Generational Dynamics World View News

[spottybrowncow]

If you start out a relationship with slavery, colonial imperialism or exploitation, you don't expect resentment? Do you think hatred, oppression and killing are a great way to make friends and influence people?

Sure, but that's the way it's been done since the dawn of humanity. I'm surprised to hear this coming from someone purporting to be educated in these things.

The Romans and Genghis Khan gave their "oppressees" a chance to join them and pay tribute, if they refused then only then did they kill them. The American Indians didn't even do that, they killed or enslaved their captives, likely because in their stone age society the land could only support so many people.

It is just that many other groups were treated badly by the West and have a resentment which will soon be returned.

The West has done something no other conquoring people ever has - it's kicked everyone's asses so completely that it has lost its desire to conquer, and has realized tht humanity would be better off if we could all just get along. Understandably, the less advanced people who were conquered aren't all jumping to join their erstwhile oppressors, but this does not make the West's overtures any less admirable.

Yes, I said "admirable." We have already established that conquest is the norm since the dawn of time. When after conquest the alternatives are keeping a conquered people in perpetual subjugation, or simply killing them all, a belated extending of the olive branch is an "admirable" experiment.

Yes, I said "experiment." An experiment that doesn't appear to be working, at least not all the time. In fact, it's looking like a disaster in some areas. What is the proper course when it becomes obvious that the experiment is a disaster? Cancel the experiment, and preserve the dominant culture, or lose all to those who were welcomed? That's the question the West has to answer. It appears that opinions among Westerners differ on which course to follow.

[Bob Butler]

Yes, I said "experiment." An experiment that doesn't appear to be working, at least not all the time. In fact, it's looking like a disaster in some areas. What is the proper course when it becomes obvious that the experiment is a disaster? Cancel the experiment, and preserve the dominant culture, or lose all to those who were welcomed? That's the question the West has to answer. It appears that opinions among Westerners differ on which course to follow.

After WW II, most allies owed the US a lot. The US offered to forgive these loans if these allies opened their colonial ports. Poof went colonial imperialism. This was not an act of charity by the US, but resulted in a solid US economic trade during the 1950s while the rest of the world recovered. It was admirable yes, but not unselfish.

Since then primacy has shifted from mother countries running colonies to undeveloped countries providing cheap labor for corporations. Established countries had developed labor unions and worker safety rules, so the corporations decided to get around them. Covid exposed that there should be limits to this globalism, that each country should be able to manufacture products it really needs. But some cultures are still being exploited, new resentments still being built, and old resentments are still immigrating.

Should we go back to the old Agricultural Age pattern, following the example of Genghis Khan? In an age of nukes and proxy wars, is war and subjugating other cultures cost effective? Is population growing too fast? To what extent will warming shift the inhabitable lands? Is an answer a form of Isolationism, to close all borders and end interaction with other cultures?

There is a choice between love and hate. Which will center the world we build?

Note, the moderator has already shifted this conversation to my thread once. I’m just responding to messages on the thread they originate on.

[guest]

Yes, I said "experiment." An experiment that doesn't appear to be working, at least not all the time. In fact, it's looking like a disaster in some areas. What is the proper course when it becomes obvious that the experiment is a disaster? Cancel the experiment, and preserve the dominant culture, or lose all to those who were welcomed? That's the question the West has to answer. It appears that opinions among Westerners differ on which course to follow.

After WW II, most allies owed the US a lot. The US offered to forgive these loans if these allies opened their colonial ports. Poof went colonial imperialism. This was not an act of charity by the US, but resulted in a solid US economic trade during the 1950s while the rest of the world recovered. It was admirable yes, but not unselfish.

Since then primacy has shifted from mother countries running colonies to undeveloped countries providing cheap labor for corporations. Established countries had developed labor unions and worker safety rules, so the corporations decided to get around them. Covid exposed that there should be limits to this globalism, that each country should be able to manufacture products it really needs. But some cultures are still being exploited, new resentments still being built, and old resentments are still immigrating.

Should we go back to the old Agricultural Age pattern, following the example of Genghis Khan? In an age of nukes and proxy wars, is war and subjugating other cultures cost effective? Is population growing too fast? To what extent will warming shift the inhabitable lands? Is an answer a form of Isolationism, to close all borders and end interaction with other cultures?

There is a choice between love and hate. Which will center the world we build?

Note, the moderator has already shifted this conversation to my thread once. I’m just responding to messages on the thread they originate on.

It's always an extreme with you people. And the way you define love means death, destruction, and misery. You clueless liberals offer the love of Joseph Stalin.

[Bob Butler]

It's always an extreme with you people. And the way you define love means death, destruction, and misery. You clueless liberals offer the love of Joseph Stalin.

I'm not the one advocating a return to the policies of Genghis Kahn, conquest and massacre.

[Ggg]

It's always an extreme with you people. And the way you define love means death, destruction, and misery. You clueless liberals offer the love of Joseph Stalin.

I'm not the one advocating a return to the policies of Genghis Kahn, conquest and massacre.

What I hate most about dealing with Psychopaths like BB is how they ASSUME they are smarter than everyone else. Usually because we don't call them on their BS. They think they aren't caught.

These people thrived in the 80s where their lack of guilt, and a high trust environment allowed them to take advantage of normies who didn't want to be "rude" by calling them on their BS.

Their weakness is autists who don't react to social pressure. An autist will straight up tell them their request or proposal is stupid. When asked, "Don't you trust me?" They will flatly say, "No." .

They think they have found the loopholes of society. Ways to get ahead with less work. Taking advantage of trusting morons. Shaming others publicly who do not comply. They thrive on "reasonable doubt" and the idea YOU need proof of their wrongdoing. That's why they think they are smarter than you, but they usually are quite dumb in my experience.

Want to win? Just call them out directly, maybe even publicly. This is not about politics as much as relationships. They WILL call you "rude" and attempt to publicly shame you. Don't flinch at the point. These people fear being "Found Out." They already know they are lying. You don't need to prove it to them. It's more proving it to onlookers. A mocking tone is great here. Psychopaths tend to cower when being mocked. It destroys their perceived advantage, the trust and respect of onlookers.

Then cut contact. Block and walk away. That way THEY look creepy for trying to follow up. There is no use keeping people like that in your life. They are dangerous. Even if they are parents or siblings, let alone exes.

[Navigator]

One of the core problems with Liberalism is the double standard.

For the conservative, the belief is that justice is blind, and that all should be treated equally. This is not so for our liberals (and calls by the conservative for this are treated as “fascism” – which they do not understand is actually a variant of liberalism, not conservatism). The liberals believe that the “oppressed” or “formerly oppressed” should be treated differently.

The rot in our cities is a direct consequence of the law being applied differently to different people, depending on what group they are from. It is the same (probably even worse so) in Europe, where the migrant is seen as coming from “oppressed” groups.

Criminals are not prosecuted for breaking the law if they come from a “disadvantaged” background. They believe that the oppression (or whatever) these people have suffered has so hurt them that they need to be able to “blow off steam” or “avail themselves of the only means to acquire what they need (actually just want)”.

The liberals do not understand that when you allow people to commit crime, it actually emboldens them to commit more. It also serves as a deterrent to actually getting ahead permanently through one’s own efforts (as, for example, Asians in the USA). Why do that when you can rob and steal (and worse, as in the current epidemic of “random acts of violence).

They also do not understand that the criminality quickly becomes organized, and that the people reaping the greatest benefits are actually the leaders of criminal cabals, large and small, that are feeding off of this.

The vast majority of the migration happening over the last 50 years is economic in nature. People are moving from where life is hard, to where they are subsidized to live lives of luxury compared to their former circumstances. Then on top of that, they are then not held to the same standards as the local population. Why wouldn’t some common criminal from a third world country not go to Europe or the US? If I were one of them, I certainly would.

[Navigator]

The people coming out of Africa and or Arab lands to Europe, and those coming out of Central America to the US are doing so because of the lack of economic opportunity, coupled with the fact that their lifestyle will be provided for in either destination.

It has nothing to do with the colonialism or "oppression" suffered 50-100 years ago by their great great grandparents (or further back). Most of the places of origin are a mess because of CURRENT CORRUPTION. Africa and Arab lands are the run-away winners in this regard. This is what is preventing economic progress for people in and from these areas. And, btw, the more "liberal" the current government in these areas, the worse the corruption is.

Liberals are so focused on wrongs that happened generations ago that they fail to see the actual causes of the current mess.

[Bob Butler]

I was an engineer fighting communism working contracts for the military and intelligence agencies. I used my brain rather than carried a rifle. So, yes, I think myself smarter than most. I don’t see this as improper or part of some grand conspiracy. I just pushed my schoolwork a little harder than most and was able to do a job most couldn’t.

Our jails are filled with oppressed minorities rather than white collar criminals. (Trump.) If there is a double standard it is that the white collar crimes are not pressed enough. Yes, the guys at the top of organized crime organizations take more than their share. One might argue that the guys at the top of any organization decide who gets what share, and take too much.

The troublesome immigrants of late come from cultures oppressed generations ago. If we didn’t import black slaves, if we didn’t try to profit from Middle East oil, if we didn’t have a drug problem that corrupted Central America, we would not have built up relations with various troublesome minority groups. Unfortunately, we did. Pretending we didn’t won’t solve the resulting problems. Yes, the motivation was economic. That doesn’t make the social and criminal problems less.

[Guest]

Not only woke, but FAT.

Nearly 70% of active service members are overweight, report finds
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/you ... ort-finds/

The standards have dropped because of CRT and trans insanity. I don't see that reversing under a Democrat administration.

The Israeli attack on Gaza will leave Ukraine high and dry. Long story short: Having Ukraine come out in absolute alignment with Israel will cost it the high ground. Ukraine will be forced to accept a humiliating treaty with the loss of 20% of Ukraine.

READ THE ARTICLE.

It's CRT driving this mess.

The BMI, which is based on a 200-year-old calculation that sought to define the body composition of the “normal man,” has faced controversy in recent years.

The American Medical Association in June updated its policy on BMI, acknowledging “historical harm” and “racist exclusion” associated with the index, “because BMI is based primarily on data collected from previous generations of non-Hispanic white populations.”

The new policy urges doctors to use BMI as one measure of body composition, complemented by measurements of visceral fat, body adiposity index, body composition, relative fat mass, waist circumference and genetic/metabolic factors.”

Virtually all of my male relatives have served in the military (myself included), and the situation is obvious to everyone. Blacks and Hispanics are obese, many morbidly obese as teenagers., especially black and Latino women. Black women are off the charts. My relatives and friends don't see a lot of fat white men in the military. White males are still, generally, physically fit. What they see is what I started seeing after 2001.

Using Critical Race Theory to "update" physical fitness standards is stupid. CRT is stupid and extremely, dangerously, racist. "Genetic/metabolic factors" have led us into disaster.

NOTE TO LIBERALS: If we lose the war to China, we will be be murdered horribly.

I don't see how we can wage war successfully at this point. I anticipate naval mutinies in the near future (something that has NEVER happened in American history).

White recruitment has collapsed because whites do not want to be subjected to CRT humiliation. I know a lot of retired military (including my late father) and none of them want their children to enter the military, which includes many (most) of my former roommates (i graduated from a military college). A retired Marine Corps colonel's only child now works in corporate sales. I personally only know one other classmate that has a child in the service, and it's a daughter who graduated college ten years ago. The current state of the military is unbearable for most whites. People have been warned to steer clear, and they are, if they are white.

This is reality. Be aware of it. This is not happening at some indeterminate point in the future, this is happening now.

US Army faces 'TikTok mutiny' as Gen Z recruits whine about low pay, 'sh***y' food and FITNESS TESTS while on bases in uniform

Brazen posts represent audacious challenge to top brass amid recruitment crisis
One of the posts by military influencer Anthony Laster slams Army life
Says he spent whole day watching TikToks while supposedly fighting the Taliban

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... 0&ito=1490

The US Army is facing a TikTok mutiny as Gen Z recruits are taking to social media to whine about low pay, 'sh***y' food and fitness tests.

The brazen posts - by uniformed troops on US bases - represent an audacious challenge to top brass amid a recruitment crisis. The Army fell short of its target by 25 percent last year.

One of the posts by military influencer Anthony Laster slams Army life for having 'No Privacy, The Pay Sucks, Sh***y Food, Disrespectful Leadership, NO SLEEP!' and has been viewed more than 600,000 times.

HERE WE GO!

[Guest]

The Army expects to end up about 15,000 short of its target of 65,000 recruits for 2023.

Similarly, the Navy expects to fall short by 10,000 personnel and the Air Force is projected to miss its goal by 10 percent.

The traditional allure of military recruitment is failing to register with Gen Z.

Last year only 9 percent of young people ages 16-21 said they would consider military service, according to Pentagon data, sliding 13 percent from before the pandemic.

The military has faced criticism for using 'woke' advertising campaigns focused on diversity, equity and inclusion as well as drag shows for troops, to appeal to Gen Z.

The Army is in the middle of a five-year plan to become a 'model example of diversity, equality and inclusion', with the blessing of the White House.

However, with focus elsewhere it is in the grips of a fitness crisis.

Around 23 percent of soldiers registered as obese in 2021, according to a recent study of data from the Military Health System Data Repository.

Not only are recruits not fit enough to join, their fitness is also declining once they're in the ranks leaving officials scrambling to install weight loss and exercise regimens.

Now disgruntled rank and file officers have found an outlet on TikTok to advise those considering signing up to think again, according to videos viewed by DailyMail.com.

Among the major criticisms, the young soldiers complain about having to remain below a certain weight, harsh treatment from their superiors and having to perform menial tasks instead of engaging enemies on the battlefield.

One young recruit, Shemar Williams, in uniform and appearing to be on base, looks into the camera and tells his 34,000 followers his 'top five reasons not to join the military'.

Echoing Laster's grievances, Williams bemoans that 'we do not get paid enough to perform the mission that is tasked to us,' lack of autonomy and sacrifices in family life.

According to federal data, more than 20,000 active-duty troops are on food stamps to make ends meet.