Jump to content
Guest guest

media brainwashing

Recommended Posts

Guest guest
50 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Yeah, but genuinely strong, confident guys (not those putting on a act) are going to attract women like no one's business.  There are evolutionary reasons for this. Most females (not all) openly say this is something they find majorly attractive in blokes. That isn't to confuse this type of male with someone who is excessively overbearing, and a control freak - which can easily be done. I think most women want strong men that know how to challenge them over a pushover. Sure some women do prefer someone who doesn't challenge them at all, but many do.  

I think, in the current uncertain times, even more so than ever. That phase we had of homosexual driven media representations of 'metrosexuals' being some preferred model of 'masculinity' was only going to last so long. 

 

a genuinely confident person does not base their confidence on the reactions of others (including how many 'women' they attract).  

if your confidence is about how many women you can attract, its not real confidence, just a 'rouse' to attract women.  a woman (or admirer of such a person) would have to be pretty stupid to fall for that.  basically, they lack confidence yourself so are impressed by the appearance it in others.

a lot of women are stupid, insecure and sheepish.   if this is what you attract with your 'confidence' whats the value in it?

e.g. you can see all those 'pick up' artists that teach to put women down etc to get them attracted to you.

(btw not to sound sexist.  women probably see traits in a lot of men that are stupid and that other women exploit).

if you want to think independently you need to leave numbers game behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
6 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

Some people will get triggered but the porn industry is owned and run under jewish production and direction. They are hypocrites of the highest order with a wish to destroy all other cultures and countries so their zionistic fantasy of world control and domination comes about. Does Israel recognise the multi genders, homosexuality, fornication or access to porn for their people? Not really.

Nothing to see here. Just another coincidence. You're hateful for noticing and drawing conclusions. 😅

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mainstreaming of incest. It doesn't happen via one avenue (porn) because relying on a single source to promote these ideas isn't enough for it to filter down into the mass consciousness so that eventually something that was once considered beyond the pail creeps into normalcy by humanising the participants. So they use a mainstream source that reaches a wide enough audience that porn never will.

Someone remind me of the most popular TV show of the past 10 years that featured a central brother and sister duo who'd been in a sexual relationship since they were youngsters. Oh yes, Game of Thrones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

The mainstreaming of incest. It doesn't happen via one avenue (porn) because relying on a single source to promote these ideas isn't enough for it to filter down into the mass consciousness so that eventually something that was once considered beyond the pail creeps into normalcy by humanising the participants. So they use a mainstream source that reaches a wide enough audience that porn never will.

Someone remind me of the most popular TV show of the past 10 years that featured a central brother and sister duo who'd been in a sexual relationship since they were youngsters. Oh yes, Game of Thrones.

Publishing houses also predominately of same management have been doing a roaring trade in such storylines since before Virginia Andrews 'Flowers in the Attic' . Child abuse and incest case victims are coerced into writing books as 'catharsis' its all BS , schaudenfreude and getting sick thrills from others pain.prime example is the 'child called it' series , which some say has raked in millions for the author and publishing house

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

Publishing houses also predominately of same management have been doing a roaring trade in such storylines since before Virginia Andrews 'Flowers in the Attic' . Child abuse and incest case victims are coerced into writing books as 'catharsis' its all BS , schaudenfreude and getting sick thrills from others pain.prime example is the 'child called it' series , which some say has raked in millions for the author and publishing house

Just watch any music video,  they are littered symbolism,  lady in red, virgin sacrifices,  blood sacrifices,  illuminati etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guot singh
On 7/9/2019 at 10:20 AM, MisterrSingh said:

The mainstreaming of incest. It doesn't happen via one avenue (porn) because relying on a single source to promote these ideas isn't enough for it to filter down into the mass consciousness so that eventually something that was once considered beyond the pail creeps into normalcy by humanising the participants. So they use a mainstream source that reaches a wide enough audience that porn never will.

Someone remind me of the most popular TV show of the past 10 years that featured a central brother and sister duo who'd been in a sexual relationship since they were youngsters. Oh yes, Game of Thrones.

ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 11:58 PM, Guest guest said:

this argument implies that you admire blacks and their genes?

I was trying to understand this from whites perspective. But, if you're asking, if I think about it, I do admire how black people survived what was essentially a good few centuries of genocide and slavery. Let's compare African-Americans (for instance), with the current state of the original inhabitants of what is now the US. The former are infinitely more assertive despite centuries of hell and suppression - even given all the subtle and no so subtle racism in the US. 

 

Quote

the native white populations of England are already pretty diverse (celts, romans, vikings etc).  they don't marry their siblings or cousins (so no inbreeding).  

That is quite possibly a relatively recent thing in my opinion. We know the upper classes were into inbreeding. I've been reading Dickens a bit lately too, and there a  few examples of cousins marrying therein too - and it is mentioned without any guilt like it was normal. Don't think that what you see today is indicative of past norms. 

 

Quote

a certain percentage of whites also have genetic immunity to the HIV virus (not known amongst non-whites).  non-whites have higher rates of heart disease, diabetes, and vit d deifiencey.  so your 'scientific' argument about blacks having robust genes is nonesense.  also if this was about genetic diveristy, you would think the scientific establishment would be promoting it, not the media.

It has other support too. Look at how pedigree dogs are infinitely more prone to health issues compared to mongrels for example. The white scientific community, isn't some noble group of people trying to promote fairness and equality btw, they have their own bigots - probably even more so than in the wider population. Look at how top universities in England get exposed for serious discrepancies in their retention and support for black males for example. Having known a few guys of such backgrounds who've been to these institutes, I can say that these experiences are not exaggerated - probably actually suppressed and under represented in the media.

And go out in England, see how English girls drool over light-skinned 'mixed race' guys.

Are you a white pretending not to be btw? 

Quote

also why don't they show as many white male- black female couples?  and if whites want to admire blacks, that is their choice, but why force it on other groups?

I agree. Maybe it's the individual masculinity they admire then? It's obvious that they are curiously fascinated by black males (physically) and feel threatened by them at the same time too. Maybe this is a way for them to reduce a potential threat - by breeding them out? Actually their fascination and promotion of these things are very unlikely to be down to a single simple factor - it's probably multifaceted - an element of which is subconscious. Maybe it's related to the mass covert homosexuality amongst the anglos too  - so they have a secret fascination with perceived bbcs? Who knows exactly what goes on in these people's heads? 

Why don't you try not watching white media so much if it bothers you that much? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 12:05 AM, Guest guest said:

 

a genuinely confident person does not base their confidence on the reactions of others (including how many 'women' they attract).  

if your confidence is about how many women you can attract, its not real confidence, just a 'rouse' to attract women.  a woman (or admirer of such a person) would have to be pretty stupid to fall for that.  basically, they lack confidence yourself so are impressed by the appearance it in others.

a lot of women are stupid, insecure and sheepish.   if this is what you attract with your 'confidence' whats the value in it?

e.g. you can see all those 'pick up' artists that teach to put women down etc to get them attracted to you.

(btw not to sound sexist.  women probably see traits in a lot of men that are stupid and that other women exploit).

if you want to think independently you need to leave numbers game behind.

I think you're just running around in circles and stating the obvious whilst repeatedly missing my point. I don't get what you are arguing about?

I'm not talking about anyone faking confidence like you keep rabbiting on about. I'm talking about genuinely physically confident guys. The women running around them is just a by product of them being that way. Yes, it's true that some guys faking it attract certain types of females too - but I wasn't talking about them. 

And if you think all or most women can be simply conceptualised like you've done above.......

Try reading CP and see what you learn from that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but  didn't punjabi people come from Persia?

Anyways if you want these "black-genes" Just do some slavery work for a couple generations.

African-americans are built different from Africans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2019 at 1:00 AM, KhalistanYouth said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but  didn't punjabi people come from Persia?

Okay, You're wrong. Panjabis are more than just immigrant Persians.

 

Quote

Anyways if you want these "black-genes" Just do some slavery work for a couple generations.

That's a stupid statement. First thing, LOTS of the Africans/African-Americans that did this didn't survive, they died. The ones we see are the descendents of the ones that didn't.

Quote

African-americans are built different from Africans.

Not all, some Africans are very similar in physique to AA, like Nigerians. But the differences we do see can be down to mixed blood and natural selection from the horrendous experience of slavery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2019 at 4:50 PM, dallysingh101 said:

Okay, You're wrong. Panjabis are more than just immigrant Persians.

 

That's a stupid statement. First thing, LOTS of the Africans/African-Americans that did this didn't survive, they died. The ones we see are the descendents of the ones that didn't.

Not all, some Africans are very similar in physique to AA, like Nigerians. But the differences we do see can be down to mixed blood and natural selection from the horrendous experience of slavery. 

Lol  

The descendants obviously had better stock from their slave ancestors 

and Punjabi people are more than pesians yes

Punjab itself was influenced from many, e.g turks,persians,greeks, etc and our own culture of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KhalistanYouth said:

Lol  

The descendants obviously had better stock from their slave ancestors 

and Punjabi people are more than pesians yes

Punjab itself was influenced from many, e.g turks,persians,greeks, etc and our own culture of course.

So basically, you don't really know what you are talking about and have a habit of making sweeping statements that have more holes in them than swiss cheese......

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2019 at 6:40 PM, dallysingh101 said:

So basically, you don't really know what you are talking about and have a habit of making sweeping statements that have more holes in them than swiss cheese......

 

 

I'm sure that slavery did impact genes or so.

Edited by KhalistanYouth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2019 at 6:40 PM, dallysingh101 said:

So basically, you don't really know what you are talking about and have a habit of making sweeping statements that have more holes in them than swiss cheese......

 

 

And Punjabi's are more than "immigrant persians"

we're our own people that has historically been influenced by other cultures due to our rulers, don't deny history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KhalistanYouth said:

You do realize slavery did IMPACT their genes and everything?

Yes. But don't forget social factors that influenced how their society developed too. These things aren't small. Losing a parent in childhood (in whatever way) is proven to have major implications for the majority of people who experience it. Given what they were facing with the constant violence,  moving around and being totally unsettled due to slavery is a BIG factor too. 

Anyway, you care to try and explain why apnay in certain areas of Canada are doing the exact same thing people are castigating kalay for? I mean the drug dealing and apnay on apnay violence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The US are only the in Syria region because they had their arms twisted to get rid of ISIS. The reason? Because Russia was there doing that job. Russia was good buddies with Asad's regime and they are allied with Iran. USA are not on good terms with Iranian regime and wants to get rid of them. Asad is Druze (they are a Shia sect) and this minority rules Syria which has a Sunni majority as well as your regular Shias and Christians. There is no way that the US wants Iran to have influence in the region. Lebanon has a very large Shia  population,  that is where Hezbollah come from and they have traditionally allied with Syria regime and Iran (Shia boys united). Hezbollah rule South Lebanon and have given Israel loads of grief in the past. Saudi cannot stand Iran and they don't like Syria. They want to play a part in dismantling Iran's influence. ISIS has had a lot of their insurgents from Saudi, they want to get rid of Asad. Iran in turn supports the Houti rebels (Shias in Yemen) and Shia majority areas in Saudi which is coincidently where Saudi's oil fields are based. Iraq which is now run by Shia's in the south and Kurds in the north. Saddam Hussain was Sunni and the Iraqi Sunni are no longer in power.  That is where a lot of ISIS support comes from as well as Saudi and as well as Turkey who also hate Syria. They think Israel is complicit in this as they all have common interests.  So you have Syrian regime + Iran + Hezbollah + Yemeni Houthis + Iraqi Shias + Russia vs Saudi+ Israel + Turkey. Turkey has been growing it's Islamic ness in the last few decades and with Erdogan are flexing their muscles, they want to be Ottomans again. The Ottoman Empire controlled large parts of the Middle East and controlled Mecca and Medina, Islam's holy sites. Iraq is controlled in the north by the Kurds. Kurds are not Arabs, they are an Iranian speaking people. It is a de-facto Kurdish republic. The pisses off the Turks because they do not want their Kurds in Turkey to get any ideas. Also there is a lot of oil in the Kurdish controlled Iraq. With instability in Syria and the Asad regime not being in total control, it means that there is a vacuum in power. It stands to reason that the Kurds in Syria will fight back against ISIS and it stands to reason that the Kurds in Iraq will support them. So you end up with two Kurdish controlled regions. One in Iraq and one in Syria. The Turks are s****** themselves. What happens if these two regions become one breakaway country? They have oil too. The Kurds in Turkey will want to breakaway. (The govt in Turkey don't like calling the Kurds Kurds, they want to call them Mountain Turks.) The only thing they don't have is the pipelines to export it. That is why Turkey was interested,  they can control that area and build oil pipelines to the Mediterranean so they can export the oil. Erdogan's family is complicit in the traffiking of the oil supplies. Turkey's Turk population is experiencing a serious decline, the Kurds have a higher birth rate therefore the Turks are scared that the Kurds may become a majority.  What I have explained so far is far too simple and it goes beyond even that.
    • Here is some history about the Ottomans. They were a turkic people like the Mughals.  Like the Mughals who bred with Rajput women, the Ottomans did the same with the locally conquered women: https://www.thoughtco.com/ottoman-sultans-were-not-very-turkish-195760
    • Thread from an Albanian friend of mine (Albania is a formerly part of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans) so he has far better understanding than I ever will.
      There are aspects that can be related to our people and the history of partition (but this guy does not like Greeks or Turks very much), but I suspect if you ask a Greek he may have different point of view:


       Okay thread.

      Topic:

      TURKEY HAS "LEGAL RIGHT" TO ETHNIC CLEANSE THE KURDS.

      Not a joke.

      1/

       During the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, ethnic groups were spread out across the empire.

      Once ethnic states started to appear with the creation of Greece by Germans in 1827, a chain reaction ensued across Ottoman Rumelia (aka Land of Romans), the mess started.

      2/
       Long story short, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Montenegro, Albania, Turkey etc were created over the course of 100 years from the Roman Revolution in 1822, now known as the Greek Revolution.

      3/ During these 100 years, from 1822 to 1923, (literally 101 years), was to find a way to pinpoint all borders in order to avoid ethnic conflicts, within each new ethnic state multiple ethnicities resided, which itself had multiple religions, which was normal for the ottomans.

      4/
       There were Orthodox Greeks and Muslim Greeks, orthodox bulgarians and muslim bulgarians, orthodox serbs and muslim serbs, orthodox albanians and muslim albanians, orthodox turks and muslim turks.

      And all were spread UNEVENLY across the collapsing empire.

      5/
       In the meantime what we now call Western Europe, was going through an ethnic consolidation as well, as German elite was trying to create Unified Germany, which they achieved in 1871, excluding the Austrians, who refused to be Germans.

      6/ Long story short, by late 1870s onward, Ottoman elite was getting together with the western elite, aka Big Powers, to solve the mess.

      It started with Congress of Berlin in 1878, then Treaty of London in 1913, it ended with Lausanne Treaty in 1923.

      7/ During these years, Balkan Wars occurred and the weakest links were sacrificed to achieve some kind of managed peace in the Balkans.

      It started with Otto von Bismarck, the first Chancellor of the unified Germany declaring:

      "The Albanian nation does NOT exist".

      8/
       So, the only way to find any solution was to assert that X nation does NOT exist at all or does not exist in X area, there was no other way.

      9/
       So, that is what they did.

      What is now called Greece, it used to be a mixture of Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Vlachs (Romanians) and Turks.

      Baaaaam, nobody else exists, only Greeks. Decision made.

      10/
       The only reason that Albanians now exist, is because at last moment a Hungarian prince raised the issue with the Austro-Hungarian emperor, that if Albanians do not exist, then Serbia/Russia would have access to the Adriatic.

      The Emperor freaked out. Albanians exist he said.

      11/
       Long story short, after 101 years, all comes down to the Lausanne Treaty in 1923 between Greece and Turkey.

      12/
       In the Lausanne Treaty, it was codified the practice of deciding whether a nation exists or not.

      Venizellos and Mustafa Kemal, one orthodox greek and the other muslim greek (Ataturk spoke greek fluently), simply decided that any orthodox was Greek and any muslim was Turk.

      13/
       So, within Greece, per Lausanne Treaty now codified as international treaty supported by big powers, all orthodox were forced to be hellenized, all albanians, bulgarians, vlachs and turks.

      14/
       Per the treaty as well, codified as international law, anybody inside Turkey, whether turks, greek, albanian, bulgarian, or ....KURDISH, simply did not exist, there were only Turks in Turkey.

      15/
       Hence per the treaty, anybody had to be Turkified, like in Greece anybody had to be hellenized.

      The problem here, and I understood this by reading Taleb saying "scale matters", the problem is that it takes long time to Hellenize and Turkify large populations.

      16/
       Based on past practice now codified in international law, Greece and Turkey intensified now openly what they say "population exchange", which was LEGAL MUTUAL ETHNIC CLEANSING, now codified in international law.

      17/ Greece, per the law, ethnic cleansed all muslims from Greece, except for the ones in Thrace, which was part of the treaty.
        Turkey per the law ethnic cleansed all orthodox from Turkey, except the ones in Constantinople, which was part of the treaty, they moved to Greece. 18/ These ethnic cleansing did not happen instantly, it took decades to be completed, literally decades. In 1945, Greece ethnic cleansed "muslims" from Chameria per the Lausanne Treaty, they were all Albanians. 19/ Yugoslavia, made a deal with Turkey in the 1960s to have about 400k "muslims" moved to Turkey. The offer from Ankara was 1 horse for 3 muslims (no joke, as they were all Albanians). The serbs replied: take them all for free, as long as all albanians leave. 20/ The tricky part of this one is that Turkey wanted these 400k Albanians to displace the Kurds in East Turkey. Of course Albanians refused, they settle in West Turkey. So, the plan to ethnic cleanse the Kurds by use of Albanians, failed. 21/ In 1999 Abdullah Ocalan, Kurdish fighter against Turkey was arrested in Kenya after the Greek government delivered him into the hands of the Turkish gov, fully complying with the Lausanne Treaty. 22/ So, as you see, it is Turkey's right legally, per lausanne treaty, to ethnic cleanse the Kurds. 23/ The only difference here is USA. USA does NOT recognize international treaties which come against its interest, it is in the US constitution. Hence, USA disregarded the Treaty of London of 1913 giving Kosovo to Yugoslavia, simply invaded KS away from Serbia. 24/ USA is disregarding Lausanne Treaty as well now, by organizing the Kurds together against Turkey. It takes time, but they will do it, as Turkey is now basically an enemy. 
      Give it 20-25 years, just like with Kosovo. 25/ END  
       
    • Erdogan in June 2015:

      “I’m addressing the whole world. Whatever the cost it might be, we will never allow a state established in Northern Syria”

      Why does he not want a Kurdish state in Northern Syria? I know why, does anybody know why?
    • What caste pride do I have? Only Juts have caste pride? Let's get back to the question of Kurds. Instead of looking at the situation from the filter of only British colonialism and caste, what do you actually understand about the whole situation of the Kurds in it's entirety? Do you understand the history of the Kurds, their relationship with the Ottoman Empire, their role in exterminating the Armenians from Eastern Anatolia (1915 genocide) the carving up of former Ottoman lands (sandjuks) in the picot sykes agreement. The effect of the Lausanne Treaty between Greece and Turkey. The role of the Young Turks and Ataturk. The relationships of the Kurds in the 4 countries I have mentioned with Shias/Sunni Arabs/Turks in those respective countries. The relationships and groups within those Kurdish groups, the demographic changes in Turkey. The effect of Erdogan and his family's relationship with the intention of supporting ISIS so that the gas/oil pipelines can be transmitted through Turkey. That is just the tip of the iceberg. There are whole geopolitical implications here that involve Iran, Iraq, Eastern Med, Russia, parts of the caucuses, even parts of the Balkans are impacted. It is very complex and far more nuanced. Compared to that, subcontinental politics is a picnic. You'd be really shocked to see the level of hatred between these people. A real eye opener. You might make some synergies with struggles of our panth with the Kurds but that is an over-simplification.  If you want to do rajniti, you have to understand everything in it's entirety and not what suits us.      
×

Important Information

Terms of Use