Over 50% Of Liberal, White Women Under 30 Have A Mental Health Issue.

kazz

Kingfisher
What came first the chicken or the egg? I think its genetics and upbringing. Activists are usually neurotic, over sensitive and thus can not think clearly. The other thing is they have big egos, like I am above you, im morally superior, educated and smarter than you ignorant conservative.

Take an average educated 'activist' type, she goes to Africa to volunteer, she touches down and grabs a few malnourished kids to take a selfie with, followed by pics of her building stuff using their degree in sustainability, This is all for their own excitement, ego and career progression.
 

Viktor Zeegelaar

Kingfisher
Orthodox
The only safety and security is in Christ. I've tried everything in the book to find happiness. But when you try to find happiness, you will never find it. You start from the core, or you'll never reach the destination. Moreover, happiness is a word introduced by the elite to distract us. Happiness is equalled with high emotions, emotional stimulation etc. What we are looking for is joy, peace. Happiness is an inversion (literally) of what the term actually means, for the way it is presented embodies chaos and not peace and joy. When I look now back before about a year ago or so when I surely started to deepen my understanding about Christianity and the depth of the inversion and lies of the material world, I realize I was sick almost beyond healing. Everything that is presented to us as happiness, as worthy, as something to be pursued is certainly going to lead to your spiritual destruction and fall. But we first have to fall before we can see the light, so I pray for all these people with mental issues due to their belief system that God can bring them loving suffering, for that is the only way to really get on the right path... we are all victims of modernity to some extend and it is accelerating for those who don't see the truth.
 

Rush87

Hummingbird
To

To be fair, hating the "capitalism" we have today, where corporations thrive through lobbying and fraud instead of actual business - and especially its Republican parody-of-itself version, where the supposedly "free" market and stock market are worshipped as unquestionable, godlike entities...

... Is something that should come naturally to every healthy human being.

Of course, liberals and antifas aren't motivated by something commonsense like that. Instead they want communism, which is, ironically, just a bigger dose of the current system.
We’re in the age of crony capitalism and useless excess.

It’s a reflection on the people aswell that companies such as Amazon thrive. A global culture of purchasing useless crap enmasse for a minor seratonin hit at the expense of the planets degradation.
 

Rush87

Hummingbird
The notion of 'planet degradation" is a misplaced and misguided liberal notion. It's not the oil or "fossil fuels", it's the GMOs, vaccines and chemicals used that are the problem, an issue that can easily be solved.
Planet degradation shouldn’t be a liberal notion. It’s a liberal policy by product. Over consumption is at the very heart of liberalism. It’s a population growth mentality (largely via the importation of migrants who would otherwise live modestly), to nations giving them a wage to consume in excess (whether that be food, gizmos or gadgets). This is harming the planet by creating a need for more. More land clearing for mass farming, mass communities, more pollutions from more factories, more depletion to feed more gluttony and so on. If this isn’t a definition of planet degradation I’m not sure what is.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
This planet can easily support 15-20 billion people, food production is not a problem. You're misinformed, the notion of food and resource scarcity has been pushed relentlessly for decades now.

We have reached Peak Farmland, meaning the cultivated land area is peaking and will be declining due to constant and large increases in agricultural productivity. And large-scale urban/vertical farming is set to grow massively near big urban centers. Here's the situation for corn, it's applicable to most other crops:

Area-of-corn-harvested-and-corn-production-United-States-1866-2010-indexes-1866-1.png

Area of corn harvested and corn production, United States 1866-2010 (indexes, 1866 = 1)



The same thing was said about peak oil, when in fact global oil reserves have never ceased to grow even as consumption has been growing.


Consumption culture fueled by spiritual emptiness is one thing, it's largely a social problem, not an ecological one.
 

Rush87

Hummingbird
This planet can easily support 15-20 billion people, food production is not a problem. You're misinformed, the notion of food and resource scarcity has been pushed relentlessly for decades now.

We have reached Peak Farmland, meaning the cultivated land area is peaking and will be declining due to constant and large increases in agricultural productivity. And large-scale urban/vertical farming is set to grow massively near big urban centers. Here's the situation for corn, it's applicable to most other crops:

Area-of-corn-harvested-and-corn-production-United-States-1866-2010-indexes-1866-1.png

Area of corn harvested and corn production, United States 1866-2010 (indexes, 1866 = 1)



The same thing was said about peak oil, when in fact global oil reserves have never ceased to grow even as consumption has been growing.


Consumption culture fueled by spiritual emptiness is one thing, it's largely a social problem, not an ecological one.
I don’t necessarily think spiritual emptiness is the only issue at play here.

I’m not going to touch on resources such as oil or food, as that’s not the argument I’m making. I agree that resource depletion in that sense is a false narrative, but by depletion I’m referring to our environment which is being destroyed. Perhaps, that’s the word I should have originally used.

Our capacity to sustain more (people) doesn’t mean that we should have more people.

The reason this is an ecological issue, is that ‘excess stuff’, irrespective of the planets capacity to sustain it, is in and of itself, excess stuff.

The unnecessary results of this ‘stuff’ is the degradation of an ecosystem whether that be the small block of land cleared for the factory to an entire forest to house 10,000 fresh off the boat refugees now getting a $500 a week government handout which also affords them the ability to contribute to any number of detrimental industries whom only exist purely to pump out more needless ‘stuff’ at the expense of the natural environment.

With that said, consumption culture surely is an ecological problem. Selling a million fidget spinners (for example) on Ali baba at the expense of any ecological damage is surely a trend in the wrong direction, and that’s where we’re at. Millions of products created in millions of units can’t possibly be harmless.
 
Last edited:

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Migration has no impact on the environment, you don't have to clear forests for that. It has of course a whole other set of problems, social, cultural and economic in nature, but the environment is not an issue.

The forested area in N. America and Europe has been constantly growing the last few decades, In countries like France, you have to go back over 1000 years in order to have the same amount of forested area because back then agricultural productivity was lower and wood was the main source of energy.
 

Bitter End

Woodpecker
Orthodox
To

To be fair, hating the "capitalism" we have today, where corporations thrive through lobbying and fraud instead of actual business - and especially its Republican parody-of-itself version, where the supposedly "free" market and stock market are worshipped as unquestionable, godlike entities...

... Is something that should come naturally to every healthy human being.

Of course, liberals and antifas aren't motivated by something commonsense like that. Instead they want communism, which is, ironically, just a bigger dose of the current system.
I believe it is one of these definition / semantics arguments. I remember arguing with a French guy and he even got offended that I used "welfare state". He thought it was a derogatory term. :D Needless to say, coming from a much wealthier background than me, he was making the "eat the rich" argument.

So we live in a "corporatism". While the whole banking cartel started working its magic in the last centuries, people have been trading ever since humanity began in one way or another. I think the cleanest definition of capitalism should thus be "property rights", then you can safely differentiate it from communism without going crazy (((Milton Friedman))) neoliberal style with its exploitation and outsourcing.

As for the environmental argument, agreed 100%. Plus most people have good intentions towards nature. The left is using emotion and often fake narratives to punish business oriented people for stuff that happens in places like India and China. The wealthier the nations the more they care about ecosystems.
 

Rush87

Hummingbird
Migration has no impact on the environment, you don't have to clear forests for that. It has of course a whole other set of problems, social, cultural and economic in nature, but the environment is not an issue.

The forested area in N. America and Europe has been constantly growing the last few decades, In countries like France, you have to go back over 1000 years in order to have the same amount of forested area because back then agricultural productivity was lower and wood was the main source of energy.
Forests are growing. This is true. It’s a big reason for the bush fires in Australia. “Sustainability” disrupting the natural landscape, leading to increased ‘fuel’ and overall greater damage.

That said, migration absolutely has an effect on the environment. If we migrate anyone from a modest society (Say parts of Africa for instance) and place them in a western city. They will directly have a net negative effect on nature simply because they can now afford to fund any number of otherwise pointless businesses.

In my home state alone, the government are planning to raise dam walls to dry up countless creeks, rivers and destroy a huge bush ecosystem I grew up in, simply to build on flood plains to create housing for the immigrant population that’s grown by close to 10 million in my life span alone.

Perhaps ‘no visible impact’ on a macro scale but it is changing as a result of increased consumption and I wouldn’t imagine anyone would conclude that our desire for cheap ‘stuff’ is either necessary or without impact on the environment.
 
Don't let the soy bois off the hook. Depression 2-4 times as bad as conservative men.

conservative_liberal_women_mental_health_graph.jpeg

I am not surprised by this because liberals and SJWs are lacking in testosterone.

Roosh has an article on this subject:


But this only applies to the liberals and SJWs.

Americans still have the highest testosterone levels on average at 679ng/dl, but if only gun-slinging conservatives are taken into consideration, this probably increases to 1075ng/dl when calculating the testosterone levels of liberals and multiplying it to 3.8 which is the factor that indicates how lower the rates of depression are for conservatives.

The testosterone levels of the American liberals are just as low as the testosterone levels of men from other countries, with the exception of the UK, because in other countries de-institutionalization, which is the closing down of mental hospitals and the tremendous reduction in the practice of involuntary commitment, which is now limited only to people declared not guilty by reason of insanity after being tried for a crime in the USA and UK, has not yet been accomplished and this is a violation of freedom of speech. And in other countries there is no right to bear arms which further emasculates men.

I have derived a mathematical expression to compute the average testosterone levels of conservatives:

First assign a variable x to the unknown levels of testosterone that liberals have and add it to the testosterone levels of conservatives which is 3.8 times the levels of liberals so the conservatives are assigned the value 3.8x which is 3.8 times the variable x. Then divide the total by 2 and equate it to the average of 679ng/dl.

(x+3.8x)/2=679

Then multiply 2 to both sides of the equation to cancel out the 2. This increases the value of 679ng/dl to 1358ng/dl while isolating the x variables which are added to yield the result of 4.8x.

4.8x=1358

Then divide both sides by 4.8 to isolate x. This decreases the value of 1358ng/dl to 282.9167ng/dl, and with x isolated, 282.9167ng/dl is the average testosterone level of liberals.

x=1358/4.8 -> x = 282.9167ng/dl

Then multiply 282.9167ng/dl to 3.8 which is the factor that indicates how much higher the testosterone levels of conservatives are on average compared to liberals and the end result is an average of 1075ng/dl.

(282.9167)(3.8) = 1075ng/dl (average testosterone levels of conservatives)
 
Last edited:
Top