Would you rather be middle class in 2013 or peasant in 1813?

[Jeremy]

Men in college command p***y like never before.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashi ... d=all&_r=0

I'm going to try and respond in a calm and rational manner.

Men in college most certainly do NOT "command p***y." I lived in a dorm for four years amd didn't get so much as a peck on the cheek, despite being in shape and decent looking. Eventually, I'd had enough of being rejected by snotty 4's and lost my virginity to a hooker in my last semester.

Most of the guys on my floor were just as incel as me. I'd estimate that 50% graduated as virgins.

[Bane]

[quote="mrmillersd"]Yes female supremacy BELEIFS are held by many women. Just like how white supremacy was held by everyone in the 19th century. However, unlike marganilzied races in america in the 19th century, feminism, while a strong belief, is not EXECUTED onto society in the same way that white supremacy was. Men aren't forced into labor for women like blacks were.

That doesn't mean that men are not at a disadvantage in certain areas. Just look at the courts, divorce system, alimony, and child support laws.


Men are bashed in media, onlien and everywhere. That's where it stops-its just bashing. How has this hurt me as an individual?

So, because bashing and the male-as-inferior dogma haven't hurt you yet, they're not a big deal at all? Makes perfect sense to me

My point is that women and feminisst viewpoints are not in control of society at all.

Then, you have either not been paying attention, or you are deliberately shutting your eyes to the truth. I know you are still fairly new here. I would suggest you take the time to go through old threads to look for the evidence that clearly contradicts what you are saying. You can also look at many of the other sections on this very website done by people like Steve Neese which will provide you with even more evidence that modern America, while having surely progressed in many areas, is still very much a socially dysfunctional society when compared to many others.

[Jester]

We are also lied to about how bad life is in foreign countries, so how do you know they are telling the truth about the early 19th Century?

LOL Winston,


Nigga please. You'd be forced to scramble around on a dangerous mountain planting dynamite to blow holes into the cliffside so the railroad tycoons could lay down tracks. Then each evening you could look forward to resting in your shanty hovel for a bowl of cold leftovers and gruel that the white men didn't want after they finished harassing you and beating your a**. The only thing you could look forward to is maybe the next redneck town where you might cop a bit of dirty opium to escape your mortal hell and dream of 200 years into the future where you can actually get laid and have kids.

You're so naive sometime that it's comical.

How do you know Winston wouldnt have been one of the chinamen running an opium den or a brothel -- or both??

[Jester]

Dude,
You forgot some important things. In 1813, women in America were feminine and took a man's hand when they got out of a stage coach. They don't do that today. Also, cost of living in the US is far higher today. Housing prices are a scam. In 1920 you could buy a house for $900.

Also, since we were lied to about how bad the Middle Ages was, how do you know you aren't being lied to about life in the early 19th Century?

See here:
viewtopic.php?t=17605
viewtopic.php?t=18603

We are also lied to about how bad life is in foreign countries, so how do you know they are telling the truth about the early 19th Century?

Please Winston, please! In 1920, you could buy a house for $900 but what do you think the average salary was back then? Inflation balances out - expenses go up but so do wages. U really think you would have been more comfortable back then? OK, let's send you back into the same socio-economic category that you are now and see. And you can even be white. But you have to engage in back breaking manual labor. There was no Internet back then for you to collect money from lol.

My family has a lot of personal recorded history going back into the 1800s, especially on my dad's side. We have journals from the early 1900s, high school yearbooks from like 1912, newspaper clippings, lots of photos, Bibles, the works. The bank my relatives were involved in actually survived the Great Depression, the only one in my town to do so. I have a very good idea about some of my relatives from as far back as late 1800s, what their life was like, how tall they grew, how long they lived, how tough their life was, etc. I also know a lot from my grand parents and great grandparents who in turn were told a lot from their grandparents too.

Winston, your couch potato comfort loving a** wouldn't survive that very long. And as for your romantic ideas about women, You would most likely need to stick with first girl you got serious with. So you would now be in a marriage with a girl around your age and your kids running a farm or perhaps small business in the city. Please give the conspiracy theories a rest on this one. Your a** would most likely be about dead at your current age if u had been born in like 1880.

Real estate prices have gone up faster than inflation. Some land was virtually free in the nineteenth century.

Clothing was a lot more expensive in real terms - so people sometimes made their own.

Most other things follow dollar inflation.

In cowboy movies you see ranchhands or cowboys hired for a dollar a day, plus room and board. In todays money, thats about net $375 a week in the bank AFTER living costs. (Of course you still have to pay for clothing, plus whiskey and whores...) Work was hard and long - so what?

[Jester]

Keep in mind that that the 1800's were extremely difficult times for Africa, South Asia, and East Asia, if we put Victorian Britain aside. The poverty we see today simply does not compare to the huge famines back then where millions upon millions would die of hunger and war.

In 100 years, China had drastically improved from total chaos to a very functional country where mass starvation and catastrophic revolts don't happen regularly. Qing Dynasty China was a complete disaster, with millions of people starving while rebellions raged on constantly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Re ... Death_toll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_C ... E2%80%9379

Meanwhile, King Leopold turned the Belgian Congo into a living hell as millions of Congolese perished under his rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free ... n_disaster

Citing Congo as an example is disingenuous. Vast areas of the world were at peace for most of the nineteenth century.

I don't know much about nineteenth century China except that it was a mess, as you point out. But on the other hand, how many children could a peasant have in those days, versus today in the PRC? More x-boxes today, more children back then.

And its not just the Commies at fault. Chinese birthrates in Singapore also suck. All that wealth on paper - all that wonderful air/con too. Yet not so much humping, very few babies, not a lot of family love.

Let me comment on the case of my own ancestors. In the 1800's, Armenians lived under vicious Turkish rule. Oppressive taxes were collected with absolutely no benefit to the population. Yet somehow, those same Armenians had functioning society, and large families, and stable marriages, and children raised to be Christians, not promiscuous, childless atheists. Armenian families and Armenian culture were arguably in better shape that Glendale in 2013.

If not for the Genocide, many of us would still have chosen to remain there, in our own land, even under the Turks.

If that's hard to understand, look at Sicilians. Lots came to America, to escape poverty, feudalism, etc. But lots of them STAYED IN SICILY, even when there were no barriers to coming to America. Obviously the decision to come to America, and enter the economic "fast lane" was NOT a slam-dunk for everyone.

That's the point.

[Jester]

Wow. ALL of you would choose A/C, shopping malls and X-Box, over freedom and manhood?

Today, you can have whichever of those two versions defines manhood for you + many other options.
In 1813, no such choice.

Try this, just for a taste ...
Pull your main electrical breaker and leave the power off for 120 hours (5 full days).
Use only hot water that was heated by stove.
Use only candles, oil lamps, and daylight to see by.

Note your thoughts, as the days go by.
On day 6, power on and tell us what you think.

I've lived on a farm, and I've been camping.

Challenging, but generally not isolating like modern life. Plus you eat well, you get some satisfaction in physical tasks accomplished, and you sleep well.

Whereas solitary confinement sucks no matter how luxurious the cell.

[Repatriate]

We are also lied to about how bad life is in foreign countries, so how do you know they are telling the truth about the early 19th Century?

LOL Winston,


Nigga please. You'd be forced to scramble around on a dangerous mountain planting dynamite to blow holes into the cliffside so the railroad tycoons could lay down tracks. Then each evening you could look forward to resting in your shanty hovel for a bowl of cold leftovers and gruel that the white men didn't want after they finished harassing you and beating your a**. The only thing you could look forward to is maybe the next redneck town where you might cop a bit of dirty opium to escape your mortal hell and dream of 200 years into the future where you can actually get laid and have kids.

You're so naive sometime that it's comical.

How do you know Winston wouldnt have been one of the chinamen running an opium den or a brothel -- or both??

Winston doesn't have the hustler or gangster personality. He's a person who enjoys the good life. He's more likely to be the patron of a brothel or opium den than the one running it.

[theprimebait]

Id live all the way in 4000 B.C.E if:

I was extremely handsome,tall,and high Testosterone I'm talking chad White-tyson ballou tier here.

I was polynesian

I lived on a polynesian island like moorea or Tahiti with literally a full harem of this













I think indigenious hunter gatherer societies were pretty cool to live in in 1813.depending on the climate of course.

Id love to be a native american,polynesian or Southeast asian during those times in the tropics.I assume picking berries,hunting,f***ing your wives and slave women,then sleeping isnt a bad way to live.

but Civilization?f**k no.

Epic-a.ss post, guy. Epic post, guy!! +∞

Gracias people forget that civilization and agriculture(civilization is only possible with agriculture)is unnatural to humans.most humans were hunter Gatherers for MOST of our Exisetnce.

they were also anarcho-communists.all hunter gatherer societies are egaliterian and have only superficial class and hierarchies.anarcho-communism is mankind's natural political system and economic system.

all this crap:religion,racism,sexism,capitalism,greed,war are a product of civilization.

I can't believe many people call pacific Islanders savages when they lived much better lives than the average person in a civilized coutnry having to WORK for his bread.you see money too is unnatural.

in the natural human environe,we hunted and picked fruits to eat,no taxes or rent for our nice huts on the clear waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

Anarcho-primitivism is an anarchist critique of the origins and progress of civilization. According to anarcho-primitivism, the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural subsistence gave rise to social stratification, coercion, and alienation. Anarcho-primitivists advocate a return to non-"civilized" ways of life through deindustrialisation, abolition of the division of labour or specialization, and abandonment of large-scale organization technologies. There are other non-anarchist forms of primitivism, and not all primitivists point to the same phenomenon as the source of modern, civilized problems.

Dissention.wordpress.com ahs alot of good articles on civilization being a ponzi scheme.just type such some keywords like''ponzi scheme''atomization''hunter gatherers in the search box

http://dissention.wordpress.com/?s=ponzi+scheme

http://dissention.wordpress.com/?s=hunter+gatherers

http://dissention.wordpress.com/2012/05 ... existence/
http://dissention.wordpress.com/2013/01 ... d-die-out/

http://dissention.wordpress.com/2012/07 ... dishonest/

http://dissention.wordpress.com/2010/07 ... -scheme-1/

http://dissention.wordpress.com/2012/03 ... societies/

[mrmillersd]

Yes hunter gatherer society people probably were content. Less wage slavery.


However, you think you would hunt animals well and gather berries well? What is your mile time? 1500 m? Hunter Gatherer societies favor the physically gifted, which most of us are not. would YOU really do well in an physically demanding hunter gatherer society? I probably wouldnt. I am 6'0 and run a 5:42 mile, and I could say for a fact that my life right now is much better than if i had to run tens of miles to eat some shitty food.


Hunter gatherer socities expected men to be dominant, physical, alpha which most of us are not. More importantly, they definitly wouldnt let some unathletic dudes mooch off their food without contributing to hunting

[Ghost]

.

[Rock]

Dude,
You forgot some important things. In 1813, women in America were feminine and took a man's hand when they got out of a stage coach. They don't do that today. Also, cost of living in the US is far higher today. Housing prices are a scam. In 1920 you could buy a house for $900.

Also, since we were lied to about how bad the Middle Ages was, how do you know you aren't being lied to about life in the early 19th Century?

See here:
viewtopic.php?t=17605
viewtopic.php?t=18603

We are also lied to about how bad life is in foreign countries, so how do you know they are telling the truth about the early 19th Century?

Please Winston, please! In 1920, you could buy a house for $900 but what do you think the average salary was back then? Inflation balances out - expenses go up but so do wages. U really think you would have been more comfortable back then? OK, let's send you back into the same socio-economic category that you are now and see. And you can even be white. But you have to engage in back breaking manual labor. There was no Internet back then for you to collect money from lol.

My family has a lot of personal recorded history going back into the 1800s, especially on my dad's side. We have journals from the early 1900s, high school yearbooks from like 1912, newspaper clippings, lots of photos, Bibles, the works. The bank my relatives were involved in actually survived the Great Depression, the only one in my town to do so. I have a very good idea about some of my relatives from as far back as late 1800s, what their life was like, how tall they grew, how long they lived, how tough their life was, etc. I also know a lot from my grand parents and great grandparents who in turn were told a lot from their grandparents too.

Winston, your couch potato comfort loving a** wouldn't survive that very long. And as for your romantic ideas about women, You would most likely need to stick with first girl you got serious with. So you would now be in a marriage with a girl around your age and your kids running a farm or perhaps small business in the city. Please give the conspiracy theories a rest on this one. Your a** would most likely be about dead at your current age if u had been born in like 1880.

Real estate prices have gone up faster than inflation. Some land was virtually free in the nineteenth century.

Clothing was a lot more expensive in real terms - so people sometimes made their own.

Most other things follow dollar inflation.

In cowboy movies you see ranchhands or cowboys hired for a dollar a day, plus room and board. In todays money, thats about net $375 a week in the bank AFTER living costs. (Of course you still have to pay for clothing, plus whiskey and whores...) Work was hard and long - so what?

Salaries and prices don't always rise in equal proportion. And yes, we did have an unprecedented housing bubble through much of the first decade of 2000s. But current price levels have corrected to back to normalized territory. You can look at Case Schiller or other housing data to get an idea of what I mean. Here are a couple charts.

http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.tw ... -1900.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-hous ... rds-2009-2

Moreover a house built today, is on average, a much nicer place to live than a new house was 100 years ago. So past vs. modern comparison is somewhat distorted - not like for like. Similarly, cars today are of much better quality than cars built 60 years ago.

Comparing costs of thing today to 50 or 100 years ago is complicated. Some things have gotten a lot cheaper in real terms while others have gotten more dear. Things which have clearly skyrocketed in real terms which come to my immediate mind are health care and uni level education. Many basic necessitates such as clothing, food, and shelter (rent) have probably gotten a lot cheaper or at least not increased.

As for buying a house, it's also very market dependent. For example, I can go to Lehigh Acres in Florida and pick-up a very decent 2 bed/2 bath modern home on a half acre lot for like US$50,000. It's an ok area and convenient enough. Less decent stuff I can pick-up for US$20,000. Heck, in Detroit, there were houses selling for under US$1,000.

[Jester]

Real estate prices have gone up faster than inflation. Some land was virtually free in the nineteenth century.

Clothing was a lot more expensive in real terms - so people sometimes made their own.

Most other things follow dollar inflation.

In cowboy movies you see ranchhands or cowboys hired for a dollar a day, plus room and board. In todays money, thats about net $375 a week in the bank AFTER living costs. (Of course you still have to pay for clothing, plus whiskey and whores...) Work was hard and long - so what?

Salaries and prices don't always rise in equal proportion. And yes, we did have an unprecedented housing bubble through much of the first decade of 2000s. But current price levels have corrected to back to normalized territory. You can look at Case Schiller or other housing data to get an idea of what I mean. Here are a couple charts.

http://observationsandnotes.blogspot.tw ... -1900.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-hous ... rds-2009-2

Moreover a house built today, is on average, a much nicer place to live than a new house was 100 years ago. So past vs. modern comparison is somewhat distorted - not like for like. Similarly, cars today are of much better quality than cars built 60 years ago.

Comparing costs of thing today to 50 or 100 years ago is complicated. Some things have gotten a lot cheaper in real terms while others have gotten more dear. Things which have clearly skyrocketed in real terms which come to my immediate mind are health care and uni level education. Many basic necessitates such as clothing, food, and shelter (rent) have probably gotten a lot cheaper or at least not increased.

As for buying a house, it's also very market dependent. For example, I can go to Lehigh Acres in Florida and pick-up a very decent 2 bed/2 bath modern home on a half acre lot for like US$50,000. It's an ok area and convenient enough. Less decent stuff I can pick-up for US$20,000. Heck, in Detroit, there were houses selling for under US$1,000.

Basic necessities (except clothing) have kept pace with gold. Gold price increase has far outpaced wages.

Yes cars and houses have more luxury. Luxury gadgets ARE much much cheaper, or were never available before. The NECESSITIES are harder to come by. Hence smaller families. The luxury prison cell syndrome.

Oh and that $1000 house in Detroit? Yeah but nowadays you can't show up in Detroit and be a homesteader, and go around armed, and simply shoot down any threatening denizens. In the nineteenth century you could. So the comparison is specious.

Lack of right to pro-active, armed self-defense adds huge costs to family living. These costs do not show in cost of living charts.

Also the need for two cars, or more, adds costs, for example. My mom didn't need her own car, and milk and bread were delivered to the door in the 1970's.

It is much, much more difficult to raise a family today. Old folks who tell you about how hard it was, are simply full of shit.

[Rock]

Basic necessities (except clothing) have kept pace with gold. Gold price increase has far outpaced wages.

Are you sure? What data is that based on? For example, check out these charts on food prices:

http://mjperry.blogspot.tw/2008/08/over ... allen.html

Ford kinda made a car in the 20s like Bill Gates made a computer in the late 90s, a cut price mass marketed have to have item for most families. So it's kind of stretch classify a regular car as a luxury then or now. Try surviving where you live without one and you'll see what a necessity it is.

[Rock]

Basic necessities (except clothing) have kept pace with gold. Gold price increase has far outpaced wages.

Real gold prices (in constant dollars) have had huge swings, especially since 1970. Perhaps the single biggest driver of gold price is interest rates. CPI is less meaningful cus it intentionally misses a lot of critical areas. These days, global liquidity is very inter-related. So generally, when rates are low in USA, they're low in most other places and vice versa. If rates available on various CDs start to move-up appreciably, you can be pretty sure gold prices will fall hard unless it's a crisis situation in which case the relationships become very erratic and dependent on drivers of the crisis. Last crisis we had was US$ strong and gold weak not because of interest rates (which rose on everything except government securities) but because of a huge unwinding of leveraged risk positions. When interest rates are very low and continue to fall or remain low as they have past 10 years, opportunity cost for holding gold, silver, and other precious metals gets very low. But if we were to ever get rates of late 90s back, you will see gold collapse unless again, its a complicated crisis scenario in which case it would depend.

Fed has intentionally debased dollar over last several years I believe cus that policy does not get noticed much domestically where people focus on stock market indices and home prices. It also has an added benefit of reducing the real value of our foreign debt.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/ ... 5_gold.jpg

[Rock]

It is much, much more difficult to raise a family today. Old folks who tell you about how hard it was, are simply full of shit.

I'm not so sure. Perhaps people today just expect and demand a lot more. Back when majority of people made their living as farmers, children were assets so it made sense to have big families.

It's really hard to compare life 100 years ago to today. As I've said, we have 1,000s of photos plus journals, yearbooks, and Bibles from early 1900s and even some stuff from late 1800s. I'll tell you, they sure look grim and serious. If I had been born then in our same family, I would have at best graduated from high school, toiled on a farm, married some local gal, and probably would have died before 60. We had a mental hospital just 40 miles away and anyone committed there would get treatment that would be considered torture today. Don't forget the practice of lobotomies. In fact, JFK's sister had one in her early 20s and spent the rest of her long life in a nearly vegetative state.

Now these years, things have been getting f***ed up again in certain ways, some precedented others not. Is it a bad point in a cycle, a secular downturn, or both. Time will tell But just keep in mind, people at least live longer than ever before, both at home and abroad. If you were to ask most people in developed world to life like their great great grandfathers did, I'm afraid overwhelming majority would not be willing to give up the perks of their modern life today.