aviet

I looked into the popularity of the websites of US and UK SJW groups and the ones in the UK are practically dead. The Unite Against Fascism gorup's site: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/uaf.org.uk probably gets no more than 40 visitors / day. Such an obscure group gets far too media attention. Compare it to BLM: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/blacklivesmatter.com which probably gets about 1,000 / day, which is still relatively insignificant. The Young Greens of England and Wales get about 1-3 visits pet day: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.younggreens.org.uk Yet they get mainstream media attention. I run an Alexa top 20,000 (70,000 visits / day) website and can't get on the BBC for love nor money. That reminds me of one of the other ridiculous future trends for the SJWs: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/18/green-party-scraps-women-non-men-transgender/

My worry is that they will be able to prop this up again. People who have a stake in society, from people earning a modest £20k pa to billionaires are going to suffer in a much needed hard correction. There is a big impetus for these people to maintain a standard of living and the value of their assets. Just as the Soviet Union carried on in abject failure, so long as the apparatchiks wanted to keep it going, it continued. It was not until even at the top they realise their system was a failure did they let it completely fail. There are a lot of people saying that the next crash will force governments into bankruptcy, end the dollar, but I think it may be possible they can pull new tricks out of the bag to keep it going. As long as chronic defaults on debt can be avoided, the system can continue. In the '08+ bailouts, doom bugs like myself were saying 'it's all over', but the chronic debts in the banking system were secured with QE and since very little of that QE has come into general inflation, there has been little inflation. In the seemingly inevitable coming crash, if the most dangerous debt bubbles can be secured with non-liquid QE, I think the game could continue. Last time round the Bank of England bought up large chunks of government debt that no one wanted to buy. If we are heading into a new crash, that program would have to go on steroids mixed with real austeiry. I see this as more likely than allowing a crash and reset. It's when the bailout system runs out of control and the public at large looses faith that a real crash will come.

I didn't realise this. I have donated, but not on the email I have used to sign up with.

Yes thanks. Would vote up, but I can't.

Good point. Over the last year I have seen a few articles about youth wings of Marxist political parties trying to advocate for the legalisation of acts, which are practically satanic. The only one I can specifically remember is this desire to legalise incest and necrophilia http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3458702/Necrophilia-incest-legal-says-Swedish-Liberal-party-youth-wing-accused-laughable-nitwits-party-senior.html There is also Politico trying to normalise pedophilia. I think this shows that the impetus behind the left-wing has essentially died and they have little they can say/do in the same vein that they are now forced to push for satanic rights in the push to continue to be seen as 'liberal'. But the population is not buying it anymore: In Britain it has not got so extreme as to have these SJW militias, but there is a latent undertone of having to apologies for and destroy British, European and Western culture. Recently the state broadcaster was directed to hire 700% more LGBT people than exist per capita in the population according to the BBC's own figures.

I don't agree with reactionary attacks to your comments, or down-voting. I'd prefer to counter them. The argument that property rights are an act of aggression is at best nuanced. In its purest form, property can be claimed, but not usurped. It can only be passed on voluntarily or via a mechanism of laws, such as inheritance law in which 1st degree relatives and a spouse would have property divided. There is no aggression here. What you are arguing against is not property rights, it is a broader phenomena which could be termed as structural violence, i.e. by the act of property ownership some people may have so few resources that they live in poverty that they cannot feasibly lift themselves out of. It is possible that there may be poverty in a jurisdiction that has provisions for property rights, but its not specifically the existence of those provisions that will be the cause of poverty. It will be caused by a whole host of issues. If you look at countries that have endemic poverty, you will almost definitely find they have poor property rights, Venezuela would be a good example - the country with the lowest disposable income in South America (half of its nearest counterpart) has the 3rd worst property rights in the world. Meanwhile the countries with the best property rights have low poverty and high disposable incomes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Property_Rights_Index Note how highly socialist countries, like those in Scandinavia, have good property rights and low poverty. Countries with much smaller government budgets, like Hong Kong, also do well. The use of the Hindu caste system is not a good example, because it is not a system of property rights, but a system of ethnic rights, which guarantees certain people have a reduced access to property and other things.

It is getting closer: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/06/detain-illegal-migrants-in-island-camps-says-austrian-foreign-minister/ I have been very pleased with how Macedonia, Austria and Hungary have dealt with it. It seems to me that Austria in particular has been acting in liaison with other countries to shut the route. It's just the old Euro states that can't bare to be seen as racist for turning back a bunch of people who stopped being refugees once they entered Turkey, if they ever were a refugee in the first place. Last year I was in Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia and Croatia during the crisis. The only time I saw any migrants it was a bunch of about 20 very sharply dressed-men who I assumed were from Pakistan. One sat next to me (on the train) and began Facebook messaging his friends in Pakistan on his very expensive looking mobile phone. He had been sent back by Macedonia. When I was in Serbia, there was some hoopla about Hungary putting in their border fence. The Serbian PM and pres., both former ultra-nationalist who essentially said they want to get rid of all Croats and Bosnians in the 90s to make a Greater Serbia, have now become a pair of dupes pandering to the EU. They were trying to make themselves look liberal and loving by showing how good they were by letting all the migrants through. But when Slovenia and Macedonia started putting up their own fences, Serbia quickly did a 180, realising they were going to get stuck with a bunch of migrants. Slovenia was likewise criticising Hungary's fence when they put it up, but on the day I arrived in Slovenia, they were putting up fences bought from Hungary and I was interrogated by police for about 20 minutes because they thought I was a migrant. I think this is indicative of how most people are operating. Many refuse to block migrants as they don't want to be seen as racist etc., but when they get left with the situation, they quickly shift. Even Sweden has largely reversed their ridiculous civilisation-ending virtue posturing. In my opinion this is what needs to be done: - A clear message needs to be sent that migrants will not be specifically accepted - All that those that do manage to get in will be given is a space in a tent, food and water and access to sanition; with no path to citizenship - Those who come in from safe states will be incarcerated and deported on the earliest possible date - Vessels carrying illegals turned back, rather than brought in - UN refugee charter needs to be re-written If these people knew the best they were going to get is a camp the same as in Turkey if they are a refugee or deportation, many fewer would come. The situation is a complete farce and our politicians are too scared to say so. This is what Singapore does and the whole world is not screaming about that, only that the Anglosphere and Europe does not want to take economic migrants. They stopped accepting refugees after a bad experience in the 70s, which is nothing compared to what Europe is being asked to endure.

OPTIMISTIC "Our relative part of the global GDP will shrink. Not one single European country will be a member of the G7 in 25 years from now. We will disappear" Source: https://euobserver.com/political/128012 --- TRUSTWORTHY "When it becomes serious, you have to lie." Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2011/05/09/luxembourg-lies-on-secret-meeting --- DEMOCRATIC "If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'." Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1490810/Keep-up-the-pressure-for-a-No-vote-Left-warned.html "There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties" Source: http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2015/01/28/20002-20150128ARTFIG00441-jean-claude-juncker-pas-question-de-supprimer-la-dette-grecque.php --- MAN OF THE PEOPLE "Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?" Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556400/Dont-tell-British-about-the-EU-treaty.html --- HONEST "We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it." Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27679170 --- TRANSPARENT "Monetary policy is a serious issue. We should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup" Source: https://euobserver.com/economic/32222 --- FORESIGHT Apr 2012: "I don't think Spain will need any kind of external support." Jun 2012: Up to 100 billion euro bailout negotiated Dec 2012: Spain is bailed out with 40 billion euros Source: http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE83H07620120418?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0 --- OPEN "We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." Source: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-15317086.html --- RIGHT "We need Britain. Personally I don’t think Britain needs the European Union." SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/14/european-union-referendum-dis-jean-claude-juncker-say-britain-doesnt-need-the-eu_n_8293952.html --- Weak pipsqueaks like Ted Millipede, Nick Cuck, El Cammy and John MaoDonnell are saying remain and reform - with no path to reform and EU dictators have made it clear reform will not be tolerated.

Thank you, listening now. I would vote you up, but seems I cannot do that.

shirgall has elaborated my worst fears better than I had assembled them in my own thoughts. It would be interesting to see a population projection graph with IQ bands. Needless to say the sub-80 and sub-70 categories are growing more than any other band. As The West wanes under Marxism and degenerate cultural influences, fertility rates are heading to 1.0. This in itself is not catastrophic, what is - is the vast population growth rates in the undeveloped world with 50, 60, 70% of the population considered as mentally retarded in conjunction with the former. Countries like Niger have fertility rates over 7.0 with an average age of 15. Just imagine what it would be like living in the West with an average age of 15. Development would be incredibly difficult. Many countries have grown by about 600% in 50 year or so; it took Britain 200 years to do the same; and the countries that are growing by such rates show no signs of stopping, are largely immune to development and are propped up by The West. Africa in particular is incredibly unstable. The continent is largely propped up by food aid, medical aid, foreign investment and huge grants to governments (Ethiopia get about 50-60% of its govt. budget in aid), which has enabled their exponential population growth, which has had little development in conjunction. As Europe wanes, it seems likely that more and more Africans will attempt to get into Europe. I can see it reaching millions per year in my life time. I think such movements would be debilitating and irreversible. I'm not sure what will happen in the coming decades, but if largely European moral leadership that has ended slavery and various other abuses and American military dominance, which can be criticised, but has been a curb on adventurism and expansionism fails, I think the world will plunge into famine, sectarian violence and conquest, with a depressed Europe and the Anglosphere facing mass immigration as a result. The result being there will be nowhere for anyone to run to We know what happened in Europe in the first half of the 20th century. Now the whole world has those capabilities, with vast populations with sub-80 and sub-70 average IQs. The UN says the global population is heading to 11 billion by 2011 and rising. I think it is more likely to be 1 billion.

I didn't mean to criticise your idea. As mentioned I doubt anyone here is qualified to comment on your statements. If you want to pursue it, do so, and we can find out the realities that way. My comment was a segway into that I don't believe solving the problems of the 3rd world for them is a sustainable solution. It has not been so far. Assuming you are not from the third world, at what point does you trying to solving a food shortage that has been raging throughout recorded history equate to independence and self-sufficiency? They weren't able to fix it themselves in the past, it wasn't fixed during colonialism, it's got worse since they have been killing and displacing white farmers and the only thing post-colonial western support has really been able to do is send their population stratospheric, ensuing the requirement for more and more support. I'm not sure where the population projection from your chart comes from? It looks like the UN low, whereas Africa is very much on track for 4 billion in 2100. Many areas of the world have attained development and stability by copying and in some cases improving what the West has done, it wasn't handed to them on a platter. I think you should stay, but be prepared for interrogation and a even a few barbs here, as you have dished me: "Quite a lengthy rambling." and "Change your Avatar". Not sure what the revolution comment is in reference to.

If that is the case I think it can be read in the results.

On the history of identity politics, I think it goes back far beyond written records. One of the biggest themes in history is identity politics: war, persecution, segregation etc. based on identity. It's only in the last few decades in some counties could this be said to have largely disappeared, only to risk total destruction via the importation of 3rd world immigrants who want to get pithy about the lack of attention paid to their home culture and the blaming of whites for the failure of certain ethnicities. So I think the latter period of increasing the voting franchise is just a latter phase of identity politics. ---- The idea of accepting depression as social justice could turn out to be quite perceptive. When I was younger, I noticed that quite a few people were obviously suffering from depression. Like all of us, I have been through mental and emotional loops, but from the age of 16 I was steadfast in the idea that I cannot become depressed and I never have. Not only do I not expect that I will ever become depressed, I outright reject the possibility. This will be highly controversial, but I think that people who are depressed want to be depressed, in a similar way that some people like being cucks and subjects of masochism. Some people are self destructing and like to punish themselves. I think depression is just a more abstract expression of this. I'd imagine that if you could chart fat people who manage to loose weight to become an average weight and depressed people who overcome it, you will find similar levels of success and relapse. ---- As for the future, it is difficult to know where this may go. The real fight-back against made-up social justice qualms only really began last year. I would not expect it to go away any time soon, though I think it is likely to be beaten back, as everyone I know, from any veins of thought, find them ridiculous. To add to your suggested future directions for the movement, I think one possibility is that there will be a movement to drop English in favor of Swahili. Another is the movement for slavery reparations. I'm surprised that has not flared up already. And when that happens don't expect any reparations to be paid by the Africans who sold the slaves to Europeans, had been enslaving themselves for 1000s of years, enslaved themselves after freedom in Sierra Leone and Liberia and expect America to be the center of slavery evil despite only accounting for about 2% of the Atlantic slave trade (source). ---- For me the biggest aspect of social justice jihadi mental illness is the relationship between guilt and resources. Why did women advocate their addition to the voting franchise and the work force? - They wanted (access to) resources Why did blacks advocate their addition to the voting franchise? - They wanted (access to) resources Why did blacks advocate for affirmative action? - They wanted (access to) resources Why are trans kicking off? - The want free sex changes Why does a baby throw a tantrum? - They want attention or resources. *Not saying this was the only drive behind those movements It would probably also be more inclusive, ooooouuuuuhhhh!, to say they want their way, with resources being included in their way. The new social justice movement that has practically no issue they can trot out beyond obscure and abstract notions like micro-aggression, is simply using guilt to get their way. In the same way a child or brat does. I think calling them out on this may be effective as I think it will cause a sub-conscious trigger in the similar vein to how politicians dodge to avoid lying. One of the best debates in which a SJJ cannot come up with any arguments and everything she says backfires: https://youtu.be/MFFJWzgUmTE?t=16m *16 minutes if the time marker does not transpose.

That is probably it. I have a a good group of friends, as it goes, from a moral and intellectual standpoint. Most of my friends have only had one girlfriend who they have been with for a long time. As a group we have ended up orbiting a relatively small pool of morally higher quality females. My one friend who has had a lot of partners has ended up a bit of a mess with anxiety and, I would guess, depression, he has had the most problems; particularly due to his desire for sexual gratification outside of the relationship, which was with a good girl and I believe is now destroyed. Relationships with less attractive females will be more likely to be long-term, but this does not necessarily mean they are morally better. It could just mean they are willing to hang on to what they have got, because they don't feel there are any better options. Could you give examples of the most effective areas in which game could be upped? I agree with this. Same as blacks teaching their children they cannot get ahead because of white supremacy.

Ali's claims on race mixing are a bit ironic given that he was mixed race. African Americas are on average 17% European, but I would guess he is significantly more so. The mother looks more European to me: http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01666/SNN0316JJ_1666064a.jpg His ancestry as compiled by renowned genealogist, William Addams Reitwiesner: http://www.wargs.com/other/ali.html

Does anyone have links to studies or surveys as to what man and women want from relationships? From Googling, almost everything that comes up is about sex only. Below are a two I found: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/04/singles-dating-attraction-facebook/1878265/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=206567 Steady income is very telling: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/family-relationships-and-sex/men-want-beauty-women-want-money-what-people-want-in-a-sexual-partner-20151001-gjyyot.html --- On a slightly unrelated note, this is one of the best articles I have seen on relationships: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-race-affects-whether-people-write-you-back/ Reply rate by race on OK Cupid: http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/race_affects/Reply-By-Race-Male.png Damming-proof of white, male privilege in the free market of relationships?

How do you think this will pan out over the next 100 years? Looks like a perfect opportunity to take out a short on the human race.

It always amazes me the extent to which Marxists let people of colour off the hook for tomes of hateful speech. Cassius Clay is by no means the first supremacist to be held up as a freedom fighter. When the rather poor film Straight Outta Compton came out, I saw a piece in The Guardian by a female feminist on whether Ice Cube was a sexist for his profuse use of the word, bitch. Based on Cube's statement something along the lines of, "I will call a woman a bitch if she is a bitch. If you are offended by that maybe you are one." Cube did not clarify what the criteria for being a bitch are, but from his history of use of the word it is quite clear. NWA's litany of misogyny are topped with the songs 'To Kill A Hooker' and 'One Less Bitch' in which women are raped and then killed for fun. Not Cube, but Eazy-E: "A nigga is one who believes that all ladies are bitches ... To me, ALL BITCHES AIN'T SHIT!" I am not a student of Ice Cube, but his personal definition of bitch can be reduced to at least 'all white women are bitches', as evidenced by his song 'Cave Bitch' with the late Dr. Khalid Muhammad, a genocidal black supremacist, in which Cube denigrated all white woman as disgusting bitches, channeling Nation of Islam fairy tales about the white race being a germ race created by black genetic scientists in pre-history, who then went on to live in caves. Feminist Guardian journalists don't have a good rep for doing their research though. No doubt when Ice Cube leaves this coil the Marxists will be out to call him a civil rights activist who fought against police oppression.

Some good points. That it is, in all areas of society, but its primarily a race to other people's bank accounts.

There is a difference between climate change and AGW. I find the climate change movement extremely suspicious. The two main reasons are that the entire global establishment is pushing for action on climate change, requesting global governance. I can somewhat understand the desire for global collaboration on curbing pollution or some form of environmental degradation, i.e. if Europe heavily regulates its industries, making it less competitive and the rest of the world does nothing, then Europe is taking a huge hit for a reduced impact. And later all the other countries can benefit from access to the new technology without having to pay for the R&D. There are plenty of environmental issues that obviously exist, but I am highly scpetical of climate change as it is now known. Back in the 70s the same people were telling us we were going int a new ice age. When that did not materialise they went quiet and in the late 80s they came back with the idea of global warming: "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,” - From this book, published by the globalist group, The Club of Rome. This idea bubbled fervently through the period 2000-2009, until it became apparent that climate models had been skewed to hide a decline in temperatures during that period. At this point the AGW movement faded out, but quickly came back under the guise of climate change. So they were wrong about the new ice age of the 70s onwards and they were wrong about the 'heating up as hot as Venus' from 2000 onwards, now they ask us to believe that any change in any climatic aspect is all our fault. And I remember the barrage of literature that came out of the AGW lobby from 2010, saying how that their models in the period cira 2000-2009 were wrong because they failed to factor in the global dimming affect of all the particles released into the atmosphere by China. Yet it took the exposition of their models to send them back to the real data to figure that out. Why should we believe them? At the time I took the liberty of downloading all the climate data from the MET (UK weather monitoring body). I did this because I was skeptical about AGW. The reason being: when I was young, in the late 80s and 90s, it was really hot. So hot that in the summer I used to have to sleep outside of the bed-sheets with the windows open. Yet during the period from about 2000 it got colder, to the extent that I could sleep in my bed all summer with the windows closed. For that reason I was not surprised that the MET data shows a clear decline in temperate from around 1998/2000 to when I looked at the data in 2010. Now it appears the temperature is going up again, I have noticed all the talk about Chinese pollution driving temperatures down has disappeared and the AGW lobby are now back to saying there was no decline in the first decade of this millennium, and the earth is back on track to become as hot as Venus. This is not to say there are real environmental concerns, but I find AGW hard to believe since the AGW lobby has shifted its position from cooling to warming to cooling to WHATEVER WE SAY! over about 40 years; hoping nobody notices. And as mentioned, I find it hard to support something that is supported by the like of JP Morgan and the rest of the banks, DuPont Chemical, Exxon, Al Gore, Bill Gates, Monstanto, the EU, the UN, the Rockefellers and so on. ---- As for the actual topic of your post, I don't think you are going to get much of a response here as its a specialist topic. For all I know what you are saying is not true. To give any meaningful comment would require extensive research. But assuming everything you say adds up, keep at it for the rest of your life, then you can prove or disprove your assertion. I would argue that it probably won't end world hunger. The average age in some countries in Africa is 15; the average IQ in almost all sub-Saharan African countries falls into the classification of 'mentally retarded'. There is no sign that this will change in the coming century as the population is projected to balloon to 4 billion, with no sign of stopping due to the lack of economic, moral and intellectual development. Westerners have been going to Africa for decades thinking they can help. All they have been able to do is provide some stability to the food supply, supply basic health care and provide a modicum of development in a few cities. This has lead to a rapidly increasing population that is morally and intellectually almost completely unable to support its self, hence the cornucopia of 30+ year brutal dictators, colossal crime and murder rates, horrendous death traps called roads and governments many of which are propped up with foreign aid. If the west pulled its support from Africa it would quickly descend into a Malthusian death spiral of civil wars, ethnic cleansing, famine, disease etc. If there was a world war now between everyone but Africa, Africa would probably be the biggest casualty without being involved. Your focusing on one aspect of countries that struggle with famine, for which I am using Africa as the cosmos. However, as alluded to the problems of Africa are much more complex. Food is something they need to figure out for themselves. If you make people dependent, they will never be able to learn. It's also apparant that there are certain attributes that are required to become more civilised. In the 1800s, Russia became desperate to industrialise, as it was lagging woefully behind its European peers. However, there was a great deal of concern about the structural compromises to their fedual-style society that its upper class were worried about making in order to industralise. They did not want to embrace the cultural liberalisism of The West and its individualism, but rather stay as one rigid Byzantine system, while somehow outpacing Western industrialisation. So they sought to industralise without liberalising and it failed. The Communists tried again to industralise without liberalising and it failed. All they had was a jaunty, inefficient industrial base that required the wrecking and genocide of millions to create. There was practically nothing else in the country. Japan (-1945) did the same and failed. India tried and failed. Laos, Burma, China and so on tried and failed. There are a whole host of facets a society needs to understand and take on before they can develop. Countries in Asia have or are starting to realise this and you have or are seeing their populations level out as they develop morally, culturally, economically and intellectually. Giving Africa yet more help with its food (which it fails with woefully already) will not make any difference.

Why do you believe this? And what is that score based on? Looks only? Everything?

He dealt with it a bit better than El Cammy. Regarding economic plans, I'd like to see a Brexiteer challenge this with something along the following lines: I hope he gets some air-time before we leave

I neither agree or disagree; nor do I condemn people who get tattoos. It does not seem healthy to me, though I am open to persuasion. I am curious about the thread of thought you have started, I just don't understand the reasoning you are suggesting: personal, non-attention seeking. Unless I am mangling it, it seems you are suggesting people get tattoos for personal reasons and essentially do not care if anyone else sees the tattoo; it is either for their eyes only, or maybe the eyes of a small group or single person. I can somewhat understand someone getting a tattoo for their partner/spouse; though I am not sure why they would want to do that. But I fail to see what they might be thinking if they get a tattoo that is only meant to be for them, particularly if it is generally visible. You say, "I know that for a great many, perhaps a majority, who get tattoos ... [for] far more personal, non-attention seeking meaning." Yet if that was the case, I am not sure how you would have come across so many sentiments in relation to people's tattoos, or even their existence. From life I have learnt that people do not always express their true sentiments and may not even be aware of what they are. If I asked my friend why he got his tattoo I doubt 'attention seeking' would be his answer, though it definitely was, in combination with creating a certain image of himself. I think a somewhat similar area is cars. It seems apparent to me that some people buy high-value cars as a status-symbol for other people to see. Sure there will be other reasons, such as enjoying driving it, but I think influencing other people's perceptions will be a considerable factor. It is the same reason ancient rulers liked to adorn themselves with vestiges of wealth and majesty. They no doubt liked how it looked and got off on the feeling such accouterments gave them, but the perception of other would have been a big if not the biggest factor in such items. Could you outline a train of through that you think might be behind someone getting a non-attention-seeking tattoo? And if you happen to have a tattoo. How does it make you feel?

There has been a lot of hot air in the UK press regarding the possible ascension of Turkey to the EU, giving freedom of movement within the EU to cira 80 million Turks. One poll suggests that more than 12 million Turks would consider moving to Britain if Turkey joined the EU: http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/turkey-poll/RelocatingtoBritain_KONDA_Report.pdf The left-wing press has jumped on criticism on Turkish ascension as racist etc. insisting that all people are exchangeable. Here are some hard number that show that is not true. 5% illiterate - 4 million 10% of females illiterate Global Gender Gap Report: 10% lower score than anywhere in Europe; only one country in Africa is lower UN Gender Inequality Index rank: 72 World Press Freedom Index: 151 out of 180; worst in the EU is Greece at 89 Gazeteciler: 112 journalists murdered in 103 years World Bank: 400% more likely to be murdered in Turkey Eurostat: 272% more reported crime in Turkey Turkstat & ONS: unemployment 1.2 times higher Ease of Doing Business Index - UK: 5; Turkey: 55 Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index - UK: 10; Turkey: 79 Pew Research: 15% of Muslims in Turkey support suicide bombings Pew Research: 13% of Muslims in Turkey want to live under theocracy Pew Research: only 36% of Muslims in Turkey support separation of church and state Pew Research: over 1 million adult Muslim Turks believe those who leave Islam should be killed BBC: 37% of Muslim men in Turkey think adulterous women should be killed Pew Research: 65% of Muslims in Turkey believe a woman should always obey her husband Walk Free Foundation: 185,000 in slavery; 8,300 in the UK OECD: Second worst in income inequality UN: Seats held by women in national parliaments - 14.4% UNICEF: 2.5% married by the age of 15 UN: 40% of Turkish women are victims of domestic violence; Refugee Workers Association Woman’s Group says 80% Havocscope: more than twice as many prostitutes in Turkey per capita International Centre for Prison Studies: 33% more people in prison in Turkey per capita Global Peace Index: ranked 135/162 Global Terrorism Index: 27th worst UN Good Country Index: 79/125 Yale Environmental Performance Index: 99/180 Human Development Index: ranked 72 Univ. of Leic. Satisfaction with Life Index: ranked 133/178 Fraser Institute Index for criminal justice: worse than anywhere in Europe

Thanks. I guess I should have done a search first. There are interesting points there; and your own points are in the same generalist ball-park as my own. Your summary here was interesting: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45471-do-you-like-tattoos/?p=415974 I guess there are a lot of factors that can go into having a tattoo, I just don't think they are likely to be healthy. My main thinking in regards to women is that it does not seem like a good hallmark of a potential mother. As good as this may look: https://pp.vk.me/c613526/v613526865/b76a/QYwNCmvmANU.jpg It just says to me: Pleasure seeking Sleeping around Broken family Divorce Alimony At around age 17-18 one of my friends got a large tattoo on their back and revealed it dramatically to a group of about 5-6 people, asking what they thought about it. In his case I think the main drive was to be alternative and individualistic, which would fit in with a number of other 'spills' he has made. Spills being inadvertent disclosure of insecurities. The tattoo was also an abomination that looked like it had been done by a child. Several years later he went to another tattoo parlor in the same town to have it fixed. By this time the parlor he used had closed. When he went into the new parlor and showed them his tattoo, they said, "Oh my God. It's the guy!" This new parlor had inherited the photo catalouge of tattoos from the old parlor and his tattoo had been singled out as the worst of the lot, earning him the nickname, "The Guy". I don't see getting a tattoo to be an expression of your individual beeing. Its something anyone can do, and many do, but not many people can come up with an original idea, or even discuss one. If I have a personal philosophy/experience/notion etc. the best place for it is my head and speech. I fail to see why someone would feel the need to commit something like this to flesh.