Hi everyone, just a simple question here.
American women are very arrogant and this is similar to feminism. The Amish community are immune from this and their women seem fine but also live in America. If there was a cause, like something toxic in the environment it may be discovered by comparison to the Amish as they avoid a connection to the world. One way to confirm this is on the timing. So...
When did American females become arrogant?
There may have been a time when they were not, so I need to know when that was. Perhaps something was introduced that the Amish rejected and it may have had a bad effect in much the same way as adding lead to petrol. So far education, genetics and language have been ruled out and it's specific to America.
Just a quick update. There is a strong link between feminism and New York / New York City. New York has a reputation for arrogance. The key feature here is airborne pollution and there is some science to back that up.
The Amish run farms in the countryside and therefore don't suffer from such air pollution.
I would suggest that arrogance and feminism are linked to air pollution much like lead in petrol. I haven't discovered which substance it is and there are a range of possibilities. It's not clear why the UK suffers less. The timing may give some indication.
Mobile phones appeared in America around 1983. Prior to that regular phones would have been available.
Mobiles were available in the UK around the same time, so this doesn't account for the increased arrogance of American females vs UK females.
In reply to this post by ShaunS
"When did American females become arrogant? "
well, we know WHEN. Why: democracy, decay of values in culture, the foolish idea of EQUALITY replacing correct hierarchies, logic, and the reality of superiority and inferiority in humans.
Feminism and equality are the same thing...and equality does not, and cannot exist. Democracy and feminism are pretense of equality...it cannot work because noone is EQUAL to anything or anyone - we are all different, and inferior or inferior in different aspects and overall. Confusion is because there isn't a practical way to MEASURE superiority in different areas, and then of course there's human vanity, delusion, narcissism, lack of honesty and courage to confess you're inferior in that or that.
people must learn to take for granted they suck and simply accept it - until then, they're nothing.
Most people of value think they suck, most idiots don't and that is the problem with the world, as Russell said.
Democracy makes people of no value think they don't suck and they're equal to superior people. MESS.
Feminism is all about the self esteem of women, of course at the expense of anything else - reality, standards, justice, and the health of men don't matter to them. All that matters is feeding their narcissism. It is a result of the narcissistic epidemic - anyone who denies it's there knows nothing of human psychology - that in turn is the result of democracy and distributed wealth.
people most not be happy nor have self esteem - this world must be DISTRUBUTED PAIN. It's supposed to be this, not this delusional wonderland of self esteem it is now (America is a particularly disturbing example of this, resembling both Idiocracy and the toyland of Pinocchio).
Most people should have no right to "feelgoodness" and should feel bad about themselves, that is the way it should be. They're worthless and they should know it, there's nothing good in them being happy about themselves.
Happiness shouldn't be a right. Pain should be mandatory. The world must not be a pretty experience. It should be hell for idiots and relative heaven for the intelligent. Right now it's the exact opposite.
Democracy is the worst possible political system and a quick Google search shows I'm not the first to know this. Just the first article in "list" form you find:
It's actually not a bad bullet list at all. It makes perfect sense and says the truth. Democracy is bad and it's not an OPINION: it's a mathematical fact and only a person of no logic denies it.
Dictatorship of a wise man or a limited team of wise men is the only RIGHT way. But of course he has to be wise. And there's no way to measure or prove wisdom and have all people agree on it. The wise dictator must take his power by force. It has to be this way, I await the day this will happen. Fuck democracy.
Also, overpopulation. There must be no more than 1 billion people on the planet as stated in the "georgia guidestones".
Fuck happiness, fuck the masses, fuck equality, fuck democracy. May most people live in the despair of their inadequacy, and the few good ones laugh at them. This is the world I want and I fight for for how much it's possible. A world of distrubuted, ensured, legal unhappiness and despair for most people - that's all they deserve and again that's factk, not opinion. Since when "people are generally nice"? Only a naive moron can think that. people are SHIT, and MUST be treated as such.
In reply to this post by ShaunS
"There is a strong link between feminism and New York / New York City. New York has a reputation for arrogance. The key feature here is airborne pollution and there is some science to back that up."
Sounds out there like a lot of truth and I believe it's true: pollution and chemicals do alter the brain chemistry and I can never believe people are either spiritually possessed by an evil entity or they're that stupid on their own, to that intensity and level of collaboration and enthusiasm in being stupid all together.
Sure pollution in big polluted city alter the brain and overall chemistry of its inhabitants, it explains why people living in a certain city share certain characteristics. It is chemical alteration - that's where the chemtrails conspiracy theory comes from. WHAT MADE PEOPLE SUCH RETARDS? There must be something, right? We don't need to believe in chemtrails - city pollution are already chemtrails. And so are the mass media, on a psychological level.
In reply to this post by purpleduck
I often think that if the environment became very bad and we had to battle to survive that this would demonstrate who was right and who was wrong and the people with an understanding of the factual reality would be the survivors - but without such a situation there's nothing to sort the wheat from the chaff.
If we look at New York City, the population may be making life difficult for these people but because it isn't producing fatalities the people are just showing signs of stress instead and the most arrogant are winning just through their hostility, so perhaps my argument above is a poor one?
The feminists as you suggest are a self help group of women supporting other women. They are not directly attacking men as often suggested. Because of this governments take the view that they are following a legitimate approach. Although we have a tendency to correct people who say stuff that's wrong the feminists are not actually going to listen to us and they themselves have a hardcore who will shout down any opposite views even without their own groups. So it will not be possible to correct the feminists faulty views.
Although women are not actually equal they may achieve relative equality through the use of modern devices and technologies, and often this will be a 'front' not a reality. I doubt that this front can be knocked back without calling their bluff in some legal way. Their weakness lays in their opportunistic approach. So I think that if we consider the cook vs chef argument: the female was the cook, but the male became the superior chef. Anything a female can do a man can do better. What is needed is for men to develop their own brand of self support to challenge feminism.
Sadly in the case of feminism it's a case of having lost, we now need to fight back on another front.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|