the lie that 'asian women don't like beards''they like fem guys'

[WanderingProtagonist]

Yeah but too bad Japan is too weak to reclaim all of that back. They surrendered after WWII, and now the U.S. controls them, that's why Yohan keeps talking about how eager Japan is to join the U.S. in fighting Russia. You would think after getting your ass bombed by a country that bullies the entire world the last thing you would want to do is team up with them. Plus too many Japanese males have given up on life, have NRT fetishes and prefer the Herbivore life. I doubt the same will ever happen with the Chinese since they actually have a Government that WANTS the men to remain warlike and they'll never let America turn them into their bitch like Japan did.

I've always suspected that the feminization of Japanese masculinity post WW2 was the result of American social engineering imposed upon the surrendered party. After Japan's defeat, warlike masculinity was demonized, effeminate celebrities started to appear in the media and promote metrosexual fashions and faggy forms of masculinity, and totally unmasculine nerd culture became the norm. Certain elites wish to feminize the male populace in order to make it easier to control.

China is a different story. A few years ago, the Chinese government accused the new "sissy pants" masculinity with its effeminate aesthetics and androgynous clothing of being a CIA psychological warfare operation against the various nations of Asia. The CIA psychological warfare operation is supposed to include pop culture trends such as J-pop, K-pop, anime and manga. China doesn't want its men to become feminized.

Needless to say, the deliberate feminization of men is already in full swing in the West too with feminism and its crusade against "toxic masculinity", gender ideology and the promotion of transgenderism, the sudden emergence of non-binary gender identities, and the mainstreaming of nerd culture. Yes, while we are on the topic of nerds, it is no secret that nerd culture has become much more mainstream in the last decade or so at the expense of older more virile forms of masculinity. Now being a weedy, p***y-ass nerd is celebrated as though it were something to be proud of. I think that this is very much by design. The elites want to suppress all true warlike masculine traits and instead promote weak and unmasculine male identities in order to pussify the majority of men and render us unable to resist the Great Reset when the NWO decides to implement it.

That's exactly why I became so spiteful and hateful of a lot of these males. My brother watches anime a lot, I use to watch it a lot too in my early teens and 20s, but lost interest with the stuff when it stopped being cool like how Vampire Hunter D bloodlust was or Demon City those weren't all that nerdy at all. Anime started to get nerdy when stuff like Dragon Ball Z became more relevant in the US followed by Pokemon. I think Pokemon was bigger than DBZ was. I also hated hip hop culture influencing some of it like Samurai Champloo was just major cringe as hell but this was their way of trying to reach black audience by trying to fuse hip hop crap in with Japanese culture so they had their own way of trying to pander with anime.

Aside from that, everything you said is certainly true, if you can cripple the men of a country you can take that shit over easily. They tend to use and exploit black males by pushing interracial propaganda hard because they know how unorganized blacks are. If they can flood enough countries with them, they'll able to do even more damage than just sissifying the men of every nation that allows it to happen. I do remember how huge Jpop was, but it got replaced by all the Kpop stuff. Kpop eventually became bigger globally than Jpop ever did. Hip Hop culture can ruin a country just as much as the horrible pop stuff. Nothing is worse than seeing Asians trying to imitate blacks. Use to see it all the time at my high school despite they always avoided blacks. They would hang out in large groups and you'd hear Asians literately calling each other niggas. The only Asian girls I've heard use the word are the ones that dated black males.

[Outcast9428]

@MrMan

You can determine, examining the skeletons of Ancient burial sites, whether people died from a violent death or not. If you look at a country during a time period where that civilization was not actively at war or there was no peasant revolts or organized conflicts in the region, you can determine what percentage of deaths were caused by violent methods. Ancient world homicide rates tended to vary between 100 to 150 per 100,000. Homicide rates that high are unthinkable in today's world. Even the most violent countries in the world are nowhere close to having this level of homicide. These homicide rates indicate that, at the time, 5%-8% of all deaths were caused by homicide.

Christianity civilized the world. It is the greatest force of moral goodness the world has ever known. Without Christianity, our world would be unrecognizable. We would be living in hell and every time a country abandons Christianity, they go back to hell. Realizing that is what truly made me take "the Godpill" so to speak. We don't need to bother wondering what the next life might be like if we reject God. If we reject God, the devil will create hell on Earth, the idea that sin only punishes your soul in the afterlife is nonsense. It absolutely does punish you in this life, often immediately.

@Lucas88

Grasping at straws? You don't think a war that killed off approximately 7% of the most violent men in society (2.5 million soldiers out 35 million Japanese men died in WW2), and more like 20% of the most violent young males would do nothing to the biological makeup of that country? Imagine if we took the United States, and slaughtered 10 million of the most violent men in our country. You really think that wouldn't impact the biological makeup of our country at all? Let's use another example, let's say you slaughtered 10 million of the most intelligent or the dumbest men in our society. You think that wouldn't impact the average IQ of our nation?

In Ancient Times, the cycle usually perpetuated itself because the conquering army raped the conquered nation's women. The US didn't do that to Japan though, so Japan basically just lost all the warrior males in their society and had nobody to replace them.

My thesis on Asians being less biologically violent is indisputable, all you have to do is look at crime stats...



These statistics hold up pretty much everywhere in the world. Asians in the US actually commit more homicides then Asians in actual Asian countries do. Japan's homicide rate is 0.30, South Korea's is 0.70. China's is about 0.70 as well for the Asian population (not for the migrant population), Indonesia's homicide rate is 0.4 per 100,000, Singapore's homicide rate is 0.30 per 100,000, and Taiwan's homicide rate is 0.80 per 100,000. Almost every country that is homogenously East Asian will have a homicide rate that is below 1 per 100,000. I mean this is a sample size of almost 2 billion people we are talking about here.

@Pixel--Dude

See, nobody acted that way in any of the nerd circles I've been in. In the circles I've been in, any time somebody was someone else's girlfriend, you left her alone. Everybody left her alone.

[Lucas88]

Grasping at straws? You don't think a war that killed off approximately 7% of the most violent men in society (2.5 million soldiers out 35 million Japanese men died in WW2), and more like 20% of the most violent young males would do nothing to the biological makeup of that country? Imagine if we took the United States, and slaughtered 10 million of the most violent men in our country. You really think that wouldn't impact the biological makeup of our country at all? Let's use another example, let's say you slaughtered 10 million of the most intelligent or the dumbest men in our society. You think that wouldn't impact the average IQ of our nation?

Yep, just grasping at straws to justify your weabo fantasy that the Japanese are somehow a special race without violent instincts (even though just seven decades ago the country was the leading aggressor in one of the bloodiest wars of the modern age). Lol!

During a brutal war of that magnitude, it is not simply the most violent men who go off to fight; men of all walks of life and dispositions are conscripted into the military. Contrary to what some people might think, the military of a modern nation isn't populated exclusively by the natural warrior types but also heavily by men of a regular disposition who simply see the military as a job/source of income or who wish to serve their country. So, this being the case, why would only Japan's most violent men die out during WW2? Some warrior types would be killed but so would a whole lot of regular guys simply fulfilling their duty. In fact, if you really think about it, one could even suppose that the warrior types would more likely have a better chance of surviving due to their own warlike psychological constitution and innate "killer instinct" of a soldier. Not to mention that there will have been many carriers of warrior genetic traits among the women who remained at home. So your argument is flawed and is just another case of your wishful thinking.

Your statistics don't really prove that Asians are less biologically violent. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. How can you be sure that it's not simply that Asian societies/communities might have developed cultural values that more effectively curb violent instincts? Wouldn't this hypothesis make more sense given that Asian populations too have experienced many periods of violence in the past?

As for homicide rates in Asia, why do you conveniently omit the Philippines? Might it be because it lends support to my hypothesis that Asians are just as biologically predisposed to violence as everybody else but that their societies have simply developed cultural values which curb violent tendencies? Or are you just going to blame it on the Spanish admixture?

[Lucas88]

As for statistics about homicide rates per country, I wonder how much of it is influenced primarily by culture and social factors as opposed to alleged biological racial dispositions.

Just out of curiosity I checked the most recent statistics available for various countries and in some cases found quite pronounced differences between countries with a similar racial composition.

For example, the UK has a homicide rate of 1.2 and Canada has 2.0 while the US has a homicide rate of 6.3!

Similarly, Poland and Czech Republic both have 0.7 while Russia has 7.3 and Ukraine has 6.2, even though these are all Slavic nations!

Let's look at Sub-Saharan Africa. Cameroon only has 1.4, Ghana has 2.1, Rwanda has 2.6, Kenya has 4.0, Angola has 4.8, and Nigeria has 34.5!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... icide_rate


These differences obviously cannot be explained simply by alleged racial characteristics. There must be other cultural and social factors at play.

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88

I’m not the one grasping at straws… I mean you are trying to make the argument that a race that has extremely low violent crime levels in virtually every country they are apart of is just as violent as a race that seems to leave a giant trail of destruction everywhere they go. Just because the crime rates are not exactly the same in every case doesn’t mean there aren’t extremely strong correlations. Being more successful at civilizing your population is making them less violent on a biological basis. Dogs are much less violent then wolves. Certain breeds of dogs are much less violent then other breeds. Yes the way they were raised certainly matters a lot but a wolf will not be truly peaceful no matter what you do whereas dogs that are aggressive, 90% of the time were abused. The same applies to human beings. Environment certainly does shape us but the mold we begin with matters a lot.

Yes soldiers who aren’t that violent may have died too but it’s pretty much guaranteed that all of the most violent people would have joined the military at that time period. And most of the destruction caused in society is caused by an incredibly small group of people anyway. You don’t need many of them to die in order to dramatically change a country.

The United States does not have a similar racial makeup to Europe and you know that. We all know which group is responsible for making our homicide rate 6.3 despite only being 13% of the population. If it was just Whites in America our homicide rate would be the same as European countries are. American Blacks on the other hand commit homicides at a similar level to Blacks in South Africa.

Yes, given that the Philippines is the only country in Asia that doesn’t have a low rate of violent crime and happens to be the only country we have talked about that isn’t pure Asian, I do think the Spanish admixture has something to do with it. Even then though, the Philippines crime rate is not outrageously high. It’s just high for an Asian country.

Russia’s and Ukraine’s people got raped to smithereens at the beginning of the century between the Cheka, the atrocities in WW2, and later the KGB. The rest of Europe did not endure the brunt of the Soviet Union’s crimes the way Russia and Ukraine did.

Crime is 50% genetic and 50% environmental.

Ah yes the whole correlation does not equal causation line. I have never seen someone make that argument and it not be a complete bullshit way to dismiss undeniable patterns.

In my head as soon as someone makes the correlation does not equal causation argument, I know they have lost and are just trying to whip out a revival card.

[Tsar]

@Lucas88

I’m not the one grasping at straws… I mean you are trying to make the argument that a race that has extremely low violent crime levels in virtually every country they are apart of is just as violent as a race that seems to leave a giant trail of destruction everywhere they go. Just because the crime rates are not exactly the same in every case doesn’t mean there aren’t extremely strong correlations. Being more successful at civilizing your population is making them less violent on a biological basis. Dogs are much less violent then wolves. Certain breeds of dogs are much less violent then other breeds. Yes the way they were raised certainly matters a lot but a wolf will not be truly peaceful no matter what you do whereas dogs that are aggressive, 90% of the time were abused. The same applies to human beings. Environment certainly does shape us but the mold we begin with matters a lot.

Yes soldiers who aren’t that violent may have died too but it’s pretty much guaranteed that all of the most violent people would have joined the military at that time period. And most of the destruction caused in society is caused by an incredibly small group of people anyway. You don’t need many of them to die in order to dramatically change a country.

The United States does not have a similar racial makeup to Europe and you know that. We all know which group is responsible for making our homicide rate 6.3 despite only being 13% of the population. If it was just Whites in America our homicide rate would be the same as European countries are. American Blacks on the other hand commit homicides at a similar level to Blacks in South Africa.

Yes, given that the Philippines is the only country in Asia that doesn’t have a low rate of violent crime and happens to be the only country we have talked about that isn’t pure Asian, I do think the Spanish admixture has something to do with it. Even then though, the Philippines crime rate is not outrageously high. It’s just high for an Asian country.

Russia’s and Ukraine’s people got raped to smithereens at the beginning of the century between the Cheka, the atrocities in WW2, and later the KGB. The rest of Europe did not endure the brunt of the Soviet Union’s crimes the way Russia and Ukraine did.

Crime is 50% genetic and 50% environmental.

Ah yes the whole correlation does not equal causation line. I have never seen someone make that argument and it not be a complete bullshit way to dismiss undeniable patterns.

In my head as soon as someone makes the correlation does not equal causation argument, I know they have lost and are just trying to whip out a revival card.

I agree with @Outcast9428 that the crime rate in Russia is mostly because of environmental factors.

Russia has had a lot of terrible events since the Bolshevik (Jew) Revolution (coup d'etat). Poverty, lack of opportunity (since the end of the USSR), Jews (the most criminal and evil race anywhere), and the West always trying to undermine Russia.

People who often do crime are people who are poor or pack opportunity.

Africans do the most violent crime but Jews are the most criminal.

Also, Japan and some Asian nations are extremely harsh. It's also more collective. Most have more opportunity. Men in most nations are more able to get a girlfriend. In Japan, it's often shameful for parents if their child is homeless or poor, so they'll get them a place, or children live with parents.

Are Asian nations genuinely less criminal? I don't think so if it's on a genetic level.

North Korea is still like a typical Asian society and China to some level. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are American vassal states. They had the warrior spirit temporarily weakened because of American neocolonialism.

Vietnam resisted and is another good example of the warrior spirit.

Japan chose to surrender and could surrender in WW2 because everyone respected the Emperor and Japanese culture emphasized honor. America also wanted to avoid a bloody war because Japanese soldiers and American soldiers would have been slaughtered. The Japanese would fight without retreating and that made them dangerous opponents. Both sides decided to end the war and part of it was because America was willing to let the Emperor live and keep his royal title and some level of authority, but an absolute monarchy became a constitutional monarchy and America wrote that constitution, which is actually better than America's own constitution in terms of free elections and other important things. The opportunity that Japan had is why they've been able to avoid having a high crime rate.

The factors for less crime are more about having opportunity and a good environment, more than genetic factors and learned through nurture.

Genetics can decrease probability because of racial and ethnic variations, and individual variations, but environmental factors and having good opportunity is what ultimately decides whether people will commit crime or not.

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88

I’m not the one grasping at straws… I mean you are trying to make the argument that a race that has extremely low violent crime levels in virtually every country they are apart of is just as violent as a race that seems to leave a giant trail of destruction everywhere they go. Just because the crime rates are not exactly the same in every case doesn’t mean there aren’t extremely strong correlations. Being more successful at civilizing your population is making them less violent on a biological basis. Dogs are much less violent then wolves. Certain breeds of dogs are much less violent then other breeds. Yes the way they were raised certainly matters a lot but a wolf will not be truly peaceful no matter what you do whereas dogs that are aggressive, 90% of the time were abused. The same applies to human beings. Environment certainly does shape us but the mold we begin with matters a lot.

Yes soldiers who aren’t that violent may have died too but it’s pretty much guaranteed that all of the most violent people would have joined the military at that time period. And most of the destruction caused in society is caused by an incredibly small group of people anyway. You don’t need many of them to die in order to dramatically change a country.

The United States does not have a similar racial makeup to Europe and you know that. We all know which group is responsible for making our homicide rate 6.3 despite only being 13% of the population. If it was just Whites in America our homicide rate would be the same as European countries are. American Blacks on the other hand commit homicides at a similar level to Blacks in South Africa.

Yes, given that the Philippines is the only country in Asia that doesn’t have a low rate of violent crime and happens to be the only country we have talked about that isn’t pure Asian, I do think the Spanish admixture has something to do with it. Even then though, the Philippines crime rate is not outrageously high. It’s just high for an Asian country.

Russia’s and Ukraine’s people got raped to smithereens at the beginning of the century between the Cheka, the atrocities in WW2, and later the KGB. The rest of Europe did not endure the brunt of the Soviet Union’s crimes the way Russia and Ukraine did.

Crime is 50% genetic and 50% environmental.

Ah yes the whole correlation does not equal causation line. I have never seen someone make that argument and it not be a complete bullshit way to dismiss undeniable patterns.

In my head as soon as someone makes the correlation does not equal causation argument, I know they have lost and are just trying to whip out a revival card.

I agree with @Outcast9428 that the crime rate in Russia is mostly because of environmental factors.

Russia has had a lot of terrible events since the Bolshevik (Jew) Revolution (coup d'etat). Poverty, lack of opportunity (since the end of the USSR), Jews (the most criminal and evil race anywhere), and the West always trying to undermine Russia.

People who often do crime are people who are poor or pack opportunity.

Africans do the most violent crime but Jews are the most criminal.

Also, Japan and some Asian nations are extremely harsh. It's also more collective. Most have more opportunity. Men in most nations are more able to get a girlfriend. In Japan, it's often shameful for parents if their child is homeless or poor, so they'll get them a place, or children live with parents.

Are Asian nations genuinely less criminal? I don't think so if it's on a genetic level.

North Korea is still like a typical Asian society and China to some level. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are American vassal states. They had the warrior spirit temporarily weakened because of American neocolonialism.

Vietnam resisted and is another good example of the warrior spirit.

Japan chose to surrender and could surrender in WW2 because everyone respected the Emperor and Japanese culture emphasized honor. America also wanted to avoid a bloody war because Japanese soldiers and American soldiers would have been slaughtered. The Japanese would fight without retreating and that made them dangerous opponents. Both sides decided to end the war and part of it was because America was willing to let the Emperor live and keep his royal title and some level of authority, but an absolute monarchy became a constitutional monarchy and America wrote that constitution, which is actually better than America's own constitution in terms of free elections and other important things. The opportunity that Japan had is why they've been able to avoid having a high crime rate.

The factors for less crime are more about having opportunity and a good environment, more than genetic factors and learned through nurture.

Genetics can decrease probability because of racial and ethnic variations, and individual variations, but environmental factors and having good opportunity is what ultimately decides whether people will commit crime or not.

Even before WW2, the Edo period in Japanese history was pretty much the most peaceful time period any nation has ever experienced in all of human history. I mean they went 200 years without a single war. Not even a small one. What other country can say that?

Genetic factors tend to play more of a role then environmental factors do. Look at White Americans who have every reason imaginable to start stringing up the Democrats by their necks yet still won’t do it. If the Republicans had done half the shit to the Blacks that was done to us by the Democrats they would have started a war.

Blacks in America have all the opportunity in the world because we bend over backwards to try and make them successful even when they don’t deserve it but they still commit outrageous amounts of crime. You saw that chart showing that the poorest Whites and Asians commit not just less, but significantly less crime then the richest Blacks do.

[Tsar]

@Lucas88

I’m not the one grasping at straws… I mean you are trying to make the argument that a race that has extremely low violent crime levels in virtually every country they are apart of is just as violent as a race that seems to leave a giant trail of destruction everywhere they go. Just because the crime rates are not exactly the same in every case doesn’t mean there aren’t extremely strong correlations. Being more successful at civilizing your population is making them less violent on a biological basis. Dogs are much less violent then wolves. Certain breeds of dogs are much less violent then other breeds. Yes the way they were raised certainly matters a lot but a wolf will not be truly peaceful no matter what you do whereas dogs that are aggressive, 90% of the time were abused. The same applies to human beings. Environment certainly does shape us but the mold we begin with matters a lot.

Yes soldiers who aren’t that violent may have died too but it’s pretty much guaranteed that all of the most violent people would have joined the military at that time period. And most of the destruction caused in society is caused by an incredibly small group of people anyway. You don’t need many of them to die in order to dramatically change a country.

The United States does not have a similar racial makeup to Europe and you know that. We all know which group is responsible for making our homicide rate 6.3 despite only being 13% of the population. If it was just Whites in America our homicide rate would be the same as European countries are. American Blacks on the other hand commit homicides at a similar level to Blacks in South Africa.

Yes, given that the Philippines is the only country in Asia that doesn’t have a low rate of violent crime and happens to be the only country we have talked about that isn’t pure Asian, I do think the Spanish admixture has something to do with it. Even then though, the Philippines crime rate is not outrageously high. It’s just high for an Asian country.

Russia’s and Ukraine’s people got raped to smithereens at the beginning of the century between the Cheka, the atrocities in WW2, and later the KGB. The rest of Europe did not endure the brunt of the Soviet Union’s crimes the way Russia and Ukraine did.

Crime is 50% genetic and 50% environmental.

Ah yes the whole correlation does not equal causation line. I have never seen someone make that argument and it not be a complete bullshit way to dismiss undeniable patterns.

In my head as soon as someone makes the correlation does not equal causation argument, I know they have lost and are just trying to whip out a revival card.

I agree with @Outcast9428 that the crime rate in Russia is mostly because of environmental factors.

Russia has had a lot of terrible events since the Bolshevik (Jew) Revolution (coup d'etat). Poverty, lack of opportunity (since the end of the USSR), Jews (the most criminal and evil race anywhere), and the West always trying to undermine Russia.

People who often do crime are people who are poor or pack opportunity.

Africans do the most violent crime but Jews are the most criminal.

Also, Japan and some Asian nations are extremely harsh. It's also more collective. Most have more opportunity. Men in most nations are more able to get a girlfriend. In Japan, it's often shameful for parents if their child is homeless or poor, so they'll get them a place, or children live with parents.

Are Asian nations genuinely less criminal? I don't think so if it's on a genetic level.

North Korea is still like a typical Asian society and China to some level. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are American vassal states. They had the warrior spirit temporarily weakened because of American neocolonialism.

Vietnam resisted and is another good example of the warrior spirit.

Japan chose to surrender and could surrender in WW2 because everyone respected the Emperor and Japanese culture emphasized honor. America also wanted to avoid a bloody war because Japanese soldiers and American soldiers would have been slaughtered. The Japanese would fight without retreating and that made them dangerous opponents. Both sides decided to end the war and part of it was because America was willing to let the Emperor live and keep his royal title and some level of authority, but an absolute monarchy became a constitutional monarchy and America wrote that constitution, which is actually better than America's own constitution in terms of free elections and other important things. The opportunity that Japan had is why they've been able to avoid having a high crime rate.

The factors for less crime are more about having opportunity and a good environment, more than genetic factors and learned through nurture.

Genetics can decrease probability because of racial and ethnic variations, and individual variations, but environmental factors and having good opportunity is what ultimately decides whether people will commit crime or not.

Even before WW2, the Edo period in Japanese history was pretty much the most peaceful time period any nation has ever experienced in all of human history. I mean they went 200 years without a single war. Not even a small one. What other country can say that?

Genetic factors tend to play more of a role then environmental factors do. Look at White Americans who have every reason imaginable to start stringing up the Democrats by their necks yet still won’t do it. If the Republicans had done half the shit to the Blacks that was done to us by the Democrats they would have started a war.

Blacks in America have all the opportunity in the world because we bend over backwards to try and make them successful even when they don’t deserve it but they still commit outrageous amounts of crime. You saw that chart showing that the poorest Whites and Asians commit not just less, but significantly less crime then the richest Blacks do.

I agree that genetics definitely has a significant role in violent crime, violence, and aggression.

[Cornfed]

When I was in Korea I often had a beard to distinguish myself from American soldiers. Apparently this wasn't seen as good by older females because it was seen as associated with dishevelled bums and such. The students seemed to like it though.

[Cornfed]

When I was in Korea I often had a beard to distinguish myself from American soldiers. Apparently this wasn't seen as good by older females because it was seen as associated with dishevelled bums and such. The students seemed to like it though.

I don't know how old those students were but assuming they were 18 or up, that would be a much better age to try and attract than old hags anyway.

Too young to do anything with, regrettably. It was a purely notional liking.

[Lucas88]

I’m not the one grasping at straws…

Oh yes you are, son!

My whole argument was that if Asian societies have a lower incidence of violence then it is due to cultural developments that curb violent instincts as opposed to Asians being BIOLOGICALLY non-violent. This nuance seems to be completely lost on you.

I'm not disputing the statistics about low rates of homicide in most Asian countries; I'm simply arguing that the reason for those differences may be different to what you assume it to be.

To argue that Asians don't have violent tendencies like every other race does is just absurd. First, Asian nations have been involved in some pretty damn brutal wars even until recent times, but at first you just wanted to ignore this and then you just wanted to sweep it under the rug with your straw-grasping explanation (pulled straight out of your ass) that all of the violent Japanese men must have died off so that you can continue to imagine that the Japanese are some kind of special, biologically peaceful race. Second, the fact that there is a minority of Asian nations with high rates of homicide suggests that Asians do indeed carry violent tendencies but that they are simply curbed by cultural developments which have emerged in most Asian societies.

As for Blacks, I would still argue that their high rate of homicide in America has a lot to do with the deprived ghetto culture that so many of them are raised in or at least share an affinity to. Same with many impoverished and unstable African societies. The environment that people are raised in during our formative years shapes our psychological constitution a lot. In my previous post I gave examples of Black African countries with rates of homicide as low or almost as low as those of Western Europe and North America. In light of this I would argue that Blacks aren't inherently more biologically murderous than other races and that they can behave in a civilized manner when they are raised in a stable environment. It's culture that causes the high rates of homicide. Certain countries and regions are plagued by their own localized problems that go uncontained and result in a lot of killings. I'm talking about things like US Black ghetto culture, the drug cartels running amok in certain parts of Latin America, semi-lawless states in Africa, crime and violence in the Philippines, etc.

The ethnic constitution of the typical Filipino is overwhelmingly Southeast and East Asian. Southern European admixture is rarely any higher than 5%. Now you're really just grasping at straws trying to prove that Asians are somehow biologically non-violent. Lol. Especially given the fact that Asians in the last century and throughout much of their history have fought so many bloody wars.

The "correlation does not equal causation" line is not simply a bullshit way to dismiss patterns and arguments. It is a real thing that an investigator must bear in mind when trying to discover the truth about something. You seem to have this simplistic and naïve idea that you can just cite some statistics to prove a point and then that's the end of it, when in reality statistics only identify general patterns but don't provide any further insight into deeper causes or relations. That seems to be the shallow level of intellectual thinking that you operate at. However, I personally don't think that you even care about real investigation of phenomena. You are obviously an ideologue and are more interested in seeking ways to justify what you want to believe, hence your contrived arguments, your tendency to ignore or dismiss anything that doesn't fit your own fantasy worldview, etc.

But what would one expect from a guy who bases his views about how women should behave on anime!

[Outcast9428]

I’m not the one grasping at straws…

Oh yes you are, son!

My whole argument was that if Asian societies have a lower incidence of violence then it is due to cultural developments that curb violent instincts as opposed to Asians being BIOLOGICALLY non-violent. This nuance seems to be completely lost on you.

I'm not disputing the statistics about low rates of homicide in most Asian countries; I'm simply arguing that the reason for those differences may be different to what you assume it to be.

To argue that Asians don't have violent tendencies like every other race does is just absurd. First, Asian nations have been involved in some pretty damn brutal wars even until recent times, but at first you just wanted to ignore this and then you just wanted to sweep it under the rug with your straw-grasping explanation (pulled straight out of your ass) that all of the violent Japanese men must have died off so that you can continue to imagine that the Japanese are some kind of special, biologically peaceful race. Second, the fact that there is a minority of Asian nations with high rates of homicide suggests that Asians do indeed carry violent tendencies but that they are simply curbed by cultural developments which have emerged in most Asian societies.

As for Blacks, I would still argue that their high rate of homicide in America has a lot to do with the deprived ghetto culture that so many of them are raised in or at least share an affinity to. Same with many impoverished and unstable African societies. The environment that people are raised in during our formative years shapes our psychological constitution a lot. In my previous post I gave examples of Black African countries with rates of homicide as low or almost as low as those of Western Europe and North America. In light of this I would argue that Blacks aren't inherently more biologically murderous than other races and that they can behave in a civilized manner when they are raised in a stable environment. It's culture that causes the high rates of homicide. Certain countries and regions are plagued by their own localized problems that go uncontained and result in a lot of killings. I'm talking about things like US Black ghetto culture, the drug cartels running amok in certain parts of Latin America, semi-lawless states in Africa, crime and violence in the Philippines, etc.

The ethnic constitution of the typical Filipino is overwhelmingly Southeast and East Asian. Southern European admixture is rarely any higher than 5%. Now you're really just grasping at straws trying to prove that Asians are somehow biologically non-violent. Lol. Especially given the fact that Asians in the last century and throughout much of their history have fought so many bloody wars.

The "correlation does not equal causation" line is not simply a bullshit way to dismiss patterns and arguments. It is a real thing that an investigator must bear in mind when trying to discover the truth about something. You seem to have this simplistic and naïve idea that you can just cite some statistics to prove a point and then that's the end of it, when in reality statistics only identify general patterns but don't provide any further insight into deeper causes or relations. That seems to be the shallow level of intellectual thinking that you operate at. However, I personally don't think that you even care about real investigation of phenomena. You are obviously an ideologue and are more interested in seeking ways to justify what you want to believe, hence your contrived arguments, your tendency to ignore or dismiss anything that doesn't fit your own fantasy worldview, etc.

But what would one expect from a guy who bases his views about how women should behave on anime!

Yes, the Philippines is overwhelmingly Asian in genetic makeup, which is probably why the crime rate there is not outrageously higher then normal. By the standards of the rest of the world, their homicide rate is not high... It is only high by Asian or European standards. A 4.4 homicide rate is not really a debate clincher. 5% of them is Southern European but another 5% is Native American. They are about 90% Asian. So yes, they are overwhelmingly Asian, but the admixture probably does have some effect.

Criminal behavior is the result of being more biologically violent. How you don't understand this is unfathomable to me. It reeks of leftist PC bullshit you claim to be above and the whole "correlation does not equal causation" argument is literally leftists' favorite "gotcha" card.

African countries, even the ones with low homicide rates, still often have militias engaged in armed conflicts and the governments there cannot stay in power without using force against their own people. Niger has a low homicide rate but has been involved in three wars over the past 30 years. Angola has a low homicide rate but just 20 years ago they got out of a major civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Not a single country in Africa is stable and developed... No country with any Black majority has ever been stable or developed.

I don't see how you don't understand that a war which sent millions of men overseas, most of whom ended up dying, would not change the biological makeup of the country. This is basic common sense that you simply refuse to accept. Consider that street gangs in America have killed hundreds of thousands of other street gang members since the 1970s? You really think that hasn't lowered the total population of street gang members in America? Yes there's still a lot of them but there definitely would be more if they hadn't killed one another so much.

Why shouldn't girls behave like anime girls? Anime girls are wonderful.

[Tsar]

I don't see how you don't understand that a war which sent millions of men overseas, most of whom ended up dying, would not change the biological makeup of the country. This is basic common sense that you simply refuse to accept. Consider that street gangs in America have killed hundreds of thousands of other street gang members since the 1970s? You really think that hasn't lowered the total population of street gang members in America? Yes there's still a lot of them but there definitely would be more if they hadn't killed one another so much.

This is because genetics is complicated. Daughters can pass on violent genes much like @Lucas88 said. Children not yet fighting age, deserters, and often times even the Yakuza (Japanese mafia) were exempt. Violence could also skip a generation. Genes are a complicated subject.

It does change the genetic makeup. But many men fighting were drafted or wouldn't like to be there fighting. If they signed up then it's more for duty or for income.

More aggressive men and some violent men would be more likely to voluntarily sign up but many men don't have a choice.

Also, crime is relative. There's violent crime, non-violent crime, and things that have been wrongfully criminalized by arbitrary laws. The law isn't the judge of what's criminal or not criminal. Universal morals are the guide.

If I wanted to visit Cuba, buy a ruby from Myanmar's military government, or get a girlfriend that I want even if the US Law doesn't allow it, then I will break the United States law. I would be a proud criminal.

Same goes for if I wear a pin or a shirt with the Letter Z in Germany. I'll be a proud criminal.

Almost all laws are illegitimate laws with no legitimacy under any objective system of evaluation.

The law is a system meant to allow the Elites to maintain power and all the common people must obey it. Elites are free to break it.

Violent crimes like murder, rapes, and stealing from commoners are terrible by any measure.

However, stealing from the mega millionaires or billionaires, or the murder of George Soros and his entire family for example, would be completely acceptable because it's not wrong by any objective system of evaluation.

[Lucas88]

Criminal behavior is the result of being more biologically violent. How you don't understand this is unfathomable to me. It reeks of leftist PC bullshit you claim to be above and the whole "correlation does not equal causation" argument is literally leftists' favorite "gotcha" card.

Now you're turning this into a silly leftwing vs. rightwing argument as a deflective tactic now that your arguments have been shown to be fragile and the shallowness of your reasoning has been revealed. You really are in damage control mode, aren't you? It doesn't surprise me at all given how fond you are of ideology and how little interest you have in the consideration of anything that doesn't conform squarely to your own beliefs and assumptions.

As I already explained, the fact that correlation doesn't always equal causation is a real thing that is acknowledged by any legitimate social scientist or researcher. Statistics only show observable patterns but they don't say anything about the underlying causes. To gain an understanding of those one has to delve deeper. You don't seem to understand how sociological or anthropological research works at all. You don't just gather statistics and then force your own prejudices and desired conclusions onto them. A researcher worth his salt studies the data and then explores the causes behind those patterns as well as all of the possible factors that contribute to them. But I see that you have no interest in doing that and certainly no commitment to objectivity and only seem to want to prove your own ideological assumptions right even if that means ignoring contradictory facts and coming up with the most contrived arguments. I also notice how you are quick to dismiss arguments that you don't like via ad hominem (e.g., leftist PC bullshit). I even think that you get "triggered"!

It's unfathomable to you because you tend towards a simplistic interpretation of reality. I myself, on the other hand, am capable of understanding nuances and the overlapping of different factors as well as things such as extraneous variables. I think like a social scientist and seek to explore deeper and get to the bottom of things whereas you think like an ideologue or a political partisan and care more about your own dogmas rather than truth or objective reality. That's why it's unfathomable to you.

Yes, the Philippines is overwhelmingly Asian in genetic makeup, which is probably why the crime rate there is not outrageously higher then normal. By the standards of the rest of the world, their homicide rate is not high... It is only high by Asian or European standards. A 4.4 homicide rate is not really a debate clincher. 5% of them is Southern European but another 5% is Native American. They are about 90% Asian. So yes, they are overwhelmingly Asian, but the admixture probably does have some effect.

Well, just a few years ago it was higher than that at 10.7. That's higher than the US, Russia and some African countries.

But now your go-to response is that it must be the Southern European if not the Native American admixture (you need to preserve your delusional assumption that the Asians who you fawn over so much are somehow special and not biologically prone to violence, after all) when everybody who has gone to the Philippines knows just how politically corrupt, backward and neglectful the country is. Don't you even consider political, historical and social factors for why the Philippines is the way it is?

African countries, even the ones with low homicide rates, still often have militias engaged in armed conflicts and the governments there cannot stay in power without using force against their own people. Niger has a low homicide rate but has been involved in three wars over the past 30 years. Angola has a low homicide rate but just 20 years ago they got out of a major civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of people. Not a single country in Africa is stable and developed... No country with any Black majority has ever been stable or developed.

But is this simply because niggas are biologically violent as you seem to think, or might it be because African nations have not had stable leadership and have been full of political corruption at the top of society since colonialism? I'm not trying to sound like a Marxist leftwing pinko libtard here but the historical legacy of a nation's leadership and government certainly does play a big role in a society's development. Instability will obviously increase deprivation. Deprivation will cause a large part of the populace to lack in terms of human development and not reach its potential.

There are actually over a dozen sub-Saharan African countries with medium human development. Those include countries like Angola and Kenya. They aren't all failed states like Somalia. African countries can advance with the right kind of government and economic development.

I don't see how you don't understand that a war which sent millions of men overseas, most of whom ended up dying, would not change the biological makeup of the country. This is basic common sense that you simply refuse to accept. Consider that street gangs in America have killed hundreds of thousands of other street gang members since the 1970s? You really think that hasn't lowered the total population of street gang members in America? Yes there's still a lot of them but there definitely would be more if they hadn't killed one another so much.

We've already gone over this and now you're just being silly. I explained the point about war in my previous post.

Why shouldn't girls behave like anime girls? Anime girls are wonderful.

Anime is not real life and even the creator Miyazaki has commented on how the current state of anime is bad because most anime works portray people and reality in a totally unrealistic manner. My comment about anime was supposed to be a reference to how unrealistic you are and how detached from objectivity you seem to be.

[CaptainSkelebob]

It can definitely disappear, not entirely but become significantly less common in a matter of centuries. The homicide rate in Europe in 1,000 AD for example was 100 per 100,000 people. Homicide rates of this scale were pretty normal in the Ancient world.

Violent tendencies don't ever disappear. They are part of our nature and exist for the benefit of our survival. Violent tendencies can be constrained through the effects of civilization but they cannot disappear completely. They simply take a back seat in times of peace until the next war or conflict breaks out.

The warrior disposition exists in people of all races. Asians aren't exempt from this.

WW2 was definitely the last hurrah so to speak for Japan’s militarism. It is very possible that all the violent people in Japan essentially got exterminated by WW2.

I think that at this point you're just grasping at straws in order to defend your thesis that Asians are somehow biologically less prone to violence (even though there have undeniably been plenty of wars throughout Asia until relatively recently). In wars the violent people don't all die. Plenty of them survive and then impregnate women upon their return. In Japan today there will be millions of men with the warrior disposition walking the streets and going about everyday life. They simply don't act upon their violent instincts because in their present environment there is rarely any need to do so. But like anywhere else, Japan is one apocalyptic societal breakdown away from becoming a land of violence. Should the country ever fall into anarchy for whatever reason, people's violent instincts would immediately return (even among those gay-looking Japanese men) and the movie Battle Royale would become a reality!

I don’t think being athletic is the same thing as being primally masculine.

Athleticism is not the same as primal masculinity but some athletic activities such as MMA and other combat sports do require primal masculinity since the act of fighting is inherently primal and they certainly serve to cultivate it.

As a martial arts instructor I recommend basic combat training to all men for the cultivation and proper channeling of our violent instincts and primal masculinity as well as the acquirement of practical combat skills for self-defense and survival. This requires that men be exposed to violence in a controlled environment. In fact, I taught my own fight classes a few years ago (@Pixel--Dude and I called it "fight club"). I gathered a handful of guys who wanted to learn how to fight and, after teaching them a few basics, I got them to fight each other and rough each other up a little, but not to a degree where people would get seriously hurt. After a few months of the training, all of the guys felt much less scared of violence and more confident in their ability to defend themselves. That's because through my training program I reactivated their primal instincts and primal masculinity. Actual combat under controlled conditions is the best thing for that.

Yes, as a martial arts instructor, my job is to take little pussies - pussies who have been pussified by the major-league pussyholery of the modern world - and turn them into warriors through the reawakening of their warrior spirit.

I would assume the Chavs in the UK are basically your frat boys.

No, chavs are not analogous to frat boys. Chavs are a delinquent subculture from deprived neighborhoods and almost none of them go to university. They typically drink cheap alcohol, take drugs, wear fake designer clothes, listen to stuff like Uprising, and act "tough" (although that is mostly just posturing and most of them soon back down whenever anybody stands up to them).

The party people at university who I consider similar to America's frat boys are usually middle class.

The people who claim to have good social skills don’t really have valuable skills because the skills they claim to have don’t translate into deep, long term, loyal relationships and friendships. Normies have terrible relationships with one another and one only has to spend a little time on Reddit, looking at the batshit insane kind of drama that normies seem to find themselves involved in to realize that what normies call “social skills” is a bunch of horseshit.

What you are describing is not the same as what psychology regards as social skills. Real social skills are extremely useful for success in various areas of life and to have them well developed is enormously advantageous.

Normies are good at playing these weird, complex games of social manipulation with one another. That’s all it is really. Nerd friendships on the other hand are far more open, far more honest, have significantly less drama and conflict, and tend to last much longer.

I don't know if there is really a normie vs. nerd distinction when it comes to this. I've met plenty of regular mainstream people whose friendships and relationships didn't consist of social games or manipulation. It probably has more to do with underlying social dysfunctions and personality disorders in a subset of the population.

That was awesome. I remember the fight club we had when we are feeling up for it we should go back to the gym and do some more training. See who else wanted to go. I need to get back into some martial arts.

I saw I was tagged by @MarcosZeitola in this thread, but I forgot to respond and haven't really been following this discussion. I will weigh in a little bit though based on what you've said in your reply to @Outcast9428.

I've been to parties with some nerds who had been to uni and I alluded to this kind of in my Evil of Capitalism thread that I didn't really find any of them particularly interesting or even intelligent. In fact, the impression I got from nerds is that they are just as bad as frat boys but in a different sense. They still have that self entitled sense of superiority, like they think everyone else is dumb and they are smarter than everyone else just because they got a degree at university.

Frat boys might be obsessed with all that macho alpha male superiority bullshit like our simple-minded friend @CaptainSkelebob But nerds are different in the sense that they believe they are intellectually superior to everyone else.

Plus, @Outcast9428 these university nerds weren't much different to frat boys in terms of morals and what not. Half of them were little worms who tried getting on each other's girlfriends and all that shit.

That's what English nerds are like anyway. Just a different subset of solipsistic assholes who don't value friendship or anything like that. My life is much better having them not be a part of it.

Simple minded???
Here!!!
Im not ur friend fella!!!
Alpha masculinity is something natural
Some men are just naturally more better than others
Ive done boxing fella
Years of it
Wont be afraid to give you some fisticuffs if you call me that again...