>>179
>you and your country would probably not exist today.
First you joke about how Europe is multiculti, now, in light of the fact that it is Americas fault, you say Europe is lucky to even exist. Your points are childish. You genuinely think Hitler was a comic book villian. Or you are making a mockery of me.

>The US was pretty much an isolationist nation
''The outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937 saw aid flow into the Republic of China, from the United States under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. A series of Neutrality Acts had been passed in the US with the support of isolationists who forbade American aid to countries at war. Because the Second Sino-Japanese War was undeclared, however, Roosevelt denied that a state of war existed in China and proceeded to send aid to Chiang''

>and a "racist" one, did you say?
I quoted an American Black man, from the 1930s, saying the USA president was worse to him than literally Hitler, literally literally Hitler.


This is a deliberate joke, everything you say simply causes me to repeat myself.
Whatever man, I'm bored of it which either way it is. At the very least you have been a tool, for me, to simply dump National Socialist propaganda.

I think the bigger problem is that nobody gives a damn about our culture, our history. It's routinely reshaped, reinterpreted and thrown to the side for whatever cheap thrill comes next. When you talk to the average American today they don't know many of our influential figures. They're not even familiar with the founders outside of what they've been told by the media, who distort it wildly. Liberals honestly believe Jefferson was a closet muslim and conservatives honestly believe Franklin (among others) were fire and brimstone conservatives. Granted, you can't really blame people too much. Whites are instilled with massive guilt and browns are given colossal inferiority complexes. It's no wonder people go to such lengths to invent clear bullshit, they're all suffering trauma from things that they never did or experienced. The lies wouldn't be so bad if they weren't ripping the country apart.

I actually somewhat agree with >>159 despite despising his tone of "America never made anything good.". We DO lack great artists, philosophers, scientists. We have them, but how many? And of those how many are first, second generation immigrants instead of people who've put roots down into this soil? In fact a lot of them are people who've just came here because of economics; not because they actually wanted to come here.

And America, it seems to take people in and rip them apart. When I look around the people who've been here for most of our history aren't that well off. People come in, do well for a time and begin to degenerate. I'd know because my family is no different. We've lived in the same general area for almost two-hundred years. The first several generations did great. We owned huge farms, took part in local politics, people had dozens of children. But now... well, we're shit. Reduced to emotional children without a clue in affairs of finance, nature, philosophy, religion. Just barking about some perceived slight or inconvenience so we can pretend we have worth, pretend we're something. Disgusting.

People like us, people discontent with the current state of affairs. We need to work on creating

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>180
Your seem to be confused. I'm not the same person you were arguing with above; you are rambling on about nothing.

Never once have I stated Hitler to be a villain.

Post edited on 13th May 2017, 3:58pm

>>181
all we can do is fight, take back what's rightfully ours

Buy myself some body guards, do some research on and invite top researchers and engineers to an all expenses paid conference on how to make the world a better place, put the money into the proposals they make

>>143
>giving women voting rights when they still have the social and legal responsibilities of children
To be fair, I don't consider most people in general to be responsible voters. In my country it's even the law that you must vote. If people voted intelligently based on reducing the influence of others on their lives instead of for whoever jerked them off the most, then we wouldn't be in this situation.

>allowing leftover stigma from Nazi Germany to forever equate legitimate (and at this point in the game incredibly necessary) non-lethal eugenics with genocide
Read Article II my man:

General Assembly Resolution 260 (III). Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily of mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>145
>I don't consider most people in general to be responsible voters.
Neater does the US government. That's why voting rights were originally restricted to just white male land owners. Even after caving into demands from the common folk over time they still don't trust the people to vote for it's own leaders. As such we have an electoral college that to my understanding has representatives for each state with their votes being the only ones that matter. Depending on the state's laws, they may or may not look at what people in their state voted for and decide to vote the same way. In a number of states they have every right to ignore the popular vote and vote for who they see fit. In a sense, voting is just a means for commoners to ask the higher ups to vote the way they want.

>>145
>To be fair, I don't consider most people in general to be responsible voters.
While I also agree with this, to imply that the female voting bloc hasn't devastated the western world is naïve at best and ignorant at worst. Giving anyone power without responsibility is a terrible idea.

>Read Article II
This article was created after World War 2 and included a ban on non-lethal eugenics as you pointed out. That's exactly what I was getting at. Nobody saw non-lethal eugenics as "taboo" before Nazi Germany.

>I think that one should strive to be morally correct. The difference here is that I don't try and impose my morals on those around me.
The problem is that morals are not and never have been objective. There are very, very few codes of ethics that are universally agreed upon by all groups of people across the planet. And when you mix very different groups of people together, conflict is inevitable. Look at the United States currently: even people of the same race in the same nation WILL force their morals upon each other, using violence as a means of subjugation for non-conformity if necessary.

>The fact that you hold the concept of nation so highly speaks of your own morals being focused in that direction.
I think that's a bit of a stretch and an assumption. In an ideal world I merely see separate nations being respectful of each other as an easy means to "get people to leave each other damn well alone", as you put it. And I'd agree with that being a great goal if you could somehow manage it.

The whole war by America against Japan was because FDR was a Sinophile.
FDR wanted China as a puppet-state in Asia.

'The outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937 saw aid flow into the Republic of China, from the United States under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. A series of Neutrality Acts had been passed in the US with the support of isolationists who forbade American aid to countries at war. Because the Second Sino-Japanese War was undeclared, however, Roosevelt denied that a state of war existed in China and proceeded to send aid to Chiang'

China's war-plan was to keep fighting, knowing they cannot win, to garner Western sympathy and have the West beat Japan because China certainly could not.

'A major reason that the Chinese army held onto the city as long as it did, even though it was on the brink of collapse, was that China was hoping for a western intervention in the Sino-Japanese War.'
'Thus, Chiang Kai-shek had to devote everything China had to offer to make sure the Western powers know that the present conflict between China and Japan was a major war, not a collection of inconsequential "incidents" as had been the case previously. Based on this political strategy, Chiang Kai-shek had to order his troops to fight to the death in an attempt to arouse international sympathy and cause the international community to adopt measures that would help China and sanction Japan.'
'In addition, on October 5, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the Quarantine Speech, calling for the United States to help nations fight against aggressor nations. This speech had a tremendous effect on raising China's morale.'

>>138
>>139
So America was not 'neutral' in the slightest, before Pearl Harbor, as is commonly thought.

Also, the Japanese POW camps were manned by Korean soldiers. So most POW abuse, in Japanese POW camps, is actually from Koreans.


'After the war, 148 Koreans were convicted of Class B and C Japanese war crimes, 23 of whom were sentenced to death, including Korean prison guards who were particularly notorious for their brutality during the war.'

'The figure is relatively high considering that ethnic Koreans made up a very small percentage of the Japanese military. Justice Bert Röling, who represented the Netherlands at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, noted that "many of the commanders and guards in POW camps were Koreans – the Japanese apparently did not trust them as soldiers – and it is said that they were sometimes far more cruel than the Japanese."[58]'

'In his memoirs, Colonel Eugene C. Jacobs wrote that during the Bataan Death March, "the Korean guards were the most abusive. The Japs didn't trust them in battle, so used them as service troops; the Koreans were anxious to get blood on their bayonets; and then they thought they were veterans."[59][60]'

'Korean guards were sent to the remote jungles of Burma, where Lt. Col. William A. (Bill) Henderson wrote from his own experience that some of the guards overlooking the construction of the Burma Railway "were moronic and at times almost bestial in their treatment of prisoners. This applied particularly to Korean private soldiers, conscripted only for guard and sentry duties in many parts of the Japanese empire. Regrettably, they were appointed as guards for the prisoners throughout the camps of Burma and Siam."[61] The highest-ranking Korean to be prosecuted after the war was Lieutenant General Hong Sa-ik, who was in command of all the Japanese prisoner-of-war camps in the Philippines.'


Note:
U.S. laws of war
a. Crimes against peace.

Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>76
>invisible old man in space
Did you get all your knowledge about God from cartoons in the Sunday newspapers?
To have such an infantile attitude to the very idea of God, let alone how He may manifest or in what way he exists in this world is actually troubling. You've trivialized and misunderstood a concept that all civilizations have dedicated their best minds and thinkers to conquering, in a self righteous and profoundly stupid way.
Congratulations, you successfully skeeved me out.

>>124
I am he who came into being in the form of the god Ḫ-P-R Ré, and I am the creator of that which came into being, that is to say, I am the creator of everything which came into being. Now the things which I created, and which came forth out of my mouth after that I had come into being myself were exceedingly many. Heaven had not come into being, the earth did not exist, and the children of the earth, and the creeping things had not been made at that time. I myself raised them up from out of Nûn, from a state of helpless inertness.
I found no place whereon I could stand. I worked a charm upon my own heart. I laid the foundation of things by Tme, and I made everything which had form. I was then one by myself, for I had not emitted from myself the god Shôu, and I had not spit out from myself the goddess Teféne; and there existed no other who could work with me. I laid the foundations of things in my own heart, and there came into being multitudes of created things, which came into being from the created things which were born from the created things which arose from what they brought forth.
I had union with my closed hand, and I embraced my shadow as a wife, and I poured seed into my own mouth.

>>126
is it

>>127
He Is.

>>66
You don't see the point in it, yet you're still here, fighting against muh soggy knees.

>>67
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this debate board is not immune to the global rules, one of which is:
>Do not complain about the community's opinion on certain groups of people (ie: normalfags, females)

It's one thing to say "I don't mind if females are here". It's another to incessantly whine that Tohno-chan is "misogynistic", and bitch about people not wanting females here even when evidence and off-site citations have been provided to back up a perfectly legitimate reason for it. The argument against it is what, that misogynists are quote "bad people"? That it's supposedly morally and emotionally incorrect to not want females here? Keep that shit out of here.

>>68
No, I've read that. Thanks for asking though.

>>55
Thanks for the citations. They were interesting reads.

There used to be a time when I had a view like >>36. So long as they keep their gender to themselves, follow the rules, post on-topic, and don't raise any problems, what's the harm? While I still feel that a good anon belongs regardless of gender, my faith in their ability, or rather willingness, to blend in is gone. I'm probably uninformed and should have seen more examples before feeling so much conviction on my stance but I've seen that they'll skirt the limits of what is acceptable in a community, never state their gender but every post is so horribly clear about it, and are pretty determined to not just go the fuck the away. Add in their usual bragging about their social lives and it makes for an unsavory user I don't like being around. Mind you, this is one of the better case scenarios. There are plenty of examples of women tearing things down, intentionally or otherwise, and one could possibly even say the entire internet serves as an example. Anybody who doesn't live under a rock could look at what they've done to politics, gaming, movies, and just about every hobby they cried to be let into and see the proof. To say that a woman could be a good anon is fine, to believe that it's anything more than very rare is just deluding yourself. Pic related rings very true.
And if you haven't seen the proof then "you might think you're living under a rock but let me tell you... it's a rock worth living under."

I know this is an old thread but I just don't want to see any more communities turn to shit. I don't want to endure the sight anymore.

The fact alone you think you're better than anyone else is enough to prove that.

Everyone is better than me.

>>75

I'm just putting the idea out there, I don't necessarily believe it.

>>7
It's something we inevitably have no control over as random 'nobodies', so I try not to fret about it.

Yes, women have easier lives in western culture (especially if you're introverted or a NEET). Yes, it's irritating to watch them dismiss mountains of rock-solid contrary evidence and statistics as "misogyny" or "mansplaining" in favor of promoting their own fallacious and frankly warped worldview in which they're eternal victims and men are eternal perpetrators. And it's definitely irritating to see their buzzwords being regurgitated all over every corner of the internet even when nobody even brought up gender politics (good luck finding video game articles or reviews that don't have feminist quips or commentary attached). But at the end of the day, there's not much we can do about it but try and avoid it.

>>14
Why, are there still histrionic 'femanons' on IRC? I haven't bothered to check for years.

For as much as feminists bitch and moan against Capitalism and the right wing, they certainly are the most efficient tool the establishment has for distracting the public from the real oppression: class and income based.

Maybe it's because their "leaders" are from privileged upper class high income families, but want to take advantage of low-information 'oppressed' people.

Just look at Jonathan McIntosh and his dad's Puerto Rican private island with a yacht with "spotty wifi", his puppet Anita Sarkeesian who already was privileged enough to get shat through uni with a bogus major and gets $20,000 every time she trips and skins her knee and blames it on "teh ebil menzzz", Brianna Wu, whose dad paid her college debts and gave her an extra $200,000 to make her shitty game (which her husband basically did all the harder work, she just used her 7th grade doodles she made in tech ed as character designs) and even then she still gets thousands from a Kickstarter for the same game, and over $10,000 per month for sitting on her ass.

>>10
>only violent and ruthless like some women like to portray us

Is anyone here violent and ruthless in their daily life?

I mean, I hear this argument from both sides, but by default the sum of my masculinity is just a passive stoicism. The last time someone gave me a black eye, I just kind of looked at them with a questioning look and shrugged.

>>20
I think that was the point. Men aren't the savages that women have a tendency to portray them as. Quite the opposite, actually- they've been shown to have greater control of their emotions and inhibitions compared to their female peers. Males' comparatively greater ability to remain calm under pressure is an often cited (but not "socially acceptable") reason behind the discrepancy of "leader roles" between the two sexes.

They say that life is tit for tat
And thats the way I live.
So I deserve a lot of tat
For what I've got to give.