[Brian Shima]

(06-10-2015 03:53 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

People were suffering horribly under the Aztecs before Cortez came. Everything isn't whitey's fault.

LOL I'm wondering if you're being serious. You really don't like Latinos huh? I have seen your other posts and seem to just have a grudge against.

[RawGod]

(06-13-2015 11:52 PM)Brian Shima Wrote:  

(06-10-2015 03:53 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

People were suffering horribly under the Aztecs before Cortez came. Everything isn't whitey's fault.

LOL I'm wondering if you're being serious. You really don't like Latinos huh? I have seen your other posts and seem to just have a grudge against.

Seems KorbenDallas has a pretty reasonable point. The Aztecs were a brutal people whose culture revolved around human sacrifice, thousands upon thousands every year. They were a small conquering tribe who gained an empire through their warlike nature. Every adult male trained to fight, and only gained full warrior status after they had captured someone from another tribe to be sacrificed. They had special holidays specifically for drowning women. They built mountains of skulls. They're not even representative of the Central American people of the time, let alone "Latinos" today.

Although the Spanish were not always humane, I would argue the Aztecs were worse.

[rudebwoy]

The Spanish colonized almost a whole continent under brute force, imperialism and wiping out native people. Read about the native people Columbus and his crew made extinct through diseases and straight out butchery. To say the Aztecs were worse, is simply incorrect.

As for the gay agenda, it is about population control. Samseau seems to get it, like he said another war will correct a lot of the problems in society today.

A girl asked me why I don't support gays, I asked her what if more men were gay and how would it affect her? She went silent after that....

[Samseau]

Guys - if you want to talk about whether or not colonization was justified in various parts of the world go make a new thread. No offense to anyone here; but I do believe it is an interesting topic worthy of a good discussion. Still you should ask Roosh first to make sure it's not race trolling to create such a thread.

[rudebwoy]

It doesn't need another thread, the mistake has been corrected.

The gay movement also goes hand in hand with the feminist movement to attack Heterosexual males and the family unit. We are seeing things like Elton John and his partner, posing with two little boys and calling themselves a "family". My obvious question is where did the boys come from, since it is obvious two males cannot produce an offspring.
Another example is Ellen DeGeneres (degenerate) who has her own talk show and openly parades her sexuality in front of us. She was even a model for some cosmetic company, which simply blows my mind.
Michael Sam, the first open gay football player. He hasn't gone away, now he has surfaced in the Canadian Football League and of course getting a lot of media exposure.

[UncleSam]

(06-14-2015 11:11 AM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

It doesn't need another thread, the mistake has been corrected.

The gay movement also goes hand in hand with the feminist movement to attack Heterosexual males and the family unit. We are seeing things like Elton John and his partner, posing with two little boys and calling themselves a "family". My obvious question is where did the boys come from, since it is obvious two males cannot produce an offspring.
Another example is Ellen DeGeneres (degenerate) who has her own talk show and openly parades her sexuality in front of us. She was even a model for some cosmetic company, which simply blows my mind.
Michael Sam, the first open gay football player. He hasn't gone away, now he has surfaced in the Canadian Football League and of course getting a lot of media exposure.

Reminds me of that "Miss USA California" incident years ago where they invited that gay attention whore Perez Hilton to the Miss USA pageant ... AS A JUDGE !!!!!

This guy is your typical radical gay activist bully who thinks tolerance is only reserved for minorities like him. Here is the video where he asks her about her opinion on gay marriage. She gives an honest, polite and reasonable answer. He calls her "a dumb bitch" days later.

[Phoenix]

(06-13-2015 11:11 PM)Mr. Wolf Wrote:  

I usually love reading this forum, but I am surprised by the anti-gay sentiment here. People are born gay; it's not a choice. My brother didn't "choose" to dress up as Wonder Woman at 4 years old, or to clomp around the house in our mother's shoes and clothes. It's just something he felt he needed to do.

Lol why exactly are you "surprised" by anti-gay sentiment here?
Putting aside the lols of your brother 'not choosing' to wear a Wonder Woman costume (maybe the costume chose him?), the lack of choice of being gay doesn't mean we should tolerate it.

There are a lot of other traits which people can't chose. Retardation, psychosis, ugliness etc. That doesn't mean we aren't justified in holding those people in poor regard, and keeping our distance from them.

Gays just happen to be the worst in this regard - they are otherwise fully functional people, and their effective demands that society accommodate their pathology is resulting in severe social damage. Were the gays 'underground', we'd not care as much and would be happy to ignore them.

[rudebwoy]

I have nothing against gays, I just hate the media ramming it down my throat. Hence, I hardly turn on my TV unless it is for a sports event.

They are trying to pass it off as normal behaviour, which it isn't. In my country, they want to teach it to young children. I don't have to tell you why they are doing this?

[storm]

(06-14-2015 07:02 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Putting aside the lols of your brother 'not choosing' to wear a Wonder Woman costume (maybe the costume chose him?)

[amity]

The latest stunt by the gay movement is likening their cause to 'civil rights'.
This is gaining major traction now thanks to social media and the MSM.
I saw it first hand in Ireland in the last few months when the SJWs started talking about Rosa Parks and civil rights and aligning it with same sex marriage.
The idiocy of this claim beggars belief, yet this is the new narrative, rapidly on it's way to being established and accepted by the mainstream.

[KorbenDallas]

I just went to a Latino wedding. Were not close, but he's an immigrant who got married to a immigrant, very nice young couple who work hard.

I don't dislike Latino's. I'm just against immigration and pro-european.

Latino's like Midwest who are pro-immigration are never called racist, or whatever, because its ridiculous on its face. Being pro your ancestors and policies that would benefit you, your family, and people that look like you doesn't mean you hate everyone else.

The fact that you see it that way speaks to your conditioning. This is an anonymous forum, but I talk the same way in real life and I get along great with pretty much everybody, but in particular, immigrants, because I have more in common with their culture of hard work and respect towards men than I do with mainstream American TV culture.


Also, I didn't say, I said people were suffering before he came, which is true. Cortez wasn't a savior, but he only won because a huge army of natives joined him in his fight against the Aztec emperor. Cortez was an imperialist and the Aztecs were imperialists. Even on this forum there is an incredible lack of reading comprehension.

I'm going to post a thread on reading comprehension soon.



Once again, the truth isn't racist, and everything isn't whitey's fault.

[RawGod]

(06-14-2015 12:27 AM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

The Spanish colonized almost a whole continent under brute force, imperialism and wiping out native people. Read about the native people Columbus and his crew made extinct through diseases and straight out butchery. To say the Aztecs were worse, is simply incorrect.

Actually, you are the one who is "simply incorrect". Your bias shows through blaming Columbus for the diseases they brought. They didn't even know they were bringing these diseases. Yes, the conquest was enabled by the reduced numbers of American peoples, but that is hardly the Spanish people's fault.

As for the Aztecs, they were probably the most brutal people in recorded history. The Spanish were middling, I would say. Certainly they could be cruel. But the Aztecs were utterly barbarous. You need to do some study before so blithely repeating absurdities.

The truth is, the number of people killed in the whole Spanish Inquisition over a couple of centuries - which has become a byword for European cruelty - is less than the number whose hearts were ripped out through their living chests on a single major Aztec festival day. The culture of these people was sick, through and through.

As it's off-topic, I will say no more. But I think we've had enough hippy lies about "Cortez the Killer" with no perspective.

[Phoenix]

No, you did say more. The thread had resumed the original topic and you two had to go ahead and push it back to your Cortez stuff.

[dtpilgrim]

I still don't know where I should stand on the gay issue. The Roosh V forum, which in my estimation tends to be right about many topics, is one of the few places I see a real discussion about the negative side of homosexuality. Since I respect and agree with most of the Neomasculine ideology, I need to move towards a conclusive opinion on homosexuality.

I'll try to share my conundrum in the form an example: Neil Patrick Harris.

NPH is a widely popular and widely loved actor. He was loved as a child actor in Doogie Howser, he played a fun role in a few of the Harold & Kumar films and he became immensely popular in his role as Barney Stinson on How I Met Your Mother. Aside from that he's also a gifted musical star (won a Tony), and as a result of his alround popularity he has hosted the Tony Awards, the Emmy's and even the Academy Awards.

He's also gay.

But what's even weider is the way he became a father with this partner, David Burtka. They used a surrogate mother, where one egg was fertilized with NPH seed, while the other egg was fertilized with Burtka seed. They then placed both fertilized eggs in the womb of a fertilized mother, who proceeded to birth both children.

Now on the one hand, I would like to buy into the media's narrative that's telling me NPH is an amazing human being. I would like to believe that homosexuals deserve to have love in their life as well. From what I've been brought up to believe, it's not a choice, and it would be tragic to deny human beings their love, because everybody deserves love. Something along those lines is what I've been taught to believe.

But man, the way two homosexual Dad's become mutual fathers just seems kind of weird, kind of inhuman and just kind of wrong. (In the big picture also woefully inefficient, as it would now take two men + one woman to create a family, and said woman would not be available for heterosexual partnership during pregnancy). Intuitively I also just don't really feel that two dads would be better than a mother and father, even if one of the dudes is more feminine than the other. It seems wrong.

Still I don't know where to stand on the issue. My liberal Dutch upbringing tells me everyone should just be able to do what they want and be free as long as it doesn't hurt others, and people should be free to love who they want. On the other hand, some stuff just really doesn't match up.

Hoping to eventually develop a conclusive opinion either way.

[Samseau]

^ In twenty years from now when NPH's son "is magically gay" and then reveals to the world he was used as a sex toy growing up, what will you feel about NPH?

The fact is, most people are lied hardcore about fags; if people knew the truth no one would support it. The fact that no research is allowed on the subject of homosexulity without it being banned nowadays is all you need to know, now isn't it? If there's nothing wrong with homos then why can't people study their behavior?

[CactusCat589]

What can be done about this? The relentless advance of LGBT is a huge component of the social decay that's been rotting away the United States (and wherever else in the world this cancer has taken root, like Brazil). Seeking to understand this is one thing. All hierarchical power structures are top-down in nature, and people at the top of the Left are driven to break down the nuclear family unit to create a less individualistic, more uniform, more controllable citizen. They have been patiently working to destroy fatherhood and marriage by any and all means at their disposal, for decades. They want to bring back the times when they can have child sex slaves, in the open. Doing it in secret isn't enough because that's how arrogant and elitist they are.

The bottom line is we have an idea of how this came about.

The question of the day - of the era - is "What can be done about this?"

Passively waiting for Newton's third law to pressurize and build up is really bad. The left will overreach. They'll miscalculate and assume they can go ahead and start raping little boys in the open, but they will do so much damage in the meantime.

I think most of us mostly voice our opinions on the Internet, on forums like this. No connection to our work or lives. I think (selectively) speaking up in real life is one way of contributing to the pushback.

I did this on the subject of marriage. For example, the University of Michigan study on the likelihood of divorce being correlated with how loose a woman is. I would bring it up when my pals were discussing girls and their hopes for finding the 'right one'. "It's right there, black and white. Clear as day. So when you meet that perfect girl who's never seen without a guy, in the back of your head, remember..."

1 regular guy who is persuasive has a lot of influence over his social circle(s).

The subject could come up naturally. Just talking about cultural topics, someone could even say "And we've been making such progress on gay marriage."

Then you're ready to go:

"Honestly, I used to be really supportive of gay marriage and LGBT rights in general. I donated to campaigns and volunteered my time when I was in college. But now it seems they're involving little boys, they're aggressively trying to dominate religious people running their own businesses (bakeries, wedding cakes). And all dissent is being crushed. There's a PubMed article published in 2001. 45% of homosexuals said they were raped in their youth. And all research into this has stopped since then. They are trying to create initiatives so that gay couples have priority over straights when adopting children of the same gender. It's really disturbing."

Instead of appearing hateful, you are justifiably fearful and skeptical. You sidestep all talk about the gay agenda that may trigger a response. You can lie about having supporting gays in the past to appear more sympathetic. You portray yourself as a "liberal having second thoughts" rather than a conservative so psychologically they haven't mentally shut you out, but are listening. This is how I always frame my views on this kind of stuff.

Of course, do this outside work and when you're certain you're not being recorded. Just plant the seed. If you can influence 10 people a year that you meet and befriend, it makes sense to do it.

[dtpilgrim]

One point of critique I do feel comfortable sharing is that while their might be an Us vs Homosexuals (ingroup vs outgroup) discrimination going on, homosexuals seem to be doing the exact same thing (homosexuals vs outsiders).

I've met a few extremely arrogant homosexual men who had nothing but disdain for outsiders, and felt they were somehow above the "plebian" heterosexual males. On the other hand I've met more than enough homosexual men who seemed cool and grounded.

As for lesbians, I've noticed that some enjoy pretending to be heterosexual to string men along, letting men waste time and attention on them while they'll cynically be playing games with the "stupid plebian" heterosexual males. On the other hand I've also met lesbians who seemed cool and grounded and didn't play these kind of games.

There definitely are homosexuals (both male and female) who act as if they are of a higher class and who strongly disdain heterosexuality. However this just seems to be a classical case of ingroup vs outgroup behavior. In the abstract it's the same as israel vs palestine, black minority vs evil white majority or city A's football team vs neighbouring city's football team B.

I don't know if it's about the homosexuality per se, but it seems more to be a case of what happens when you give a minority power: they'll always want more. You relieve homosexuals from prosecution: and they want representation on tv and media. You give them this: they want marriage. You give them marriage: they want parenting rights. You give them more rights: they want books/films/music about their minority group. You give them this: they want a stronger presence in history, in education and cultural position. You give them this: they want a president. You give them this: they want a separate aristocratic class for their minority. You give them this: they want majority status. You give them this: now white heterosexuals are the new minority and the game begins all over again.

What I see with the homosexual narrative is the same as for women, the same as for black americans, the same as for native american minorities, the same as the SJW's, et cetera. It's the story of the minority and the laws of power. You give a group power and they will always want more and more and more and more. That's how power works; there's never enough.

Presidencies, presence in history & education & culture, roles in tv-shows or movies, aristocratic rights, et cetera; these are all scarce resources and therefore there will always be conflict about who gets the juicy goods.

I'm still not sure there's something inherently wrong with homosexuality itself, but I do see how this seems to be the story of the minority that always wants MORE.

[Phoenix]

(06-17-2015 07:15 PM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  

The question of the day - of the era - is "What can be done about this?"

Article 5 convention to devolve power to the states.

[Samseau]

(06-13-2015 11:11 PM)Mr. Wolf Wrote:  

I usually love reading this forum, but I am surprised by the anti-gay sentiment here. People are born gay; it's not a choice. My brother didn't "choose" to dress up as Wonder Woman at 4 years old, or to clomp around the house in our mother's shoes and clothes. It's just something he felt he needed to do. The fact that I couldn't believe he was doing that shit, and that it upset dad to no end is just a further testament that being gay is not a "choice" and it is not an easy burden to bear.

What you're seeing is a tipping-point function. Once someone has a beloved family member who is openly gay, they see things differently. See Dick Cheney. His putting Wolf Blitzer in his god-damned place after bringing up Cheney's gay daughter for no good reason is classic frame-control:

https://youtu.be/LL-q5vvaDmw

I can't believe I missed this post.

I used to think being gay was genetic. But now I know that is false. The research on genetic twin studies puts the "gay gene" theory to rest:

http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647

Quote:

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.



Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.

Full research here:

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch3.pdf

[Parlay44]

People desperately want to believe that gays are born that way. It's easier than trying to accept that they were abused or worse yet ...deviant perverts.

On a side note do you guys believe a woman can turn a guy gay? As in a bad relationship experience.

[spokepoker]

No, there's been plenty of relationship horror stories already shared here, and the boner likes what it already likes.
Women can turn young boys gay, but after a libido has been set, it stays with preference and grows from there.

[Phoenix]

(06-17-2015 04:43 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The fact is, most people are lied hardcore about fags; if people knew the truth no one would support it. The fact that no research is allowed on the subject of homosexulity without it being banned nowadays is all you need to know, now isn't it? If there's nothing wrong with homos then why can't people study their behavior?

This is very true. One way I like to troll the complacent believes of the 'gay is normal' propaganda is simply to quote facts and logic. My favourite with a girl is:
"No gays are not normal. Here's a thought experiment. If 10 guys go up to a girl and say 'hey, you're cute, want to come home with me?', you can expect her to walk off. If 10 girls go up to a guy and say the same thing, he may very well have sex with each of those girls. So women are the primary limiting factor in how many sexual partners the average man has. Now imagine there are only men, and they are sexually attracted to each other instead..."
I then quote studies on average partners, and if you want to make them more uncomfortable you can quote disease rates too. As most women (well maybe not in America) consider promiscuity of that level to be disgusting, they are forced to recoil and reconsider their position instead of unquestionably joining the bandwagon on their social media.

[TomArrow]

(06-13-2015 11:11 PM)Mr. Wolf Wrote:  

I usually love reading this forum, but I am surprised by the anti-gay sentiment here. People are born gay; it's not a choice. My brother didn't "choose" to dress up as Wonder Woman at 4 years old, or to clomp around the house in our mother's shoes and clothes. It's just something he felt he needed to do. The fact that I couldn't believe he was doing that shit, and that it upset dad to no end is just a further testament that being gay is not a "choice" and it is not an easy burden to bear.

What you're seeing is a tipping-point function. Once someone has a beloved family member who is openly gay, they see things differently. See Dick Cheney. His putting Wolf Blitzer in his god-damned place after bringing up Cheney's gay daughter for no good reason is classic frame-control:

https://youtu.be/LL-q5vvaDmw

that's a rather emotional argument. aside from you making general conclusions from personal experience, it doesn't really matter if it is a choice. society doesn't become strong by supporting deviant behavior. should society support fatties if it turns out they don't have a choice? what does choice mean anyway? from a deterministic standpoint, nobody has a choice.

people argue that fat shaming is about helping the fat people. let's be honest, it's not. it's an emotional and even rational rejection of something that is undesirable. those who don't fit in are left with the choice to adapt or live alone / with like-minded people - which is not necessarily a bad thing, it's simply what one can afford with the resources nature provided one with.

great example, that video. the one who asked him the question is clearly a wuss, babbling about how he congratulates him and likes his children. how pitiful. he should have stood behind his question and moved on. cheney has a solid frame indeed, very nice. although i don't accept somebody's love for an individual as a rational justification for a trait of that person, i respect this guy's fortitude, bravo. no need to justify it at all. this is a great example that makes me wonder about the entitlement that people seem to have to know something about the life of a celebrity. it's really weird, actually. make them your god, then demand that they entertain you.

[TomArrow]

(06-17-2015 12:17 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

Even on this forum there is an incredible lack of reading comprehension.

I'm going to post a thread on reading comprehension soon.

please do, i am very interested in that.

[TomArrow]

(06-17-2015 09:44 AM)dtpilgrim Wrote:  

I would like to believe that homosexuals deserve to have love in their life as well.

From what I've been brought up to believe, it's not a choice, and it would be tragic to deny human beings their love, because everybody deserves love.

Hoping to eventually develop a conclusive opinion either way.

use this chance to accept that upbringing is not an excuse to cling to wrong ideas.

everybody deserves love? who will administer it? the welfare state?

it is tragic? that sounds indeed like something my stupid fucking mother would say, condemning those "without love" (which of course for her means those who aren't "loved") to tragedy and self-pity and forever yearning for that illusory affirmation called "love". it's just a control instrument for you, the love-craving slave.

i don't even want to tell you that you are wrong. but start judging the world through your own eyes. your parents meant well and it's disappointing to see that they make mistakes (or not), but the key lesson is to start to really think for yourself and not need anybody's agreement. look at reality, break free from anybody else's judgment and judge for yourself.