Donnadogsoth

IWPIPE (eww-pipe) = I Wouldn't Put It Past 'Em

If the neuroscanner detection of serial killers is perfected, would you recommend society command all individuals to receive such scans? If you don't want a government doing it it could be commanded by private property owners as prerequisite to entering private property.

Yeah, that was worth watching, thanks. I've found circumspect politeness has gotten me further than rude confrontationalism, but the real sweetener in this video is the fellow's calm articulateness and intellectual incision. And being likeable doesn't hinder, either.

Here's a site dedicated to the ice age theory. http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/

The universal solvent, what the alchemists called the Alcahest, has been discovered by the enemies of the West, who are using it against the West, dissolving everything good, true, and beautiful into a dull, metallic sludge of mediocrity, fear and perversion. This attack on marriage was not the first, and won't be the last. The enemies of the light will not be satisfied with anything other that an absolute aphotic condition.

Or coerced into filming themselves appearing to give consent.

(1) But what if someone using the Application changes their mind? Women do that, you know. Men do too, sometimes. That consent-contract video only applies to that instant in time, and can be revoked at any time afterwards by anyone involved who says "No." Unless they've prearranged (by Applicational contract?) to agree that, there, "No" means "Yes" and "Yes" means "No." And of course, anybody using a Consent App might be intoxicated at the time and unable to give consent. Better to film the entire encounter to be extra safe. Moreso, better film the entire relationship just to capture nuances. Or better yet—brain scan the people involved to ensure they were consenting 100% of the time. Real-time brainscan helmets are available at Nordstrom for $79.99. (2) Feminism weaponises female instincts in order to gain power over men, but it doesn't deny women the power to use reason. It just says Priority One is asking, “Is it good for women?” Becoming too reasonable is not a good strategy for women if their goal is to overcome men, because the more reasonable they become, the less unreasonable (flexible) they become. So feminism is caught in a hybrid protean state of using reason where necessary, but always having “feelings!” and “patriarchy!” and “dead white males!” to fall back on, like a cushion. Men's natural deference to women lets them get away with this because equality and fairness seem like such good ideas.

It is if you spend all your time defending the free speech of those preparing to kill you.

And to the conservative it might mean equality of preference of association (discrimination).

"The gun" is going to still exist whether there's a state or not. If children are being killed or abused, other people who believe it's wrong will assume the right to use force to stop those things from happening. Similarly, people who believe it's right will assume the right to use force to allow them to continue happening.

Remember the old tv series Battlestar Galactica? It featured these bug-people who lived underground in caves and caverns. I remember that when one of them died, their body was rendered for every useful part, to keep it all in the hive, with nothing wasted.

Would you agree that the policy of the current state and its media organs is to dispossess and "soft genocide" whites?--all in the name of sowing discord and division, so that the state can better justify tightening its control?

I mean that angry mobs are known for lashing out blindly and causing collateral damage. cough*ferguson*cough. In this case they appear to have hit their intended target.

The "state" is really having it both ways on the race issue, isn't it? We're beset by racial-harmony-, immigration-, multicultural-, "tolerance"-, affirmative action- and race-mixing-propaganda, the government was the one who enforced desegregation in schools and public venues, and now there's a black President. Hard to see how "racism" is serving the state if the (liberal) state is pushing for what amounts to complete white dispossession. Unless by "racism" you mean precisely that process of dispossession, "racism against whites." Then, it makes more sense.

House Of Teen In Birmingham Bullying Video Vandalised By Angry Mobhttp://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/house-of-teen-in-birmingham-bullying-video-vandalised-by-angry-mob/ar-AAd35ih?ocid=mailsignout

That, I suppose, is one good reason not to be a libertarian: it disarms people from acting in terms of their group interest, focussing them on this freedom fetish. In other words, the neighbourhood goes to shit because we're blind to the actions of groups and can only see actions of individuals. Kind of like failing to stereotype sharks, then wondering in the hospital why they won't "play nice." EDIT: More piddle on my shoes. Anyone have the balls to admit who downvoted me and why?

Thanks for posting this, jgib. It's a good compilation of the basic stats needed to level feminism in the thinking mind.

How do you figure "explicit whiteness" squares with the atomised libertarian culture of this board?

I'm sorry to hear of your experiences with black-on-black racism. I think the root of this kind of racism is envy and hatred of whites and the adoption of a self-destructive stereotype identity. Some black people appear to do everything in their power to reject "whiteness" whole hog, and try to hold back any black person seen embracing civilisation (eg., reading, non-rapper attire, politeness, articulate speech, well-paying nonviolent jobs, etc.). It's a wonder this type of hateful person doesn't reject indoor plumbing and electricity, too, though I suppose the convenient rationale there would be that "black people invented such things" and "whites stole them." It's depressing. I encourage you to get as far from such people as possible.

A worthwhile article, MMX2010, As the Christian shell is abandoned, the mimicry of Christianity the organism assumed for the purpose of winning the culture will also be abandoned, leaving us in a "hard paganism," a paganism that carries antibodies against Christianity. We are headed down the "moral vortex" towards something that will resurrect the old witchcraft of Manasseh. Liked this quote: “The cult of tolerance is Christianity without the guilt, without the work; it is Christianity without the faith, the hope, and the love. The cult of tolerance is selfishness disguised as Christianity.”

Consider also that if a man demands a paternity test, and it's a match, then his wife will hold his distrust of her over his head for the rest of their married life.

Let's say there is this brain specialisation between the sexes that dates back to prehistory. Now the powers-that-be have deployed feminism, under cover of “equality,” to transfer power from men to women ad infinitum. Feminism acts through a female vanguard of masculine-thinking emasculators, who adopt the male role in guiding feminine thought through an alternate logic (patriarchy theory, WHCCM). This, of course, will lead to disaster. My question is, given that equality seems like a good thing—if there want to be women lawyers or women construction workers, why is that a bad thing?—what would a futuristic “liberated” woman who remains identifiably feminine look like? What would a man, there, look like? Note that equality can come at the expense of liberty. If everyone is forced to be equal, no one is free to be a millionaire. Brings to mind a Twilight Zone episode where a boy is sent for intelligence testing and is executed because he's an ace.

Knowing Pope Francis, the two would entangle and then fuse into a single monstrous mass of fear of social death. I'm white and I openly express that I have the right to an extant race of my own. This mtv offering looks like a way to shoehorn "white privilege" talk into the minds of white people already calloused from the shoehorning. Look how cringing and crying they are, when they're not bashfully laughing. Race isn't uncomfortable to talk about for white people because of "white privilege," it's uncomfortable to talk about because white people have the most to lose from speaking candidly about race issues.

I think Voltaire's out of his league.

Belonged is a should word. Should words always refer to IF, THEN statements. As in, IF we wish to add enlightenment to the world, THEN we should post the Philosophy Rap Battle video link to the Philosophy forum of FDR. But is this so? Does this add anything to our understanding, or is it the doodle-dooing of so many historical cocks-of-the-walk? It is fitting that Nietzsche, Socrates, and Voltaire would get into a fight. That had never occurred to me before, but it rings true. Sun Tzu, Lao Tzu, and Confucius would probably disagree, too. I am not sure that their disagreements would take the form given here. Trust a rap battle to be over-the-top and below-the-belt simultaneously.