NewKidOnTheBlock

Just like it is not possible to pay no taxes, it is impossible to take wooks seriously, or even bothering to pay attention to what they're saying

As a human, you are always going to worship something even if you don't consider yourself religious (which is essentially the whole schtick of Jordan Peterson when atheists are trying to push him to clearly state whether he believes or doesn't believe in God). As a wokie, generally you are worshiping the concept of human rights, tolerance, equality and the groups of people that you view as opressed (there's a hierachy of oppression pointing downwards, the more characteristics that presuppose oppression you exhibit or posses, the more your opinion matters and the higher oppression score you get; and the lower your oppression score is, the less your opinion matters); And as a tradchuddie or even fashie, you are worshiping the concepts of duty, strength, hierachy (pointing upwards; the more desirable characteristics you posses or exhibit, the more superior you are and the opposite; the less, the more inferior you are), obedience, order

Seems like Chuck Norris would be a better candidate

We need more Jesuses

First of all, you don't KNOW if they won't ever see any benefits from this. You just assume that because of your socwokie bias. It is a long term, strategically crucial investment on a national level with an outcome that is not certain - but taking risks never produces certain outcomes, and yet it is absolutely neccessery for progress of any kind, so of course it is important to invest into it. You think surplus of energy additional nuclear reactors would provide is a bad thing? That is objectively a good thing, it'd only be bad if safety precautions were neglected, but nuclear power is one of them most regulated and secure energy there is - it has to be. And why are you bringing up the lowest common denominators of the work force, romanticizing them as if they are the end-all-be-all of what yall should aspire to as a nation? Sure, they are providing their own value in a relatively small ways, but what are they doing to advance anything? Sounds like BS, homes aren't 70% built by four companies, that's fake, top builders do under half of new ones. Agriculture, fast food, and cars consolidate from scale, tech, and you buying the cheap option every time, not some road conspiracy

You think small companies don't have a demand, or do not get a support from the goverment? What's your point here? Yes, big tech companies need energy. So what?

There is no way to not be a rat. Nothing wrong with it - best to embrace it. Working a regular job is the rattest of the rattest moments you'll ever experience in your life

It might be the right time to start being heterosexual, or at least consider it

Only if it was blessed by the Leopold the Second himself

I enjoy listening to Reichstag speeches

Become gay

It might sound infantile for me to state this (hell, it probably is infantile), but these topics are just inherently gay. Like, the more you engage in them, the deeper you descent into the quicksand of gayness

Makes perfect sense, nazis were trying to become buddies with the muslim population in order to weaken the Britisch rule and destabilize the region, also Vichy France had a colony in Syria right next to Iran. Operation Barbarossa was also well underway and it was well known that Germans were in a desperate need of oil. They deserved to get attacked for even considering being alied with the Axis

I see what you're trying to insinuate😀 tbh I'm not particuliarly big on looksmaxxing at all, but if there is an effective and functioning way to actually improve a certain aspect of ones looks and/or offset the negative effects of aging on this particuliar aspect of ones looks, then it's worth undertaking and investing some money into imo. There's not that many of them though; perhaps teeth whitening would be another valid one if it didn't have adverse side effects and was as much of a pernament solution as well done hair transplants are. Not saying one has to go to the Byzantine Empire to get it done, surely there are cheaper options than that - it's about trade offs while deciding at that point But I see the value in just accepting yourself as you are, the question is to what degree are others willing to share your optimism about your looks

There's no way in hell I'd let myself to even get to Norwood 3, call me insecure all you want lol, hair is love, hair is life. A trip to Constantinople it is

This path doesn't even have to happen, it could all be total lies and marketing tactics, hell, maybe we will hit a completely unbreakable technological wall somehow. And socwokies would STILL be full of crap in terms of their vision, in fact even moreso

Nerdy, usefull shit is boring and the opposite of emotionally stimulating, that's why. Also obviously they are mean rich capitalists, which equals meanie bad emotions. And they're ugly. And they're not really famous as much as influential because of the material success they've achieved, throught which they became famous, but there are different kinds of fame. Only specific kinds of fame are really the game changers, such as being famous and good looking anywhere in the music industry. That's the king I think

If other people within a community get affected by the individual choices of X number of people, such that it become a majority choice/culture, then it must mean that choice serves a usefull function within that society and for those individuals. It might lead to negative or positive outcomes (or negative/positive externalities), but there's no denying it serves a function Also, I don't think it has to be inevitable, highly developed and experienced individuals will not get influenced by other people's choices. Although social engineering will always work on the young, inexperienced and easily swayable people I don't think it is necessarilly inevitable, goverment is currently inevitable, and will be for a very long time, because it serves a certain set of functions. Such as security, justice/law and resource allocation for example. But I don't think these have to be provided by the goverment, it's not a law of physics or something. I believe under certain extraordinary conditions, goverment would be able to be dissolved. Under normal conditions however, yes, it is inevitable. Agree to dissagree I guess

No, I do really not see this. Everyone should create their own wealth and abundance, if they are unable to or unwilling to do so, then they should live within their means and think strategically. Instead of begging daddy goverment to help them out

Truly the greatest thinker of our generation. Perhaps of all time

It's a matter of an individual lifestyle choice/preference. Both sides would like to eliminate the opposing side's lifestyle preference, but that's never going to happen. The ultimate goal should be to no longer need the goverment to exist, and if there is such an objective, then voting/not voting makes little to no difference in the advancement of this goal

You just claim whatever your gut feeling tells you, first you claimed you only support dissproportionate taxes on the wealthy and that some billionaires are fine (those who ideologically agree with you - even though you included Jeff Bezos into that category which makes little sense, since most socwokies definitely would not like him lol); then in the next post you claim big multinational companies should not exist - which entails billionaires should not exist, also what do you think taxes on unrealized gains, assest and income in general are if not forcefull redistribution of wealth, how else would you call it? LOL Percentage of big multinationals that got bailed out because of bankrupcy out of the total number of big billion dollar multinational companies that failed/filed for bankrupcy, is insignificant - and you could say most of it is the fault of the goverment and banks (although banks are also companies, but of special kind), maybe certain shadowy elites - whatever. But, there are some billion dollar companies filling for bankrupcy every single year in the US alone, granted in much, much lower quantities than the amount of small businesses filling for bankrupcy every year, but it happens. And none of them gets bailed out. Also, smaller businesses do get benefits from the goverment that huge companies do not get - and it's not true the other way around. And the bail outs do not really reocur, it's not a regular, normal thing at all. That's a big exaggeration That's a simplification and not really true for Vietnam and Taiwan; there are stronger forces at play here So by your logic, companies should never get big, despite groundbreaking innovations, they should just do them for free out of the goodness of their heart because otherwise they get big and evil - and they have to redistribute all the excess money into socwokie bank accounts lmao ok. I can see this working perfectly. Ignoring all incentives

All of that is BS. You have no evidence that snall businesses, partnerships, partnership projects and integrated non corporation networks lead to more innovation or high quality products/services. It is a false dichotomy anyway; we can and do have both small businesses and large corporations. Large corporations are the ones who excel in groundbreaking innovation as that often requires intensive and large capital investment over long periods of time; something cooperation of many small businesses could never afford to do. Now, these do have their role in the economy as well, but they'll not replace a role of global corporations Another set of neadhertal thoughts steming from a false dichotomy of poor vs. rich. Wealth isn't a fixed pie chart, you can create unlimited amount of it. Forced redistribution is just a lazy socwokie cop-out solution

Those billions are not situated in their bank accounts, they do not actually have real access to that money. It's what their companies and assets are worthy, and they own a majority share of those respective companies (therefore they own them), but the rest of those shares consist of regular investors, allocating their money into their companies to make profit. If they (the billionaires) sold their shares it would cascade into every else pulling out their money as well as the value of the company would drop rapidly, hurting employes and the market it operates in general - then some other rich dude would buy the company (so nothing changes; the company is just worth a lot less), or the state buys it, after which it becomes innefiecient and shitty. Or, there's a third scenario - you can gather your socwokie buddies and make the products/offer the services these companies used to offer out of the goodness of your heart, I'm pretty sure that'll be enough and work very well You'll not solve hunger and housing problem by redistributing money, that's not how it works. Not gonna actually solve it

Do you want their companies to stop existing?