Nationalism is a product of modernism. It is not the way that people have thought for the majority of human history. It is one of the ideas that came out of the Jacobin revolution in France.
This is important because the ruling class which is globalist today wasn't even nationalist in the past. The ruling classes existed through nobilitys loyalty to the monarch, and the nobility lived in the same regions that they ruled. Rather than being highly concerned about universal loyalty to the empire, individuals were loyal to their local Lord, who in turn had relationships with other Lords and the monarch they pledge allegiance to. Such a thing was nothing like the modern nation state. If you were the head of a principality for example, you and your people would identify yourselves through your principality.
The early United States were similar to an extent. States existed, under the United States. Someone from Texas would identify as a Texan before they identified as an American.
The reason this matters is it shows the difference between the ruling class of the past who may have been disconnected from the people that they ruled in some ways but still lived and worked in are those regions and identify themselves with those regions, and the current globalist ruling class who thinks that any empathy for the people that they directly rule is inherently immoral.
This is important because the ruling class which is globalist today wasn't even nationalist in the past. The ruling classes existed through nobilitys loyalty to the monarch, and the nobility lived in the same regions that they ruled. Rather than being highly concerned about universal loyalty to the empire, individuals were loyal to their local Lord, who in turn had relationships with other Lords and the monarch they pledge allegiance to. Such a thing was nothing like the modern nation state. If you were the head of a principality for example, you and your people would identify yourselves through your principality.
The early United States were similar to an extent. States existed, under the United States. Someone from Texas would identify as a Texan before they identified as an American.
The reason this matters is it shows the difference between the ruling class of the past who may have been disconnected from the people that they ruled in some ways but still lived and worked in are those regions and identify themselves with those regions, and the current globalist ruling class who thinks that any empathy for the people that they directly rule is inherently immoral.
I mean, it is literally an "energy drink", composed of nearly nothing but sucrose...
"In defence, Daniel Wood told the court he'd been battling with his gender identity for some time"
I hate to be the one to point this out, but neither male nor female gender identity, but especially not female gender identity, suggests that you should expose your genitals to little children. Not once have I been out with my wife, and hear her go "oh no! It's my feminine urge to show people my genitals in public!" -- not even once!
In fact, most men will admit -- if only in private -- that it's actually quite difficult to convince most women to show you their genitals.
I hate to be the one to point this out, but neither male nor female gender identity, but especially not female gender identity, suggests that you should expose your genitals to little children. Not once have I been out with my wife, and hear her go "oh no! It's my feminine urge to show people my genitals in public!" -- not even once!
In fact, most men will admit -- if only in private -- that it's actually quite difficult to convince most women to show you their genitals.
Wouldn't be a problem if people could be financially responsible. A 50-year mortgage could end up being something you take out, then you pay minimum payments for a few years while getting established, then you pay it down in a highly accelerated manner once you're solid.
Instead, people go "Oh, I can take out a 50 year mortgage, so instead of borrowing 1 million, I can borrow 1.3 million! it's only a 6000/mo payment!" and then they just run out the clock on a 50 year mortgage. End result is just higher prices period.
Take out a 50 year mortgage at a low rate then pay it off in 15-20, and it's just cheap insurance.
The really great thing for household affordability would be to limit mortgages to the golden ratio of 3 years wages. But nobody would allow that.
Instead, people go "Oh, I can take out a 50 year mortgage, so instead of borrowing 1 million, I can borrow 1.3 million! it's only a 6000/mo payment!" and then they just run out the clock on a 50 year mortgage. End result is just higher prices period.
Take out a 50 year mortgage at a low rate then pay it off in 15-20, and it's just cheap insurance.
The really great thing for household affordability would be to limit mortgages to the golden ratio of 3 years wages. But nobody would allow that.
Progs electing a goldman sachs investment banker is the most hilarious self-own I've ever seen. They don't believe a thing that comes out of their mouths either, obviously.
Whatever do you mean? The boomers are so nice and respectful, always thinking of the future!
I don't think we talk enough about the potential unforseen consequences of taking drugs that fundamentally rewire the reward centers of our brains.
Great, it makes you skinny. What other decisions are different as a result of fiddling with brain chemistry? Could it make people less ambitious? Could it make people more accepting of bad actions by the rich and powerful? Could it make you choose more subtle decisions differently? If you take something that fundamentally changes something like that about you, are you really the same person? What if you go on to make a bunch of decisions that you would agree with on such drugs that you agree with at the time and aren't huge, but over the course of years you become someone who is alien to yourself when you're not on those drugs?
Great, it makes you skinny. What other decisions are different as a result of fiddling with brain chemistry? Could it make people less ambitious? Could it make people more accepting of bad actions by the rich and powerful? Could it make you choose more subtle decisions differently? If you take something that fundamentally changes something like that about you, are you really the same person? What if you go on to make a bunch of decisions that you would agree with on such drugs that you agree with at the time and aren't huge, but over the course of years you become someone who is alien to yourself when you're not on those drugs?
Freedom toons successfully funded their new animated series. That's nice to see. The more we support media from people who don't hate us, the better off the future will look.
In college, I called it the HUMAN DAY STAR because my classes were in the lab in the basement and the days were long, so for a good chunk of the year I didn't see the sun.
People who want to change the world need to change themselves first. How can they think they can change everyone if they can't even change themselves?
Any NGO that primarily gets its funding from governments should be renamed GO and be treated as such.
I was looking in the mirror going "Oh shit, really losing my hair now, it's over bros" then I looked over at my wedding picture and realized that's just always been my hairline.
For now, at least.
For now, at least.
The idea that anyone invented shaving the sides of your head is kinda silly when you think about it.
I know the reference, and it's annoying how accurate it is.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Funny that such people often lie flagrantly, yet they don't allow themselves to be punished in the way they want others punished.