Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.


Scam free! Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Attn Truthers/Patriots: NWO does NOT control your freedom!

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: fschmidt, jamesbond

Postby publicduende » Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:34 am

Ghost wrote:Perhaps the conspiracy is so airtight now that it is truly foolproof.

Have a family and your children become slaves to the NWO.

Don't have a family and those who love freedom and resist the NWO will die out.

Perfect. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Do you mind a simple two-point advice.
1) Take a SSRI antidepressant of your choice, 5 or 10 mg, once a day.
2) Take all of your savings and start travelling, starting from Latin America and ending in South East Asia, or vice-versa. Try to be out and about for at least 3 months, if not 6.

That will not solve all of the world's problems, and not even yours, yet will give you enough perspective on the beauty that pervades nature, including human nature, and guide your choices towards what's best for your and your happiness and peace of mind.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2838
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm







Postby Jester » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:38 am

publicduende wrote:Then stage two starts: knowing that one woman so well, you know what she loves and hates, what she desires and what upsets her, what makes her into a meowing furball ready to cuddle up to you, or a sexy tiger ready to rock your night. Call it a game, a challenging and ultimately very rewarding game. Would you be more fulfilled by starting a game and progressing till the end, or playing the first couple of levels of several games at the same time, without ever knowing what's next and what's better in any of them?


Your words call to mind the poetry that Solomon, a great ladies' man, composed for his favorite bride. Yes, advancing in the levels of love with one women is like an art.

Memories.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7869
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby Ghost » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:58 am

publicduende wrote:
Ghost wrote:Perhaps the conspiracy is so airtight now that it is truly foolproof.

Have a family and your children become slaves to the NWO.

Don't have a family and those who love freedom and resist the NWO will die out.

Perfect. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Do you mind a simple two-point advice.
1) Take a SSRI antidepressant of your choice, 5 or 10 mg, once a day.
2) Take all of your savings and start travelling, starting from Latin America and ending in South East Asia, or vice-versa. Try to be out and about for at least 3 months, if not 6.

That will not solve all of the world's problems, and not even yours, yet will give you enough perspective on the beauty that pervades nature, including human nature, and guide your choices towards what's best for your and your happiness and peace of mind.


I am not depressed. Neither in the clinical sense or the commonly used sense. I feel pretty good about my life now. What I talk about on this forum does not make me depressed.

And I will doing some traveling, but that will mostly be after getting my first ESL job, after the first of the year. So I am leaving, and still very strongly believe in escaping the Anglosphere. But yes, traveling is better than a lot of things to see the world. Experiencing other peoples and places will enlighten the soul, at least. I know things probably look darker from America than elsewhere.
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5749
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:23 am

Postby lavezzi » Thu Nov 15, 2012 8:36 am

I am not depressed. Neither in the clinical sense or the commonly used sense.


both originate from the same thing; seeing the world through a scope of how others have misled you to see it rather than how it actually is. clinical depression may well be legitimately linked to chemical imbalences in the brain, but to think that this is biologically determined and that the only solution is to fill your body with chemicals in order to restore balance is a fallacy and a deception used to sell you drugs. a transferal of ones perception from the lower self to the higher self will produce a much better effect and is a far more natural solution.


And I will doing some traveling, but that will mostly be after getting my first ESL job, after the first of the year. So I am leaving, and still very strongly believe in escaping the Anglosphere. But yes, traveling is better than a lot of things to see the world. Experiencing other peoples and places will enlighten the soul, at least. I know things probably look darker from America than elsewhere.


very true. however you dont need to go anywhere to enlighten the soul. you have it all there; the awareness, the intellectual faculties and the ability to introspect. the answers are all inside you, but travelling is also an excellent outlet for personal growth. just dont get caught up in such nonsense as trying to "bang chicks" simply because you have been conditioned with certain cultural values your ego can latch onto and use to decifer phony self worth on the most superficial level. this would be a complete waste of an invaluabe opportunity to learn about life and it wont make you any happier in the true sense. best of luck with your journey anyway.
lavezzi
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:38 pm
Location: Republic of Éire

Postby Billy » Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:16 am

in this matter i am with winston. imagine captain kirk flying through space with a dozen kids. no way. - yes of cousre children might be nice but we don't know. why take the risk? everything we do is because of the ego. i think it's impossible to switch off the ego. i think it's nonsense to declare kids to holy beings. wtf.

men who go crazy because they can't see their children or men who can't bring enough money to feed their children are examples why having kids might not be such a great thing. the truth is that life is not very entertaining. so as we are here we look at what life is about. but that is no reason to make children without knowing about the meaning of life.

but still the proponents of "but the children" talk their crap about how beautiful the experience ist. - life has no meaning as far we know. why the heck should we produce more meaningless childress?

quantity is nothing without quality. so become maybe a quality person than we can talk about making quality children. truth is that there might be very few quality persons. how do i know that? when i look in to the faces of people there are no happy people at all. but these people want to make children. what will they become. yes, unhappy adults who are going to make unhappy children.

at least for truthseeking people it's important to be objective. people with family are mostly living in their little world and other things are not important to them. who wants to become such a guy? right, it has not be such necessarily but it happens often enough.

this brainwashing and hyping to have children effects people who don't even like the idea of having children. but in our weak moments we believe that crap and things get irreversible.

stop making kids if you are no superman. the world has enough maniacs.

ok, when this is your biological urge so do it. but don't give it a "holy" touch. winston from all your standpoints this is the best.

one of the reason why people are hypocrites is they have no more energy left to handle the truth. the kids and women take so much energy that they become to mindless zombies. then they are jealous of the people who have freedom.
Billy
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:01 pm

Postby ethan_sg » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:35 pm

Let's not forget the old saying 'it takes a village/community to bring up a kid.'

Even older societies recognized the effort and commitment required in bringing up a kid, but unlike us they had the bonds of close community, neighbors, fellow villagers, relatives etc. to help in the process. In the fragmented, alienating state of modern society, where people are generally bereft of any genuine community, and where most men are not in control of their own livelihood (subject to the vagaries of the economy, markets, and the tyranny of office hierarchy) bringing up a kid becomes a whole new different prospect altogether - a much tougher ask. This difficulty is compounded by the high costs of living (even middle class families are enslaved to lifelong household debt to simply afford a house) which often require both parents to be working - who's going to bring up the kid?

No doubt there are benefits to having kids such as carrying on your legacy, a sense of family belonging, someone to take care of you when you're old etc. but the conditions of society are far from ideal for having kids. Purchasing power of average families has eroded severely over the last few decades due to astronomically high real inflation (just look at housing prices in developed countries in Asia for instance), while the means to survival and means of production are largely in the hands of large hierarchical multinational organizations that enslave us, and having kids only cements that slavery because we wouldn't be able afford to suddenly just quit the job and go abroad, for instance, when your sense of adventure comes calling.

I won't go as far as to say that having kids is slavery. But the conditions of modern society such as a lack of community, the lack of control over one's livelihood, wage slavery, high costs of living (partially due to an already overpopulated planet and also due to widespread large scale money printing by central banks around the world) are such that the financial responsibilities that come with bringing up a kid enslave you to an oppressive system.

For those who are fortunate enough to be independently wealthy, then perhaps having kids is more feasible. But this does not represent the majority who live in quiet desperation, and who are looking for a way out of the rat race in a place away from it all, and that represents a lot of us here in this forum, for which modern society has made kids a an overwhelming emotional commitment and financial luxury that many cannot afford.
ethan_sg
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:18 am
Location: Shanghai

Postby Jester » Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:27 pm

ethan_sg wrote:Let's not forget the old saying 'it takes a village/community to bring up a kid.'

Even older societies recognized the effort and commitment required in bringing up a kid, but unlike us they had the bonds of close community, neighbors, fellow villagers, relatives etc. to help in the process. In the fragmented, alienating state of modern society, where people are generally bereft of any genuine community, and where most men are not in control of their own livelihood (subject to the vagaries of the economy, markets, and the tyranny of office hierarchy) bringing up a kid becomes a whole new different prospect altogether - a much tougher ask. This difficulty is compounded by the high costs of living (even middle class families are enslaved to lifelong household debt to simply afford a house) which often require both parents to be working - who's going to bring up the kid?

No doubt there are benefits to having kids such as carrying on your legacy, a sense of family belonging, someone to take care of you when you're old etc. but the conditions of society are far from ideal for having kids. Purchasing power of average families has eroded severely over the last few decades due to astronomically high real inflation (just look at housing prices in developed countries in Asia for instance), while the means to survival and means of production are largely in the hands of large hierarchical multinational organizations that enslave us, and having kids only cements that slavery because we wouldn't be able afford to suddenly just quit the job and go abroad, for instance, when your sense of adventure comes calling.

I won't go as far as to say that having kids is slavery. But the conditions of modern society such as a lack of community, the lack of control over one's livelihood, wage slavery, high costs of living (partially due to an already overpopulated planet and also due to widespread large scale money printing by central banks around the world) are such that the financial responsibilities that come with bringing up a kid enslave you to an oppressive system.

For those who are fortunate enough to be independently wealthy, then perhaps having kids is more feasible. But this does not represent the majority who live in quiet desperation, and who are looking for a way out of the rat race in a place away from it all, and that represents a lot of us here in this forum, for which modern society has made kids a an overwhelming emotional commitment and financial luxury that many cannot afford.


Hard to argue with your description.

So should the lab rats acquiesce, and comply, and and cease reproducing?

Or should they break out, and live free?

The moral alternatives for the lab rats are:

(1) Break out, kill the scientist, occupy the building, and live free.
(2) Break out, escape the building, go feral, and live free.
(3) Continue breeding while teaching offspring to do (1) or (2)
(4) Remain celibate for life, and live a life of contemplation.

Any other course of action lacks integrity.
Jester
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 7869
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:10 am
Location: Chiang Mai Thailand

Postby ethan_sg » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:26 am

I guess it's because there's no easy answer that it's therefore a problem isn't it?

I don't quite think it is necessarily the direct intention of the elite to stop the masses from reproducing though. Indeed there are some countries like Singapore and I believe Taiwan that offer tax incentives for couples to have kids, although of course these incentives pale in comparison to the financial and emotional burdens.

There are many things that human corporate slaves can do that machines cannot yet do, so the masses are not yet dispensable. Also, ageing populations and declining birth rates are technically bad for economies, stock markets, property markets and risk assets in general in the long run, and this tends to hit the elite, the mega-capitalists, who hold the most risk assets. So I don't quite think it's in their interests yet to encourage a declining population, which if it becomes too extreme, may actually result in economic chaos that eventually brings the whole system down.

I see many couples/singles refraining from having kids more as a consequence of the system we live in, as opposed to it being a direct intention/policy of the system. Screw over the masses too much and yea..there are going to be consequences that hurt them that will indirectly hurt you as well, because you still have use for the masses.

Regarding alternative 4, not having kids doesn't necessarily mean you have to be literally celibate - and refrain from love, romance, sex and possibly even marriage (if it's the right girl and not some anglo or anglo-influenced bitch). Hey if you manage to find your little refuge away from the rat race like some on this forum seem to have successfully done (Outwest, Ladislav, Discopro Joe, The_Adventurer, JC from retire-cheap-Asia, hopefully Xiongmao, Jacere and Falcon soon as well), there's still quite a bit of good, fun, adventurous soulful living to be had away from it all, in places less tarnished by soulless corporate culture, where the women are nice, the food is not all processed, and strangers are all potential friends instead of ice-cold competitors.

I guess these people may then fall under alternative 2 then? Winston has the potential and means to join this group as well but somehow chooses, one has to say, almost masochistically now to stay in a place he's unhappy in.



Jester wrote:
ethan_sg wrote:Let's not forget the old saying 'it takes a village/community to bring up a kid.'

Even older societies recognized the effort and commitment required in bringing up a kid, but unlike us they had the bonds of close community, neighbors, fellow villagers, relatives etc. to help in the process. In the fragmented, alienating state of modern society, where people are generally bereft of any genuine community, and where most men are not in control of their own livelihood (subject to the vagaries of the economy, markets, and the tyranny of office hierarchy) bringing up a kid becomes a whole new different prospect altogether - a much tougher ask. This difficulty is compounded by the high costs of living (even middle class families are enslaved to lifelong household debt to simply afford a house) which often require both parents to be working - who's going to bring up the kid?

No doubt there are benefits to having kids such as carrying on your legacy, a sense of family belonging, someone to take care of you when you're old etc. but the conditions of society are far from ideal for having kids. Purchasing power of average families has eroded severely over the last few decades due to astronomically high real inflation (just look at housing prices in developed countries in Asia for instance), while the means to survival and means of production are largely in the hands of large hierarchical multinational organizations that enslave us, and having kids only cements that slavery because we wouldn't be able afford to suddenly just quit the job and go abroad, for instance, when your sense of adventure comes calling.

I won't go as far as to say that having kids is slavery. But the conditions of modern society such as a lack of community, the lack of control over one's livelihood, wage slavery, high costs of living (partially due to an already overpopulated planet and also due to widespread large scale money printing by central banks around the world) are such that the financial responsibilities that come with bringing up a kid enslave you to an oppressive system.

For those who are fortunate enough to be independently wealthy, then perhaps having kids is more feasible. But this does not represent the majority who live in quiet desperation, and who are looking for a way out of the rat race in a place away from it all, and that represents a lot of us here in this forum, for which modern society has made kids a an overwhelming emotional commitment and financial luxury that many cannot afford.


Hard to argue with your description.

So should the lab rats acquiesce, and comply, and and cease reproducing?

Or should they break out, and live free?

The moral alternatives for the lab rats are:

(1) Break out, kill the scientist, occupy the building, and live free.
(2) Break out, escape the building, go feral, and live free.
(3) Continue breeding while teaching offspring to do (1) or (2)
(4) Remain celibate for life, and live a life of contemplation.

Any other course of action lacks integrity.
ethan_sg
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:18 am
Location: Shanghai

Postby OutWest » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:39 am

Jester wrote:
ethan_sg wrote:Let's not forget the old saying 'it takes a village/community to bring up a kid.'

Even older societies recognized the effort and commitment required in bringing up a kid, but unlike us they had the bonds of close community, neighbors, fellow villagers, relatives etc. to help in the process. In the fragmented, alienating state of modern society, where people are generally bereft of any genuine community, and where most men are not in control of their own livelihood (subject to the vagaries of the economy, markets, and the tyranny of office hierarchy) bringing up a kid becomes a whole new different prospect altogether - a much tougher ask. This difficulty is compounded by the high costs of living (even middle class families are enslaved to lifelong household debt to simply afford a house) which often require both parents to be working - who's going to bring up the kid?

No doubt there are benefits to having kids such as carrying on your legacy, a sense of family belonging, someone to take care of you when you're old etc. but the conditions of society are far from ideal for having kids. Purchasing power of average families has eroded severely over the last few decades due to astronomically high real inflation (just look at housing prices in developed countries in Asia for instance), while the means to survival and means of production are largely in the hands of large hierarchical multinational organizations that enslave us, and having kids only cements that slavery because we wouldn't be able afford to suddenly just quit the job and go abroad, for instance, when your sense of adventure comes calling.

I won't go as far as to say that having kids is slavery. But the conditions of modern society such as a lack of community, the lack of control over one's livelihood, wage slavery, high costs of living (partially due to an already overpopulated planet and also due to widespread large scale money printing by central banks around the world) are such that the financial responsibilities that come with bringing up a kid enslave you to an oppressive system.

For those who are fortunate enough to be independently wealthy, then perhaps having kids is more feasible. But this does not represent the majority who live in quiet desperation, and who are looking for a way out of the rat race in a place away from it all, and that represents a lot of us here in this forum, for which modern society has made kids a an overwhelming emotional commitment and financial luxury that many cannot afford.


Hard to argue with your description.

So should the lab rats acquiesce, and comply, and and cease reproducing?

Or should they break out, and live free?

The moral alternatives for the lab rats are:

(1) Break out, kill the scientist, occupy the building, and live free.
(2) Break out, escape the building, go feral, and live free.
(3) Continue breeding while teaching offspring to do (1) or (2)
(4) Remain celibate for life, and live a life of contemplation.

Any other course of action lacks integrity.


For those who feel that having children is awful, I highly recommend that they DO NOT have kids at all, and perhaps get cut as soon as possible so that they do not end up having some child they resent and abuse in some way, perhaps just by indifference.

Why would any reasonable man argue that others who feel unfriendly to having children should have them? It is one of those choices related to "I will mind my business and you take care of yours.".

I am happy with my kids...totally no regrets. I suspect I was predisposed to that kind of outcome. If you do not feel that way, then avoid having children. That is entirely your affair.

I suspect that Jester here may share a point of view closer to my own...but no right or wrong answer here...

Outwest
OutWest
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Asia/USA

Postby publicduende » Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:22 pm

OutWest wrote:For those who feel that having children is awful, I highly recommend that they DO NOT have kids at all, and perhaps get cut as soon as possible so that they do not end up having some child they resent and abuse in some way, perhaps just by indifference.

Why would any reasonable man argue that others who feel unfriendly to having children should have them? It is one of those choices related to "I will mind my business and you take care of yours.".

I am happy with my kids...totally no regrets. I suspect I was predisposed to that kind of outcome. If you do not feel that way, then avoid having children. That is entirely your affair.

I suspect that Jester here may share a point of view closer to my own...but no right or wrong answer here...

Outwest


I think Winston's thesis tries to generalise a situation that is only fitting for a limited number of people, which certainly includes him and a few fellow forum members, but not you Outwest and probably me neither. One thing is the perfectly legitimate desire to find a lifestyle that's intellectually and spiritually inspiring, conducive to deeper and more authentic human relationships and as far as possible from the grinding machine of terminal capitalism.

Another is to lock ourselves into an individualistic, self-referential form of happiness where "romance" means lots of short, shallow relationships that add very little to our own development and (probably) to that of the woman the other side of the bed. And where "freedom" means the absence of those essential reference figures that become the object of our love, our aspirations, our desire to project who we are (or were) into a new generation.

Erich Fromm, the great American psychologist and author, has put forward many crystal clear definitions of love. One of my favourite ones is "Immature love says: I love you because I need you. Mature love says: I need you because I love you". Those who cant't or won't love in the true sense of the word will easily find themselves free, open to anything and probably enjoy it a great deal. That, until, at some point, they inevitably realise that something is missing and, if they have a shred of moral sense and intellectual honesty, set out to seek love the proper way. Mature, full love always and inevitably binds two human beings together, naturally putting them in the condition of wanting, needing each other.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2838
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Postby Ginger » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:29 pm

:)
Last edited by Ginger on Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
I do not promise to be gingerly :P
Ginger
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:39 pm
Location: somewhere out there

Postby publicduende » Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:35 pm

Jester wrote:
publicduende wrote:Then stage two starts: knowing that one woman so well, you know what she loves and hates, what she desires and what upsets her, what makes her into a meowing furball ready to cuddle up to you, or a sexy tiger ready to rock your night. Call it a game, a challenging and ultimately very rewarding game. Would you be more fulfilled by starting a game and progressing till the end, or playing the first couple of levels of several games at the same time, without ever knowing what's next and what's better in any of them?


Your words call to mind the poetry that Solomon, a great ladies' man, composed for his favorite bride. Yes, advancing in the levels of love with one women is like an art.

Memories.


Wow, thanks! Likening my rants to the poetry of Solomon must be the biggest compliment I have ever received :) I think it's just common sense, an expression of what we learn by experience, trials & errors...
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2838
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Postby publicduende » Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:18 pm

ethan_sg wrote:Let's not forget the old saying 'it takes a village/community to bring up a kid.'

Even older societies recognized the effort and commitment required in bringing up a kid, but unlike us they had the bonds of close community, neighbors, fellow villagers, relatives etc. to help in the process. In the fragmented, alienating state of modern society, where people are generally bereft of any genuine community, and where most men are not in control of their own livelihood (subject to the vagaries of the economy, markets, and the tyranny of office hierarchy) bringing up a kid becomes a whole new different prospect altogether - a much tougher ask. This difficulty is compounded by the high costs of living (even middle class families are enslaved to lifelong household debt to simply afford a house) which often require both parents to be working - who's going to bring up the kid?

No doubt there are benefits to having kids such as carrying on your legacy, a sense of family belonging, someone to take care of you when you're old etc. but the conditions of society are far from ideal for having kids. Purchasing power of average families has eroded severely over the last few decades due to astronomically high real inflation (just look at housing prices in developed countries in Asia for instance), while the means to survival and means of production are largely in the hands of large hierarchical multinational organizations that enslave us, and having kids only cements that slavery because we wouldn't be able afford to suddenly just quit the job and go abroad, for instance, when your sense of adventure comes calling.

I won't go as far as to say that having kids is slavery. But the conditions of modern society such as a lack of community, the lack of control over one's livelihood, wage slavery, high costs of living (partially due to an already overpopulated planet and also due to widespread large scale money printing by central banks around the world) are such that the financial responsibilities that come with bringing up a kid enslave you to an oppressive system.

For those who are fortunate enough to be independently wealthy, then perhaps having kids is more feasible. But this does not represent the majority who live in quiet desperation, and who are looking for a way out of the rat race in a place away from it all, and that represents a lot of us here in this forum, for which modern society has made kids a an overwhelming emotional commitment and financial luxury that many cannot afford.


Very true. We live in a world that puts less and less emphasis on the community and public institutions as essential contributors to a child's upbringing. I will never forget my primary school teacher: she was much more than a teacher, she would teach us in class but also tell us off when we did something wrong, sometimes even down to (light) physical punishment. My parents and those of my classmates' would never even dream of criticising her paedagogical methods, as it was quite understood that she was, by "institutional" right, part and parcel or our upbringing. Nowadays a teacher has to be careful even smiling at a young pupil, let alone touch her, for fear of being sued for inappropriate contact, or worse. And even the actual teaching has gone down a lot in quality and depth.

What's ironical, modern middle class families all over the world have voluntarily traded the safety of a local community composed of one's own parents and grandparents, plus a number of families known and trusted for one or two generations, for the higher financial status of a metropolitan job and the aseptic, "contactless" social life than comes with it. Italy has never shined for child welfare and well-financed childminding institutions, yet our reliance on the extended family (grandparents and mature siblings, and the occasional family friend) for our children's upbringing has been a massive support net for decades. Things are unfortunately goin down the drain here, too, due to the same kind of "desertification" of local job pools in favour of large cities that we see everywhere in the world.

Pushed by the inflation of modern life, we have asked for disgregation and obtained it. Our friendly neighbours are all weirdos and potential child abusers, the local school an overpriced source of learning or mediocre quality. We have compensated this general lack of trust with the immense arrogance of thinking that we, the 30-something parents
at their first bout of parenthood, "know best" about our kids and are the sole entitled to anything related to their intellectual, moral, human, and social development. And when we can't or won't have the material time to take care of them, we always have surrogates to keep them busy and sooth our sense of guilt: toys, TV, videogames, solitary indoor activities, etc.

Compare and contrast with a child's life of 30, 50, maybe 100 years ago. The wealthy and middle class were much thinner slices of society as they are now, and the typical child would be left to fend for themselves in a "survive or succumb" environment. Yes, the community played a greater role, but the world wasn't a safer place tout-court for them. Only, this environment was precisely what gave those kids a chance to develop defenses, "antibodies" so to speak, and learn how to face life maturely and effectively at a much earlier age. Paedos existed back then too, yet nobody had been taught to fear them. My dad once told me there was a man who used to lure boys to a back seat of the local cinemas and trade pop-corns and small change for sexual favours. One of his friends got hold of one of those old spring-action mousetraps from his farmer uncle and...you can imagine what happened afterwards.

All in all, if you perform the (algebraic) sum of all positive and negative factors existing in our modern society, I believe there is no ground to say it's better to give up the idea of having children. A wise, mature and loving couple will always find a way to bring up an equally wise, smart and affectionate offspring. Outwest's kids are a good example. The same couple will know how to create a protective net of trusted individuals around their children. If they really feel adventurous, they might even go as far as changing their work or social environment to afford their kids a safer, more authentic environment. If anybody cares, my wife and I have talked about kids a few times already, and my idea is that I will start my own company as early as next year, so as to be able to stay at home with the kids as much as possible, since her job requires physical presence at a manucfaturing plant and cannot be that flexible.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2838
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:20 pm

Re: Attn Conspiracy Truthers: NWO is not what enslaves us!

Postby Winston » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:22 pm

Jester, Outwest and Publicduende,

You guys are barking up the wrong tree here. I never said that one shouldn't have children or that having children won't make you happy and fulfilled. This has nothing to do with the ethics, morals or philosophy of having children. I'm not debating any of that.

All I said was that it is a FACT that your family and your employer/job DIRECTLY AFFECT your personal freedom a LOT MORE than the government does. There is no refuting this. It's undeniable and basic common sense. Let me give you some obvious examples.

For example, supposed I want to take off to Europe for 6 months on a self-discovery backpacking tour. My employer could say no and threaten to fire me. And my wife could get angry and threaten divorce if i leave her for that long. And my kids could complain too and put a guilt trip on me. On the other hand, the government wont have a problem at all. As long as i have a passport and buy a plane ticket, I can go.

Likewise, suppose i wanna spend a day at the park and lake and chill. Well my employer could say "no you cant take the day off" and my wife could say that she needs me to do some errand for her like pick up the kids. Etc. But the government will do NOTHING to stop me from going to the park.

See what I mean? I could give thousands of examples like that. You get the idea. So how is my freedom totally in government hands? It doesn't make friggin sense! Yet all the conspiracy and patriot people all assume this! As if they were all a hive mind making the same big mistakes and false assumptions. They totally give government too much power and paranoia. In reality the government doesn't have the time or manpower to bother you or take away you freedom. As long as you don't cause trouble or break the law, the government will totally ignore you. So why is government the biggest threat to freedom or the only threat as they all insinuate? If u think about it logically it makes no sense.

How can government take away my freedom when they never talk to me or interact with me? I've never had federal agents come to my door to harass me or order me around. There are no government guards stationed outside my front door. And I've never had cops bother me either. Even if a cop stops me on the road to issue me a traffic ticket, he will not tell me what to do with my life, he will simply issue me a ticket and that's it. I do not even receive emails from the government. They treat me like I don't exist.

The only interaction I've had with government is at the post office, at customs line in the airport, and when I received unemployment benefits administered through the employment office long ago. But those are things I choose to do. I don't see how government can affect my freedom. Even if government could reduce some of my freedoms, it would be indirect and only in a few ways. It would not be that severe. I could leave the USA anytime, and I have, and government couldn't care less.

So again, how does government directly affect my personal everyday freedoms? It makes no friggin sense! And again, your immediate family and employer definitely do affect your freedom more, because everything you do, has to be done in CONSIDERATION of their needs and wishes. Their needs and opinions directly affect your everyday life and freedoms, for sure. There can be no denying that.

Therefore what I said was TRUE and ACCURATE, NOT wrong at all. So why you debating over the philosophy and ethics of having kids? That is going off on a TANGENT. I do not even disagree with you. But you NEVER proved that my original thesis in this thread is wrong or inaccurate. You cannot because it's an ABSOLUTE FACT. So what is your problem? You seem to have taken this thread personally. If so, I apologize. I did not meant to insult your lifestyle with these points. But you can't deny that my basic claim here is true. No one can deny it because it's obvious.

Hope you understand.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 24177
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: Attn Conspiracy Truthers: NWO is not what enslaves us!

Postby OutWest » Mon Aug 08, 2016 2:40 am

Winston wrote:Jester, Outwest and Publicduende,

You guys are barking up the wrong tree here. I never said that one shouldn't have children or that having children won't make you happy and fulfilled. This has nothing to do with the ethics, morals or philosophy of having children. I'm not debating any of that.

All I said was that it is a FACT that your family and your employer/job DIRECTLY AFFECT your personal freedom a LOT MORE than the government does. There is no refuting this. It's undeniable and basic common sense. Let me give you some obvious examples.

For example, supposed I want to take off to Europe for 6 months on a self-discovery backpacking tour. My employer could say no and threaten to fire me. And my wife could get angry and threaten divorce if i leave her for that long. And my kids could complain too and put a guilt trip on me. On the other hand, the government wont have a problem at all. As long as i have a passport and buy a plane ticket, I can go.

Likewise, suppose i wanna spend a day at the park and lake and chill. Well my employer could say "no you cant take the day off" and my wife could say that she needs me to do some errand for her like pick up the kids. Etc. But the government will do NOTHING to stop me from going to the park.

See what I mean? I could give thousands of examples like that. You get the idea. So how is my freedom totally in government hands? It doesn't make friggin sense! Yet all the conspiracy and patriot people all assume this! As if they were all a hive mind making the same big mistakes and false assumptions. They totally give government too much power and paranoia. In reality the government doesn't have the time or manpower to bother you or take away you freedom. As long as you don't cause trouble or break the law, the government will totally ignore you. So why is government the biggest threat to freedom or the only threat as they all insinuate? If u think about it logically it makes no sense.

How can government take away my freedom when they never talk to me or interact with me? I've never had federal agents come to my door to harass me or order me around. There are no government guards stationed outside my front door. And I've never had cops bother me either. Even if a cop stops me on the road to issue me a traffic ticket, he will not tell me what to do with my life, he will simply issue me a ticket and that's it. I do not even receive emails from the government. They treat me like I don't exist.

The only interaction I've had with government is at the post office, at customs line in the airport, and when I received unemployment benefits administered through the employment office long ago. But those are things I choose to do. I don't see how government can affect my freedom. Even if government could reduce some of my freedoms, it would be indirect and only in a few ways. It would not be that severe. I could leave the USA anytime, and I have, and government couldn't care less.

So again, how does government directly affect my personal everyday freedoms? It makes no friggin sense! And again, your immediate family and employer definitely do affect your freedom more, because everything you do, has to be done in CONSIDERATION of their needs and wishes. Their needs and opinions directly affect your everyday life and freedoms, for sure. There can be no denying that.

Therefore what I said was TRUE and ACCURATE, NOT wrong at all. So why you debating over the philosophy and ethics of having kids? That is going off on a TANGENT. I do not even disagree with you. But you NEVER proved that my original thesis in this thread is wrong or inaccurate. You cannot because it's an ABSOLUTE FACT. So what is your problem? You seem to have taken this thread personally. If so, I apologize. I did not meant to insult your lifestyle with these points. But you can't deny that my basic claim here is true. No one can deny it because it's obvious.

Hope you understand.



Winston,

There is nothing wrong with not having children. Its one of those personal decisions that you work out yourself.
Typically, you will have more freedom if you are childless or child free. I meet older people who regret not having kids and I meet men with kids that obviously would not do it if they had it to do over. Either way, its one of those tradeoffs.
OutWest
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Asia/USA

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests