Don't forget rapist. She raped a bunch of men as a striper. Dosing them with date-rape drugs, then fucking them and stealing all their shit.

She bragged about it. She laughed about it in interviews.

Life is struggle. This has been recognized by philosophers that pre-date Christ. It is recognition of the second law of thermodynamics. The universe in general and your life in specific requires struggle, effort, energy to do anything but coast to a stop and die.

If you stop struggling, everything you've worked for, everything you have built will just drain away, and you'll be left with nothing.

Even if, by the grace of good fortune, you have a pile of resources that requires no effort or struggle to maintain or administrate, it just means that there was earlier struggle. You are coasting down from the top of a taller hill.

Moreover, if you want to improve more than your life, if you want to improve your family, city or country, then that will take fantastic struggle. Not only against the natural forces of empathy, but against the self-absorbed useful idiots, who work against you with every step.

That you blame Christianity for this universal condition says much more about you than it does about the world.

I don't think you are really disagreeing with me, though yours is a more nuanced take.

With a more functional economy,.or even more financial reserves, the USSR could have bought food.

Once the citizens can noonger afford bread, revolution is as inevitable as gravity. Without money, during a famine feeding and paying the army to suppress the revolution becomes next to impossible.

North Korea is something of a special case, but mostly because they are spending all the food and money they do have on keeping the army functional. The North Korean population is unlikely to balkanize.

The revolutions of the "Arab Spring" have all been fairly directly linked to the price of food as an igniting factor, however with the USSR, there were a large number of factions that had been quietly bidong their time and waiting for the right moment to throw off the shackles.

I am sure without the economic situation of the 80s, the USSR still would have fractured, it just happened much faster thanks to deft acceleration by Ron.

That just means that Socialisms limps along until there is no longer enough food or money to pay the military and secret police.

Ronald Reagan was insightful enough to cause acceleration of military spending of the USSR, which hastened their inevitable economic collapse.

Socialism turns a successful country into a third world tin-pot dictatorship run by warlords. Some of these are very stable.

You may well be correct.

Glowies abound, both here and elsewhere. Only a prize moron would advocate violence in a public forum and then go on to make specific plans.

Perhaps your operational security is so catastrophicly poor as to make.you worse than useless to any movement or operation that you join. Perhaps.you are a troll, pretending to be something that you are not to encourage people to get into trouble. Perhaps you are a glowie.

In any case, anyone who actually listens to you are even more stupid than you appear to be.

Thanks for coming. See yourself out.

While I don't condone direct action, I point out that this is exactly what Islamic immigrant population do to ensure that they hold ranks.

Last I checked it was about 40% of the US population were functionally illiterate in English.

A lot less are functionally illiterate in Spanish.

You can map illiteracy by showing a map of Spanish speaking counties, with a couple notable exceptions which somehow correlate to ... Other factors.

So, while she was away at University, I should have persuaded her to give up her studies and take up a trade?

Or should I have pre-empted her career right out of high school?

Did you know what "woke" was right out of high school? I didn't.

No worries buddy!

BTW, can you name two states in Australia? Or two provinces in Germany? How about any city in Italy that isn't Rome?

Here is one for you. What does ACT stand for? Remember to work it out with context clues!

My sibling works at a university. Everyone she works with, everyone responsible for her promotion (or lack of) is a Neo-Marxist. Her entire working career has been there. Her mentor received a lifetime achievement award for contributions to the field of Critical Theory, which is literal Neo-Marxist theory.

They may not be very Neo-Marxist, but that is like saying they are the least retarded kid on the short bus.

When should I have stepped in?

I guess that would make sense if you assumed everyone lived in the USA.

Western Australia is a fuckload bigger than Germany, cunt.

Those cheerful llama fuckers!

Only when anomalies stack up and increase to make the worldview unsustainable.

My experience shows that for most people the new facts must reach a point where the cognitive dissonance becomes almost physically painful before they will change their mind about anything.

Then they will probably hate you for changing their mind, because they decide that you are the source of the discomfort, which is false, because you don't control the Truth of the world.

If parts of their worldview are connected to their identity, then they would probably rather die than change. For example, lefties who are deprogrammed enough to see that the cause they were advancing causes almost unlimited misery and death. To discover that you have been so badly wrong is intensely painful should cause deep reflection.

I am strange in that I have cultivated a willingness to be shown how I am wrong, specifically, so I can be less wrong in the future. It is a deeply unnatural mode of thinking and requires rigorous application to develop. I am still struggling with it. Being a devotee to the capital T truth of the world does not make one a nice person, nor is it advantageous for making friends or cultivating social relationships. I'd rather be right than happy. I won't lie, even to myself.

I am just pointing out that an IQ of 140 is getting close to the absolute upper edge of testability.

At higher than 140, the flaws and irregularities of the test are thrown into sharp relief. Tests have culturally specific content and only rank people within a statistically significant population of test-takers. Relating that ranking to a specific score is not trivial. For example, you might be in the top two percent of the people who take this particular test. What does that mean compared to other tests? What IQ is that?

Mine about 140 depending on what test you use.

You are still a faggot.

It is impossible within the confines of a polite conversation.

• If the other party were very trusting of the speaker
• If the other party were truly motivated to grasp the concepts being used
• if the other party were to actually do the work (which might take weeks or months) they would be truly changed by the ramifications of the new concepts and the new, improved world model.

For example: Where does money (fiat currency) come from? How is it created? Under what circumstances is it destroyed? What are the long term implications; especially WRT the boom and bust cycle?

Someone with an IQ of 84 literally can't get the concepts involved in this discussion. They just can't. No amount of work will get them there.

Even having such a discussion with you would require that we have enough shared culture (and attached concepts) to be able to discuss the matter.

If you didn't know what fiat currency was or how it is created, I'd probably rely on about an hour of animated videos to get you there.

I don't want to try to sum up a literal hour of very careful scripted and animated educational videos so I can establish the base foundations for the conversation. More to the point the person I am talking with won't have a single useful or interesting thing to say on the subject. Why would I even bother?

So, define impossible buddy. Can it be technically done? Sometimes. Often even. Is is utterly, completely pointless on every single occasion? Yes.

I talk to people, and it just takes so fucking long.

You have to use "scaffolding" to frame the topic if it is anything at all interesting or controversial.

Here is how it goes. You pick a topic. How about Money Laundering in Ukraine.

1. Start by encouraging the other person to talk on the subject. Show empathy and understanding.
2. Repeat back to the other person what they just said, to demonstrate that you understand their feelings and PoV.
3. Using the most mild tone and depreciating language suggest some minor changes to their (straight from MSNBC) worldview. "Have you considered..." Or "Have you ever thought about..."
4. If you did step one and two well enough, they MIGHT be in a place that they can accept a tiny little nugget of new information. Don't push to hard or you will alienate them and they will stop listening.
5. Watch the other person squirm because they don't like the way this new information makes them feel. They instinctively understand that for the new information to be true, then they must have been very wrong about a bunch of stuff for a long time, and they don't like that.
6. Use emotional language to deliberately manipulate the emotions of the other person so they are more likely to be persuaded.
7. Watch them agree with you (because you are pretty clearly very knowledgeable and consistent) then walk away and immediately reject or forget everything you discussed because they don't like the way it makes them feel.

People don't have to be dumb to require this process. l have met very smart people who are 100% emotional thinkers; that is they think with their feelings and use their mind to rationalize their decisions.

I have also met people who are smart but very firmly in the grip of the Dunning Kruger effect.

I am not even that smart. My IQ is about 150, but I am absolutely, deeply, obsessive about discovering the real, actual, measurable truth of the world. I am delighted to be shown wrong, because I can correct my worldview.

So I don't talk to a lot of people. There is literally nothing for us to talk about that isn't utterly trivial and insignificant.

Hunter Biden is a great artist. His paintings sell for tens of thousands to discerning art-enjoyers.

Your jealousy is palpable. Seethe more, chud.

/s

I think you'll find that the beginning and end of their "morality" is: Hating the right people.

I am good THEREFORE the things I do are good. They are bad THEREFORE it is good for me to hurt them.

That is as complex as these "good guys" get.

No they don't! They honestly don't give a toss about morality.

There is no truth but power. They CAN do this to people. This is a demonstration of raw power. What are you going to do about it? Cope and seethe more?

Yes All Men!

Both Ragan and Trump pursued this policy, IRL.

It is a bit complicated, because government services and departments can have a broad range of efficiency. Waste is waste. Governments can more efficent, there just isn't usually much incentive for them to do that.

The only way to meaningfully address "divorce rape" is to to have the children be exclusively in the father's custody by default. It follows that fathers should get 80% of the marital assets, because they must care for the children.

The reality is that the courts and society would still be stacked against fathers, but father's would still start negotiating from a much better position.

Do you see this happening? Ever? I don't.

Well, single, strong, independent women who don't need no man.

Married women tend much more towards conservative in their voting patterns. They want to keep their man's money.