Society/Culture Why is Multiculturalism a good thing?

[smokingjacket]

There is no "new world", but there is technological advancement and advancing ideologies. Feminism isn't a force of the market, it's driven by ideologues.

The article I posted, authored not by a religious man, reasons that a decline in religion plays a part in Western civilizations impending cultural collapse. So, to say that religion doesn't have a place is shortsighted as to the role religions plays in maintaining culture.

The way you used the word "enlightenment" was ambiguous. There was no context to its use.

I'm afraid not. I wish that great ideas could shape the world as you say but unfortunately it's not possible in this case nor is it ever possible. Ideas and their implementation are products of their time. Plenty of the ideas of the counterculture have either withered or been abandoned. Feminism has stayed because it's useful as well as ethical.

Capital wants access to the best brains and brawn. Any society that opens up that other half of it's workforce has a massive advantage over it's competitors. Similarly societies that discriminate against women, race, sexuality deprive it's economy of the best it can have. It's inefficient and they might get away with it for a bit but eventually it will catch up with them or the market will demand change.

The person who posted that piece is a complete twat trolling for clickbait, not a scholarly piece. As a person of faith you should have a read through some of his other posts before you take anything that he writes as anything more than hypocritical nonsense aimed at feeding his own bank account so he can fly to a country poorer than the US to **** women.

You can't simultaneously ask me to take your religion and faith seriously while throwing your lot in with these grubs.

For my sins I've provided you with some further examples of his pseudo-intellectual output. In return please don't ever make me read something he's written again.

On God
Cultural Collapse

After the Enlightenment, the rapid advance of science and its logical but nihilistic explanations into the universe have removed the religious narrative and replaced it with an empty narrative of scientific progress, knowledge, and technology, which act as a restraint and hindrance to family formation, allowing people to pursue individual goals of wealth accumulation or hedonistic pleasure seeking. Even though many people today claim to believe in god, they may not step inside a church but once or twice a year for special holidays. Religion went from being a lifestyle, a manual for living, to something that is thought about in passing.

Not That It Matters

It’s inevitable that a lot of people will tell her family that she is “in a better place now.” Unfortunately she is not. Everything that you are, that makes you you, and gives you this state of consciousness to know that you are a different being from everything else on the planet, resides in your brain. Once you die and the cells in your brain die, it’s game over. The only good part about dying, I guess, is that you will never know you are dead. It will be just like before you were born.

Man is allowed to be a freethinker but woman must be bound to religion to properly prepare her for marriage.
On Relationships
Cultural Collapse

Once religion no longer plays a role in people’s lives, the stage is set to fracture male-female bonding. It is collectively attacked by several ideologies stemming from the beliefs of Cultural Marxist theory, which serve to accomplish one common end: destruction of the family unit so that citizens are dependent on the state.

How To Cheat On Your Girlfriend Without Her Finding Out

Over the past year I’ve been much more open to getting into a relationship with a girl I like, but unfortunately I can’t tame the dog inside me that wants to **** a new girl every other week. So my current game strategy is to get a girl-next-door type who isn’t a club rat and treats me well and then return the favor by taking her out, pleasuring her, and caring for her when she has the sniffles. During that time I lie and creep on the side with random girls.
Obviously I don’t think cheating on a girlfriend is morally wrong, but I do think it’s wrong to bang your girl without a condom and then creep without because you’re exposing her to diseases that could create an uncomfortable situation. But besides that I feel very little guilt when I cheat because my main girl will never know. I keep it locked down so tightly that it would take a lottery chance event to get me. The result is I get to fulfill my perverse needs while having something stable with a girl that I care for. That’s win-win… unless she finds out.

Yes, clearly it's cultural Marxism's fault that the family unit is breaking up.
On Feminism
Cultural Collapse

Women succumb to their primal sexual and materialistic urges to live the “Sex and the City” lifestyle full of fine dining, casual sex, technological bliss, and general gluttony without learning traditional household skills or feminine qualities that would make them attractive wives.

15 Factors That Determine If a City Is Great For Men

While cities that are highly feminist pave the way for one-night stands, they tend to destroy hope of finding pleasant and feminine women.

American Feminism Wants All Women To Be Fat Sluts

Today, the modern feminism movement can be boiled down to one thing: allowing Western women to be fat sluts. They are fighting for the right to look as ghastly as they want while being able to ride one-hundred ***** without being judged.

5 Easiest Clubs To Get Laid In The World

It’s no surprise that most of the clubs on this list are in Scandinavia. God bless gender equality and the eradication of the **** concept, where girls have absolutely no problems sleeping with foreign men in record time. While clubs in other countries have better looking women (Poland, Estonia, and Croatia immediately come to mind), look no further than Scandinavia if your goal is fast sex. As long as you avoid the snobby clubs and focus on those that have a slight rock vibe to them, you won’t go wrong.

Don't Have Sex With Feminists

Feminism gets its power from two centers. The first is a large tax-paying middle class... It’s a large middle class that partially explains why feminism is rising in Brazil, but not in Argentina or Colombia. While there are many exceptions to this middle class rule, you will not find feminists gains in countries with a weak middle class. This source of feminist power will erode as the world approaches an economic singularity event, but until that time, we have the individual power to speed up the decline through one simple action: don’t have sex with women who identify with feminism.
Do not give her the chance to explain her beliefs or demand to know yours. Once she admits to being a feminist, someone who believes in female superiority at the cost of male well-being, she no longer exists in your world.

only **** girls from countries with no middle class?

On Immigration
Cultural Collapse

While politicians hem and haw about designing permanent immigration policies, immigrants continue to settle within the nation.[41] The national birth rate problem is essentially solved overnight, as it’s much easier to drain third-world nations of its starry-eyed population

Feminism Killed The Nice Guy

Without sexist beliefs, he will wholeheartedly struggle in that front. Here’s what it means to be a sexist:

• Having a low level of respect for women.
• Having the belief that the genders are not equal (you should nod or smile at the following quote: “A woman can do anything a man can do, as long as a man first shows her how”).
• Not listening to them about anything.
• Studying flavors of game based on the alpha-male model, an effective countermeasure to feminism.
• Preferring the company of compliant, feminine women of different nationalities where feminism has not made strong inroads (Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, South America).

You don’t have to hate women and you don’t have to abuse them. You don’t have to commit any crimes against them. But you must believe that you are superior and deserve more than them. With the addition of game practice, you will then be sexually rewarded for those beliefs.

These inter-racial goals seem to be opposed, though I'm glad he put in the qualifier that you don't have to abuse women.

On Women
Feminism Killed The Nice Guy

Feminism’s successful foray on mainstream culture has destroyed that balance and made it increasingly hopeless for today’s man to land a decent woman who cherishes him, let alone one who can be a suitable mother to his children.

Five Reasons Your Game Sucks

Even though you’re well aware that you shouldn’t put pussy on the pedestal, you still fantasize about having a dream girl to snuggle with on those cold winter nights. You think many of your problems in life will be solved if you can forge a magical connection with that cute girl-next-door. You hope that one day you could end all this game business and just “be yourself,” whatever that means. This ensures that you overvalue every girl you meet and put out bad game as a result. The more worthless you think of the female species and the less you fantasize about your dream girl, the more likely you will find and successfully game her. The fantasy you should have to get your ideal girl should be choking and butt-****ing her, not having a romantic walk with her on a beautiful beach underneath a full moon.

She Doesn't Have To Orgasm

Soon everything I did in bed was for my pleasure only. The only reason I’d delay orgasm is to make mine better, and I pretended I don’t hear her the first time she told me to drill slower or not to go so deep. I did whatever I wanted because I came to value my orgasm as sacred, and her pleasure as second to mine. Do you want to guess what happened? Nothing. Nothing happened. Girls didn’t want to **** me more, they didn’t want to **** me less. Not caring about their sexual pleasure had no effect on repeat calls and repeat sex. For guys all that matters is the end, but for girls it’s the process. As long as she gets into it and can say, “I’m getting ****ed good and this feels great,” then you’ve done your job. Sure if you make her orgasm on demand you’ll definitely hear from her again, but it’s not necessary and just too complicated to worry about. Keep in mind some girls barely know how to make themselves orgasm!
Every now and then I get a feeling that I gave a girl an orgasm, but I can never be sure because I don’t ask.

What a stud and quite frankly some of the worst advice I've ever heard.

His social collapse theory is based not on the reality of the majority of men or women in any country but rather an apology for his own degenerate lifestyle where it's everyone's fault but his own. He's taken the liberties given to him by our society to choose our own sexuality and used them to form a philosophy devoid of anything to do with love and humanism because he was depressed. He then asks for forgiveness by producing a document so idiotic and nonsensical that if I saw it on it's own without the authors name I'd assume it was satire.

Christian morality and what these supposed anti-feminists are talking about are diametrically opposed. If you want to come on here and tell me that what our society needs is a greater sense of faith, love of christ, stronger family units and so on then I will disagree but listen politely. However if you conflate any of that with this narcissistic hedonism stripped of any of it's redeeming qualities then you can GAGF.

Excuse me now while I go wash my eyes with commercial bleach.

 

[tesseract]

I'm afraid not. I wish that great ideas could shape the world as you say but unfortunately it's not possible in this case nor is it ever possible. Ideas and their implementation are products of their time. Plenty of the ideas of the counterculture have either withered or been abandoned. Feminism has stayed because it's useful as well as ethical.

Capital wants access to the best brains and brawn. Any society that opens up that other half of it's workforce has a massive advantage over it's competitors. Similarly societies that discriminate against women, race, sexuality deprive it's economy of the best it can have. It's inefficient and they might get away with it for a bit but eventually it will catch up with them or the market will demand change.

The person who posted that piece is a complete twat trolling for clickbait, not a scholarly piece. As a person of faith you should have a read through some of his other posts before you take anything that he writes as anything more than hypocritical nonsense aimed at feeding his own bank account so he can fly to a country poorer than the US to **** women.

You can't simultaneously ask me to take your religion and faith seriously while throwing your lot in with these grubs.

For my sins I've provided you with some further examples of his pseudo-intellectual output. In return please don't ever make me read something he's written again.

On God
Cultural Collapse

Not That It Matters

Man is allowed to be a freethinker but woman must be bound to religion to properly prepare her for marriage.
On Relationships
Cultural Collapse

How To Cheat On Your Girlfriend Without Her Finding Out

Yes, clearly it's cultural Marxism's fault that the family unit is breaking up.
On Feminism
Cultural Collapse

15 Factors That Determine If a City Is Great For Men

American Feminism Wants All Women To Be Fat Sluts

5 Easiest Clubs To Get Laid In The World

Don't Have Sex With Feminists


only **** girls from countries with no middle class?

On Immigration
Cultural Collapse

Feminism Killed The Nice Guy

These inter-racial goals seem to be opposed, though I'm glad he put in the qualifier that you don't have to abuse women.

On Women
Feminism Killed The Nice Guy

Five Reasons Your Game Sucks

She Doesn't Have To Orgasm

What a stud and quite frankly some of the worst advice I've ever heard.

His social collapse theory is based not on the reality of the majority of men or women in any country but rather an apology for his own degenerate lifestyle where it's everyone's fault but his own. He's taken the liberties given to him by our society to choose our own sexuality and used them to form a philosophy devoid of anything to do with love and humanism because he was depressed. He then asks for forgiveness by producing a document so idiotic and nonsensical that if I saw it on it's own without the authors name I'd assume it was satire.

Christian morality and what these supposed anti-feminists are talking about are diametrically opposed. If you want to come on here and tell me that what our society needs is a greater sense of faith, love of christ, stronger family units and so on then I will disagree but listen politely. However if you conflate any of that with this narcissistic hedonism stripped of any of it's redeeming qualities then you can GAGF.

Excuse me now while I go wash my eyes with commercial bleach.

So, you don't bother to reason upon his article, but instead reason upon his person and personal views. Typical of the feminist/SJW tactics is "the personal is political". This you've played to a T.

 

[Floor Pie]

So, you don't bother to reason upon his article, but instead reason upon his person and personal views. Typical of the feminist/SJW tactics is "the personal is political". This you've played to a T.

I did warn you about him smokingjacket, but I do admire you trying! And you made a great post by the way!


You on the other hand tessa, are a button mashing sook.

 

[Riseupaustralia]

Revelation 20:1-3

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time.


And if you don't believe me, i'll f***ing report you!!!!

 

[smokingjacket]

So, you don't bother to reason upon his article, but instead reason upon his person and personal views. Typical of the feminist/SJW tactics is "the personal is political". This you've played to a T.

Surely it's pertinent if the author has said something diametrically opposed before tessa?

I'll put it this way.

I don't find his regular philosophies on life and women fit with the true state of modern male/female relationships. More than that I entirely reject his brand of hedonism and godless individualism. Therefore he is in no way a spokesperson for modern men, just a spokesperson for men who haven't realised that being rejected by a woman in high school doesn't give you the right to live a life where you hurt as many people as possible to give yourself a purpose in life.

I think you should be appalled that this person regards himself in anyway as a defender of Christian values.

I'm happy to give some banter on most topics but let's move away from this guy alright? For one he writes like shit and after spending a couple of hours reading his blog last night I still don't know what he's talking about because he changes his opinion constantly to suit himself. If there was a central theory that we could talk about constructively I'd be all for giving it a shot but he really only seems interested in justifying his own lifestyle and selling books to other depressed men.

Find me an article we can talk about by an academic or a paid journalist so that I don't feel like I'm wasting my time.

 

[smokingjacket]

thanks Floor Pie

Some might have called trawling through that shite as an exercise in masochism but I have to say I woke up this morning knowing exactly why I hold the values I do...and that that author is a campaigner of the highest order.

 

[Floor Pie]

thanks Floor Pie

Some might have called trawling through that shite as an exercise in masochism but I have to say I woke up this morning knowing exactly why I hold the values I do...and that that author is a campaigner of the highest order.

Haha. You did well, and it's good to try. Maybe I should go back to trying, instead of assuming the worst of everyone.

But yeah, that roosh guy is a good reminder of the extreme views that still exist.

 

[tesseract]

Surely it's pertinent if the author has said something diametrically opposed before tessa?

I'll put it this way.

I don't find his regular philosophies on life and women fit with the true state of modern male/female relationships. More than that I entirely reject his brand of hedonism and godless individualism. Therefore he is in no way a spokesperson for modern men, just a spokesperson for men who haven't realised that being rejected by a woman in high school doesn't give you the right to live a life where you hurt as many people as possible to give yourself a purpose in life.

I think you should be appalled that this person regards himself in anyway as a defender of Christian values.

I'm happy to give some banter on most topics but let's move away from this guy alright? For one he writes like shit and after spending a couple of hours reading his blog last night I still don't know what he's talking about because he changes his opinion constantly to suit himself. If there was a central theory that we could talk about constructively I'd be all for giving it a shot but he really only seems interested in justifying his own lifestyle and selling books to other depressed men.

Find me an article we can talk about by an academic or a paid journalist so that I don't feel like I'm wasting my time.

"Diametrically opposed"? Pffft! You've just cherry-picked a couple of comments, conveniently with no context, attached a personal opinion, and then went about labeling them "diametrically opposed". This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that I pointed out to another feminist/SJW earlier in this thread.

It's inconsequential if you disagree with his view. I personally don't care either. The author of the article doesn't claim to be a spokesperson for men either.

I've previously stated that the author isn't religious and that he pursues a hedonistic and un-Christian lifestyle. That doesn't mean that his views on cultural collapse should be dismissed based on this. In no way does the author, nor I, regard him as a defender of Christian values. He merely points out religions hand in upholding culture in his article - and such is only one point of many in the article. On the other hand, you're attempting to dismiss his views seemingly based on factors other than what he's posted in the article. "The personal [certainly] is political" when it comes to ideologues.

You say "let's move [the topic] away from this guy alright", yet you're the one that made it about him and not what was brought out in his article in the first place. Your convenient cherry-picking of statements makes it seem as though he changes his opinions, but that's what ideologues like yourself do to discredit someone they disagree with - they invent strawman arguments. Such is the intellectual dishonesty of the feminist/SJW and their sympathizers.

No one asked to to "waste your time" on this article. Your cherry-picking ensured you did that all by yourself.

 

[Riseupaustralia]

Do you talk to your mother like this?

Jeeeezuz...what a monotonous, boring f***ing insufferable windbag.

 

[clogged]

Cultural Collapse Theory

http://www.rooshv.com/cultural-collapse-theory

It's another inane riff on the Idiocracy theme. Which has been raised for over a century (the stupid will out breed the smart - 100 years ago it was Jews we should fear outbreeding us).

Reality is the advances of modern society stands on the shoulders of a select few geniuses who share their insights with the common people. Think Jonas Salk.

So in sum, dude is a twit. It seems he thinks with his penis and quite possibly writes with it. There is no cultural collapse. There won't be.

This theory appeals to you because of your apocalyptic mindset, but like much of what you believe, it has no basis in reality.

 

[JoondalupJ]

The default answer to this question appears to be "they increase the variety of restaurant food" but that, to me, seems rather trivial. I've asked this a couple times to different people but no one can give me a clear, tangible benefit to Australia (eg not 'cultural enrichment', whatever that actually means). I'd be interested to see the arguments for greater multiculturalism in the country.

I think Multiculturalism is a result in building population in this nation any way. As we are built on immigration , even back to the convicts.
I think it just happens during the course of time and human movement. The problem it has and will have forever is simply that some cultures don't mix with other cultures.

We live in a globalised world, absorption of other cultures into our own is inevitable. Call it multiculturalism, call it whatever you like, there's no avoiding it.

But does it work or just cause more problems?

 

[smokingjacket]

"Diametrically opposed"? Pffft! You've just cherry-picked a couple of comments, conveniently with no context, attached a personal opinion, and then went about labeling them "diametrically opposed". This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that I pointed out to another feminist/SJW earlier in this thread.

It's inconsequential if you disagree with his view. I personally don't care either. The author of the article doesn't claim to be a spokesperson for men either.

I've previously stated that the author isn't religious and that he pursues a hedonistic and un-Christian lifestyle. That doesn't mean that his views on cultural collapse should be dismissed based on this. In no way does the author, nor I, regard him as a defender of Christian values. He merely points out religions hand in upholding culture in his article - and such is only one point of many in the article. On the other hand, you're attempting to dismiss his views seemingly based on factors other than what he's posted in the article. "The personal [certainly] is political" when it comes to ideologues.

You say "let's move [the topic] away from this guy alright", yet you're the one that made it about him and not what was brought out in his article in the first place. Your convenient cherry-picking of statements makes it seem as though he changes his opinions, but that's what ideologues like yourself do to discredit someone they disagree with - they invent strawman arguments. Such is the intellectual dishonesty of the feminist/SJW and their sympathizers.

No one asked to to "waste your time" on this article. Your cherry-picking ensured you did that all by yourself.

I attempted to show you that the author doesn't even believe what he's writing. Many others have already shown that the numbers he's quoting are wrong. As I've already slogged through this tripe you can take a look through his blogs (I've got the names titled above each quote) and you can show me how I've taken his quotes out of context. Here are some of his other views on feminism.

Feminism Killed the Nice Guy

I will concede that some aspects of feminism are just and proper. Women should have some say of how many children they want, if they want to work, and if they want to get married (and with whom). They should not be held as sex slaves against their will. They should be rewarded based on their skills and accomplishments just like a man should, and equal pay for equal work is reasonable.

The only person making strawman arguments is this Roosh fellow. After the above claim he later states 'feminism only exist to justify women being fat sluts.' What is it?

Whether you believe it or not, the term Mens Rights Activist implies you're speaking on behalf of men. The author does claim to be a voice for men in other articles.

No one asked me to waste my time, and I don't feel I did by reading through the repugnant words of your voice of doom. I merely said once was enough. He's a poor figure for you to place as your oracle.

More than that I previously answered with my thoughts on the piece and you've yet to reply to them yet. His dissection of feminism as more female choice than economic necessity is flawed in my opinion. From ^^^^^

I'm afraid not. I wish that great ideas could shape the world as you say but unfortunately it's not possible in this case nor is it ever possible. Ideas and their implementation are products of their time. Plenty of the ideas of the counterculture have either withered or been abandoned. Feminism has stayed because it's useful as well as ethical.

Capital wants access to the best brains and brawn. Any society that opens up that other half of it's workforce has a massive advantage over it's competitors. Similarly societies that discriminate against women, race, sexuality deprive it's economy of the best it can have. It's inefficient and they might get away with it for a bit but eventually it will catch up with them or the market will demand change.

Lastly the idea that US culture will collapse is just absurd. US culture is collapsing? Turn on your TV. That's US culture. The most dominant form of soft power the world has ever known. If this was written by a Chinese or Bhutanese scholar saying our traditional society is facing cultural collapse from US cultural imperialism you might have got me thinking a bit. Who are the native population of the US? The British? The largest ethnic group in the US is German. 'Mexicans' have been living in the southern states from before the British arrived. African-Americans have been living in the US since well before the authors Russian parents came to the US or even the Germans. Places like Australia and the US thrive culturally on immigration because it's not rigid what actually constitutes being American other than loving and defending the country. It's what keeps the US light on it's feet for such a large country and able to constantly adapt itself.

 

[tesseract]

I attempted to show you that the author doesn't even believe what he's writing. Many others have already shown that the numbers he's quoting are wrong. As I've already slogged through this tripe you can take a look through his blogs (I've got the names titled above each quote) and you can show me how I've taken his quotes out of context. Here are some of his other views on feminism.

Feminism Killed the Nice Guy


The only person making strawman arguments is this Roosh fellow. After the above claim he later states 'feminism only exist to justify women being fat sluts.' What is it?

Whether you believe it or not, the term Mens Rights Activist implies you're speaking on behalf of men. The author does claim to be a voice for men in other articles.

No one asked me to waste my time, and I don't feel I did by reading through the repugnant words of your voice of doom. I merely said once was enough. He's a poor figure for you to place as your oracle.

More than that I previously answered with my thoughts on the piece and you've yet to reply to them yet. His dissection of feminism as more female choice than economic necessity is flawed in my opinion. From ^^^^^



Lastly the idea that US culture will collapse is just absurd. US culture is collapsing? Turn on your TV. That's US culture. The most dominant form of soft power the world has ever known. If this was written by a Chinese or Bhutanese scholar saying our traditional society is facing cultural collapse from US cultural imperialism you might have got me thinking a bit. Who are the native population of the US? The British? The largest ethnic group in the US is German. 'Mexicans' have been living in the southern states from before the British arrived. African-Americans have been living in the US since well before the authors Russian parents came to the US or even the Germans. Places like Australia and the US thrive culturally on immigration because it's not rigid what actually constitutes being American other than loving and defending the country. It's what keeps the US light on it's feet for such a large country and able to constantly adapt itself.

You say he doesn't believe what he writes based on cherry-picking comments without context. Typical strawman argument.

His article is about cultural collapse, not feminism. You're equating his views on feminism and somehow making them about cultural collapse. That's a strawman.

Roosh is not a MRA. And even if he were, that doesn't make such people the spokesperson for all men. MRA means an activist for men's rights, not the spokesperson for men.

I didn't say Roosh is my oracle. You're just making shit up as you go. I did put forward the article for consideration by the forum, but you somehow made it about Roosh personally. This is a typical feminist/SJW tactic.

Your thoughts are based on Roosh personally, and thus not worth responding to in depth, for it's your opinion.

Have you not read the article? If you have, you've done so in vain, for you've missed its point. The article isn't specifically about US culture. But even if it were, raising the point about US television still misses the point of the article. US TV is an extension of their culture, not its foundation. The article speaks as to such foundations. The article, in part, speaks as to the effects of ideology on immigration and multiculturalism when it's combined with other factors that are laid out in the article.

 

[smokingjacket]

You say he doesn't believe what he writes based on cherry-picking comments without context. Typical strawman argument.

His article is about cultural collapse, not feminism. You're equating his views on feminism and somehow making them about cultural collapse. That's a strawman.

Roosh is not a MRA. And even if he were, that doesn't make such people the spokesperson for all men. MRA means an activist for men's rights, not the spokesperson for men.

I didn't say Roosh is my oracle. You're just making shit up as you go. I did put forward the article for consideration by the forum, but you somehow made it about Roosh personally. This is a typical feminist/SJW tactic.

Your thoughts are based on Roosh personally, and thus not worth responding to in depth, for it's your opinion.

Have you not read the article? If you have, you've done so in vain, for you've missed its point. The article isn't specifically about US culture. But even if it were, raising the point about US television still misses the point of the article. US TV is an extension of their culture, not its foundation. The article speaks as to such foundations. The article, in part, speaks as to the effects of ideology on immigration and multiculturalism when it's combined with other factors that are laid out in the article.

I'm open to being shown where I've cherry picked comments without context but you see as I hold the view that I haven't, I'll struggle to show myself how I've cherry picked information. Go forth and show me where I'm wrong.

1. Removal of religious narrative from people’s lives, replaced by a treadmill of scientific and technological “progress.”
2. Elimination of traditional sex roles through feminism, gender equality, political correctness, cultural Marxism, and socialism.
3. Delay or abstainment of family formation by women to pursue careerist lifestyles while men wait in confused limbo.
4. Decreasing birth rate among native population.
5. Government enactment of open immigration policies to prevent economic collapse.
6. Immigrant refusal to fully acclimate, forcing host culture to adopt external rituals and beliefs while being out-reproduced.
7. Natives becoming marginalized in their own country.

My take on his thesis is that 3-7 flow from 1-2. Correct? That would make the loss of faith the original sin, followed by feminism.
I was addressing the point that rather than causing the US to culturally collapse, feminism has helped make it the economic and thereby cultural powerhouse it is today.

"I didn't say Roosh is my oracle." Geez you're hard work tess. Clearly you didn't. I was making a judgement that you seem to admire his thinking. An oracle was a seer who often used omens to 'forecast' the future. I felt it was a good comparison to make to this charlatan.

I will refrain from attacking the person himself if that's what you wish. Although I do feel that the entirety of his views play a role in showing why this document is bollocks.

Unfortunately I have read the article in it's entirety, I am interested though. Let's stay with the US as it's certainly what he's most concerned for being a resident of that country. What are the foundations of US culture? Would you say immigration is somehow not a part of the US foundation myth? By the authors own words he says that that his family migrated when he was a child. Benefits are lower in US than they were when his family moved to the US and income is divided far less equally too. If anything migrants get a rawer deal now than they did before. How does this lead to cultural collapse?

immigrants of the past (including my own parents) rapidly acclimated into the host culture to create a sense of national pride around an ethic of hard work and shared democratic values. This is being eroded as a fem-centric culture rises in its place, with its focus on trends, celebrities, homosexuality, multiculturalism, and male-bashing. Natives have become pleasure seekers with little inclination to reproduction during their years of peak fertility.

I'll leave it up to you to explain to me how hard work and democracy are incompatible with trends (fashion), celebrity (invented by the US in the creation of Hollywood), homosexuality(?), multiculturalism (another way of saying immigration, again a US value) and male bashing(spurious).

I'd reason that the 'natives' have become harder working as they're forced to by the system. The author himself grieves that women want careers and to stay in work rather than have children. They're not lounging about watching the Kardashians on welfare. Time and again before you make it to the next paragraph he contradicts the very argument he's trying to make.

 

[Silent Alarm]

Feminism/SJW are attempting to deconstruct western civilization in order to further their utopian goal of a society where straight, white men, especially those who're Christian, aren't in charge, for such ones make up the feminist/SJW's imagined Patriarchy.

This does sound like a utopia, to be honest!

 

[Riseupaustralia]

This does sound like a utopia, to be honest!

Indeed, but for Tess, it is yet another sign of the upcoming apocalypse.

The horsemen are upon us.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Cultural Collapse Theory

http://www.rooshv.com/cultural-collapse-theory

Everything you post is a non-sensical contradictory blend of racism, sexism and idiocy driven by the fact you are a hateful, unlikeable loser with dangerous opinions on rape.

 

[Silent Alarm]

Everything you post is a non-sensical contradictory blend of racism, sexism and idiocy driven by the fact you are a hateful, unlikeable loser with dangerous opinions on rape.

The hanging judge!

 

[smokingjacket]

Everything you post is a non-sensical contradictory blend of racism, sexism and idiocy driven by the fact you are a hateful, unlikeable loser with dangerous opinions on rape.

Sound analysis. The only think I'd add to that is a detestable revelry in the exploitation of the worlds poor.

 

[swiftdog]

For those who haven't read the whole thread, and I am one of them, Australia specifically isn't in the thread title, hence most posting of the article. I don't care if that's not to your liking.

I've avoided your question because I've already told you where to seek your answer.

As I told you already, I've read the article and there's no such description of what would be considered the "native population". So again, who makes up the native population of Australia? If you can't give me a straight answer I'll just assume that the question is beyond you and you have absolutely no idea.

 

[tesseract]

I'm open to being shown where I've cherry picked comments without context but you see as I hold the view that I haven't, I'll struggle to show myself how I've cherry picked information. Go forth and show me where I'm wrong.

My take on his thesis is that 3-7 flow from 1-2. Correct? That would make the loss of faith the original sin, followed by feminism.
I was addressing the point that rather than causing the US to culturally collapse, feminism has helped make it the economic and thereby cultural powerhouse it is today.

"I didn't say Roosh is my oracle." Geez you're hard work tess. Clearly you didn't. I was making a judgement that you seem to admire his thinking. An oracle was a seer who often used omens to 'forecast' the future. I felt it was a good comparison to make to this charlatan.

I will refrain from attacking the person himself if that's what you wish. Although I do feel that the entirety of his views play a role in showing why this document is bollocks.

Unfortunately I have read the article in it's entirety, I am interested though. Let's stay with the US as it's certainly what he's most concerned for being a resident of that country. What are the foundations of US culture? Would you say immigration is somehow not a part of the US foundation myth? By the authors own words he says that that his family migrated when he was a child. Benefits are lower in US than they were when his family moved to the US and income is divided far less equally too. If anything migrants get a rawer deal now than they did before. How does this lead to cultural collapse?

I'll leave it up to you to explain to me how hard work and democracy are incompatible with trends (fashion), celebrity (invented by the US in the creation of Hollywood), homosexuality(?), multiculturalism (another way of saying immigration, again a US value) and male bashing(spurious).

I'd reason that the 'natives' have become harder working as they're forced to by the system. The author himself grieves that women want careers and to stay in work rather than have children. They're not lounging about watching the Kardashians on welfare. Time and again before you make it to the next paragraph he contradicts the very argument he's trying to make.

Your cherry picking is shown in your using unrelated comments outside of his article, with no supporting context, in an attempt to discredit his article.

The article makes mention of religion playing a part wrt maintaining culture, but it isn't its main point. If you've read the article and have still missed the point, there's no helping you.

It's presumptuous to say that I "admire" his thinking. What's the point in going down this route if not to link me with him in your taking the personal route against him?

If you've read the article and still haven't gotten a clue as to what the foundations of western culture are, even after it being pointed then there's no hope for you. It's almost as if you've only read the headlines of each segment and drawn your own conclusions from them.

"Benefits are lower in the US"? Your bringing up this issue again shows that you've missed the point of the article and don't know what you're talking about.

Your wanting me to explain unrelated matters that you think are applicable here in the form of "how hard work and democracy are incompatible with trends..." once again shows that you're not even close to understanding the authors position.

 

[tesseract]

As I told you already, I've read the article and there's no such description of what would be considered the "native population". So again, who makes up the native population of Australia? If you can't give me a straight answer I'll just assume that the question is beyond you and you have absolutely no idea.

Your lack of finding the answer in the article, of which has been alluded to, isn't my problem, it's yours.

You're free to believe as you will. But I find it rather ironic that you're claiming that something is "beyond me" and that I have "absolutely no idea" when I could find something that you yourself couldn't find.

 

[tesseract]

This does sound like a utopia, to be honest!

I'm happy for you that you find comfort in a dog collar.

 

[Floor Pie]

 

[swiftdog]

Your lack of finding the answer in the article, of which has been alluded to, isn't my problem, it's yours.

You're free to believe as you will. But I find it rather ironic that you're claiming that something is "beyond me" and that I have "absolutely no idea" when I could find something that you yourself couldn't find.

This is a discussion board for discussion of ideas. If you want to get on a soapbox then write a blog.

The writer of the article leaves, at best, a very vague description of the native population that corresponds to the poor nature of the article. In one instance, the author references that parts of England are now under Sharia Law. The reference that he provides links to an article that states that Muslim extremists claimed an area to be under Sharia Law by sticking stickers up in said area. It's blatant lying really to push an agenda.

I listened to a very interesting speaker. He said in the 1950's that Mediterranean-style food was considered "wog food", it wasn't until the 70's that everyone realised that the wog food was actually better/tastier than most food and then footy players like DiPierdomenico came along and the "wogs" began to be "accepted".

So then where do they fit into the idea of the 'native population'?