -patriarchy which is an unfortunate myth- coupled with, and insistence on, her “freedom” views yet still has these urges for sex just the darker kind I suppose. This is all anthropology, it’s a fascinating subject and too bad it has such poor recognition due to all the SWJs studying it (Mead). The sexes are equal in the sense that each Man and Woman has an equal role to play for the health of the family and greater society. One of the first things to do in discovering that equality is to discover how each sex is unequal in mind, body, and spirit. If you are talking about orientations as in sexual orientations, I think they proved already that gays and trannies can have sex, but as the bible says that is between them and God, not them and society and should be out of the public eye; making that stuff mainstream is pure lunacy. Genetic heritage, if you relate it to genotype, makes every being with that DNA human if they have human DNA. There is only one human race, if you belong to that race then you are human. The term Race is seminomas with Species. They are just different words because they belong to different fields of study. A race that is not human would be the race of ducks. People look different because they inherit phenotypic traits from their parents and is due to thousands of years of natural selection. People with brighter skin living 20,000 B.C. would die in Africa, or at least be very unhealthy, and people with darker skin would die etc. in the Arctic Circle. Since we all have the same compacity to digest culture, we all have the same compacity for abstract thought.

None of this legislation appears equal but that legislation belongs to Marxist theory of equality (not much different then Rousseau) and definitely not liberty equality.

I am unsure of what it means to be “intelligent” but I do know that if you put the widget guy and the “unintelligent” people under Darwin’s natural selection model then the intelligent, in this sense, would be the weaker one since he does not breed for whatever reason. That reason makes his the weaker and I think this reply is referring that reason to his shaped mindset.

Remember, there is no such thing as an ugly girl, just a lazy one! There might be individuals predisposed to slow metabolisms but it does not take much to speed them up with a little exercise and good nutrition. To be a fatty is just plain greed. Not to mention unhealthy and disgraceful to not only yourself and family, but also your nation-state.

I think the best thing we can learn from history now is, provided that it is accurately deciphered, learning how people fixed their times in their environments. If none are fond then we will have to come up with a new method. Aristotle did not philosophize when the Greeks were virtuous. He philosophized because he must have been discussed by what he saw and if his environment was virtuous, then he would have had no reason to write. The same goes for the stories in the Bible.

Post: #13

There are lots of types of "crazy".

I guess OP is referring specifically to the view of individuals such as ourselves navigating what passes for "normal" in our society at large. Fear of nuclear armageddon is a crazy sort of a way to live in a sense, but the society in which Americans or Brits or Aussies lived back then was far more sane in a sense of day-to-day living.

The bombardment of media is pretty much to blame here. In the 50's you barely got anything other than radio and newspapers. How much "face-time" was that? An hour a day, tops?" Now, we have nations that are not incredibly more insane but are bombarded with insanity almost every waking minute of their lives because marketing = insanity (exaggeration sells, and 24/7 exaggeration builds insanity for starters). The difference between now and 60 years ago is that we're living 1 hour a day in the real world and the rest (other than sleep) in a fantasy world rather than the opposite.

Post: #14

No, I don't think so.

Post: #15

The Greeks and Romans widely accepted and practiced homosexuality. I guess you can say they were crazy.
Their civilizations did collapse in the end, though.

Post: #16

^On Stormfront they said that homosexuality whilst practised was never popular in the Greco Roman world. It is Hollywood that pushes and exaggerates that gay narrative.

Post: #17

^Don't believe everything you read on a racist website.

Greeks founded Homosexuality, they preferred sleeping with young boys over women. Even the Olympics has gay origins, the Greeks invented that as well. Google - Pederasty in Ancient Greece.
Also the term doing it "Greek" referred to anal sex, usually men on top off boys.

Homosexuality also ended the Roman Empire.

Post: #18

History repeats itself. But what seems truly unique about this age is the traditional roles between men and women has changed. You now have to look at old movies to see what was reality from the dawn of civilization.

Post: #19

(05-11-2017 09:41 AM)rudebwoy Wrote:  Homosexuality also ended the Roman Empire.

Nope, accepting christianity and giving citizenships to non-native population ended Roman Empire.

Post: #20

^ Wrong again, you should read more.

Homosexuality will lead to the decline of this Empire.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...ality.html

https://appliedsentience.com/2013/07/19/...onal-ruin/

https://ivarfjeld.com/2013/07/31/fall-of...sexuality/

Post: #21

Not really, besides Roman Empire falling into ruins being a natural process as it was a civilisation and all civilisations fall after time (Like everything, circular time) - you can clearly see the pattern, first there comes spiritual decline and some centuries after economical one that was keeping the entire mess together.

There are obviously many things and homosexuality surely being one of them. Accepting foreign gods, accepting foreign people. Eventually every civilisation will get overrun by barbarians as barbarian is a natural state of men and is superior to civilisation which makes men weak and is needed for weak men to survive - no civilisation - no weak men.

Does it sound familiar?

Saying "Fall of Roman empire is fault of faggots!" Sounds like totally Catholic propaganda.

Oh yea, democracy as well - you know the situation when leaders are discussing what statue to build while someone is raiding the capital? Yea, something like today.

Post: #22

being in Poland as the Nazi's came in probably was abnormal. As was life during the Plague.

Post: #23

(05-11-2017 11:48 AM)Uruz Wrote:  Not really, besides Roman Empire falling into ruins being a natural process as it was a civilisation and all civilisations fall after time (Like everything, circular time) - you can clearly see the pattern, first there comes spiritual decline and some centuries after economical one that was keeping the entire mess together.

There are obviously many things and homosexuality surely being one of them. Accepting foreign gods, accepting foreign people. Eventually every civilisation will get overrun by barbarians as barbarian is a natural state of men and is superior to civilisation which makes men weak and is needed for weak men to survive - no civilisation - no weak men.

Does it sound familiar?

Saying "Fall of Roman empire is fault of faggots!" Sounds like totally Catholic propaganda.

Oh yea, democracy as well - you know the situation when leaders are discussing what statue to build while someone is raiding the capital? Yea, something like today.

The Romans were barbarians as well, so lets not twist words to support your weak argument.

So are you saying Christianity was bad for the Roman Empire?

Or is that another theory you grabbed out of thin air.

The only similarities I can see between Roman Empire and the "Empire" today is the love for Pedophilla. I am sure you read about the pizzagate scandal recently.

Post: #24

(05-11-2017 12:23 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  The Romans were barbarians as well, so lets not twist words to support your weak argument.

So are you saying Christianity was bad for the Roman Empire?

Or is that another theory you grabbed out of thin air.

The only similarities I can see between Roman Empire and the "Empire" today is the love for Pedophilla. I am sure you read about the pizzagate scandal recently.

The Romans were barbarians? By what standards? That they haven't used iPhones and watched porn? The Romans themselves used the word barbarian for people who were not part of their civilisation.

Of course it was bad, replacing natural ways of your people for Cult of death, equality, marxism from desert is always bad.

I understand, you don't see it because the current state of civilisation more or less suits your needs, without civilisation you would not be able to survive in Europe or most parts of Northern America, at least in timeline of few generations.

Post: #25

So you think the Romans were nice guys, that is how they conquered most of Europe for a time. lol

Please explain to me how the current civilisation suits my needs.

I think you need to educate yourself before you talk about things you don't know.