• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ummester

  • Rank
    An Other lover

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,051 profile views
  1. It's entirely possible that the diversity is directly proportional to social decline. Not ethnic diversity, but cultural diversity. When in Rome, as they say. I had no idea what Stormfront was until you posted it. I'm not offended by the minor turn of phrase, I'm saying you are not in touch with how the vast majority feel. The vast majority don't waste their time on internet forums as we do, that, in a way, is a bit of a privilege. I can guarantee you, the majority feel a major disconnect between the establishment talking about inclusive PC values and them not having enough work. And that, as always, works both ways. BTW - my navel isn't even fully white
  2. If it means the same thing, why does the framing matter? I find the way you have framed it is too emotively pandering, which is exactly what I'm arguing against. You know that a broad majority of people will read 'The intent is to elevate understanding, empathy, and depth of thought for those willing and capable' and think what a condescending bleeding heart liberal, don't you?
  3. Did the Russians/Japanese actually retaliate? If Nixon did actually drop bombs, you can bet they would have actually retaliated. Actions will always speak louder than words - violent physical actions (short of those that annihilate the opposition) will always have a violent physical reaction. Words will not always have a physical reaction. I'm not saying words don't matter, of course they can matter. I'm saying they never, ever, matter as much as actions. And, for the record, I don't condone racism, especially acts of racism but nor do I condone forcing all even slightly offensive talk underground, because that will breed resentment. The Western populace has developed a very thin skin.
  4. Only if people take them the wrong way, like the Russians did. The argument is circular.
  5. Don't know enough about Cosby to comment - don't really care. If he gets convicted, he wont be president and none of this will matter then, will it? But, you will end up with a very divided country and a lot of people (perhaps more than half) that don't believe it. The riots you've seen so far will likely pale in comparison. I'd rather save my money.
  6. Ultimately, they are still just words - particularly dangerous ones, foolish even - but words still. Where is the line drawn with this nuclear threat? If Trump goes 'I'm gonna lunch Putin' And Putin goes 'Not if I launch first' And Trump goes 'You can't beat me' What's the point? Surely, the modern nuclear system is set up so that as soon as any launch is actually detected, a counterattack ensues. And surely, most people in the world, regardless of what they say or hear, wouldn't push the button knowing this? Threatening to push the button is not the same as pushing it.
  7. Banks screwed over your whole country and everyone seems fine with that If it is grievous enough, he needs to be convicted of sexual assault in a court of law. And succeeded. I don't get the point of this one at all? No one's life is full of only ups. So does everyone. The other comments are all things that I suspect most of the elite class do over and over and get away with it. What he seems guilty of to me, at this stage, is being an outspoken, crass, narcissistic, chauvinist, populous demagogue who has appealed to resentment of economic inequality, progressive shaming tactics and national pride. Does this make him a likeable person? Not at all. But then, I've met a few people who travel in elite circles and I've never liked any of them. He just seemed to manipulate the media and his opponents enough to win a race of popular appeal. As far as I'm can see the major issues he was elected on were promises of protectionism and isolationism - the rest seemed like a lot of BS to me, as most of the media that comes out of the US is now. I think to keep the majority of America happy he has to be seen delivering on those things and they will forget about the rest.
  8. Nationalism is the most normal response for a society to have to globalism, immigration and cultural decline. Trump is just feeding of a feeling that is already there and has risen and fallen countless times over the history of our species. I wasn't talking about the election, I was talking generally about how modern liberal ideology tries to shame others for what they say or think out of some smug righteousness. It's why the majority of people are turning against it, it pushed too hard.
  9. I'm not a pure conservative, so I don't know if you are referring to me directly with that. There is and always will be a difference between words and actions. The trouble with modern liberal ideology is that it's too concerned with words. Sticks and stones, as they say. Who cares what Trump says, it's what he does that matters. But all these people are having little emotional breakdowns about his words, which to me shows how mentally precious the West has become, not enlightened.
  10. And because you don't give a fuck, your mind is as closed as the racist. But it's your mind, not mine to save.
  11. That is very judgemental - I don't think any of us get to determine what is ultimately right or wrong when it comes to human ideology, as ideology is always subjective. Claiming any ideology is wrong, however righteous you may feel about your own, is a form of intellectual bigotry.
  12. Let's just say Trump is an orange Mussolini - the point is that the US, like Italy before it, voted for him because, like Italy before it, the country had deteriorated enough to nurture the emotional need for someone like him. All of us, globally, reap what we so. Re the protests being funded by Soros, I don't know if they are or not but here is an old 60 mins interview with the man - he put's Littlefinger's pragmatic amorality to shame. This is the mindset of the kind of people pulling the strings, not just Soros - probably Trump as well. It's either pick your poison or rise up against the lot of them - there are no good leaders out there, the ideal of liberalism never stood a chance against the true nature of humanity.
  13. Latter polling did - the media lead up was in favour Turnbull having an easy victory. Again though, similar to the American election, you could look at random one off polls in papers, asking people what they thought about Turnbull and see that they were reasonably opposed, months before our election. Turnbull's popularity was a farce. Australia's big problem, like the title of this thread, is that we don't really have choices. There isn't really any party representing what the mainstream think and want. I don't think the majority is that different to the US - there is a growing resentment of the establishment, globalisation and immigration. I didn't pick her - wasn't even paying attention to QLD - but (yes, in hindsight) I think it's obvious to see how she happened. Again, lack of real choice and no-one representing the mainstream - so they turn to her. Our last election was almost the same as our hung parliament in 2010 - a vote against the 2 major parties.
  14. If they have made it there, they are likely more self interested than interested in the species or the planet. Besides, if they were that useful or clever, we wouldn't have gotten where we have - the WEF would have adjusted behaviour years ago because it was obvious all of this was coming for the last 2 decades.
  15. That argument does make a lot sense given that the entire point of being conservative is to oppose change. To a conservative republican, Trump would have represented a change they could have felt compelled to oppose. I mean the GOP opposed Trump, why would a die hard conservative republican support him?