are women to blame for tyranny?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Arising_uk »

A_Seagull wrote: The Jews in Germany were a clearly identifiable sub group, through their clothes, where they lived and who they married. ...
No they weren't, the majority were not orthodox in their clothing and there were many intermarriages nor did they huddle they were pretty much spread amongst the population. Take a look at a picture of Wittgenstein and see if you think him Jewish. At best surnames would be an identifying but German Jews in the main looked and spoke as Germans.
One cannot change the past but one can learn lessons for the present. ...
One can and one ought to do a bit more research before speaking.
Is it a good idea for a sub group in a country to be clearly identifiable as a sub group, to separate themselves from the general population through their clothes and have a preference for their children to marry within their sub group?
For instance.
Most of the time it is absolutely fine. ...
Apparently looking and acting the same is not enough so I doubt it makes much difference when the fascist or communist is about.
But when problems occur, as in Germany after WW1 when there were huge problems, is it possible that identifiable sub groups could be blamed by a populace that knows no better?
The huge problems were that the German soldier did not think themselves defeated after WWI, the troops were allowed home with their weapons and rumours were started that the reason they lost was due to Jewish bankers withdrawing the funding. After the war the Allies and especially the French imposed swinging reparations that lasted too long upon Germany which stoked a lot of resentment and Hitler took advantage of this to scapegoat the Jews to win national sentiment under the guise of 'Make Germany Great Again'. It's a tired old story that ironically enough is again being played out upon the international and national stage and if history is any teacher then we know were its going to end up again.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9144
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

A_Seagull wrote: Sun May 19, 2019 12:50 am
Arising_uk wrote: Sat May 18, 2019 12:39 pm
A_Seagull wrote: I don't follow links.. but thank you....
Well long story short. Most of the Jews in Germany had been there for generations, their grandparents had fought heroically in the first world war and they mistakenly belived that the Germans would oppose fascism in the end, the Nazi were nor stupid and moved in small increments so the true threat was not apparent until too late whereupon they confiscated most of their money, goods and businesses making it pretty much impossible to meet the immigration requirements of most countries and those countries pretty much refused entry to them. Those who did run to countries such as France found the war caught up with them and they were rounded up by the Nazi collaborators to be exterminated.
Thank you for your succinct summary.

I am not saying that there were, or are, any easy answers. I am just saying that blaming others is not a potent strategy, particularly if it is the only one used.

The Jews in Germany were a clearly identifiable sub group, through their clothes, where they lived and who they married. One cannot change the past but one can learn lessons for the present. Is it a good idea for a sub group in a country to be clearly identifiable as a sub group, to separate themselves from the general population through their clothes and have a preference for their children to marry within their sub group? Most of the time it is absolutely fine. But when problems occur, as in Germany after WW1 when there were huge problems, is it possible that identifiable sub groups could be blamed by a populace that knows no better?
Mostly Jews in Germany just looked and behaved like the rest of the population so people who were suspected of having 'Jewish blood' were required to prove their 'purity' and 'Aryan ancestry' with their grandparents birth records. Many people who didn't even know they were Jewish by the Nazi definition were persecuted.
User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 895
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by A_Seagull »

Arising_uk wrote: Sun May 19, 2019 1:40 am One can and one ought to do a bit more research before speaking.

I hope you are taking your own advice.


. It's a tired old story that ironically enough is again being played out upon the international and national stage and if history is any teacher then we know were its going to end up again.

Its not so much an old story as a cliché. If you cannot learn from the past, at least hopefully others can and will.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Arising_uk »

A_Seagull wrote:I hope you are taking your own advice.[/color]
I am and I follow links as well.
Its not so much an old story as a cliché. If you cannot learn from the past, at least hopefully others can and will.
Patently not, "Make America Great Again", "The immigrants are going to destroy our way of life", etc, etc.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9144
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Arising_uk wrote: Sun May 19, 2019 12:21 pm
A_Seagull wrote:I hope you are taking your own advice.[/color]
I am and I follow links as well.
Its not so much an old story as a cliché. If you cannot learn from the past, at least hopefully others can and will.
Patently not, "Make America Great Again", "The immigrants are going to destroy our way of life", etc, etc.
You can't really compare the two. Jews assimilate, aren't even religious for the most part except for a small minority of orthodox ones, and are generally hugely beneficial to any population. Sadly, because of the actions of the US and your own country, muslim extremism has increased enormously over the last few decades--along with muslim emigration. Muslim fanatics are not exactly the sort of people to assimilate well and blend into the population.
I find it interesting that self-serving pommy do-gooders such as yourself, who are always touting the virtues of mass immigration, come from a country that happily helped destroy the countries of muslims, yet doesn't have the decency to then give those people a new home away from their ruined countries. You can't criticise Trump for doing the same thing that your own country is doing.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Arising_uk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You can't really compare the two. Jews assimilate, aren't even religious for the most part except for a small minority of orthodox ones, and are generally hugely beneficial to any population. Sadly, because of the actions of the US and your own country, muslim extremism has increased enormously over the last few decades--along with muslim emigration. ...
Refugees not immigrants. I note you never say anything about how the Soviets fuelled Muslim extremism and how the Russians are still doing so?

In general the Muslims in my country have been good neighbours, they pay their taxes and follow the Law as much as any other citizen.
Muslim fanatics are not exactly the sort of people to assimilate well and blend into the population. ...
:lol: I'd have thought that this would be exactly what they would do?
I find it interesting that self-serving pommy do-gooders such as yourself, who are always touting the virtues of mass immigration, come from a country that happily helped destroy the countries of muslims, yet doesn't have the decency to then give those people a new home away from their ruined countries. ...
:roll: This from a Kiwi whose country ranks very low in it's welcome to immigrants and refugees.

I did as much as any do-gooder could do in such a situation, went on the demonstrations, wrote to my MP and MP's in protest and voted against my party at the next election in disgust at their actions.
You can't criticise Trump for doing the same thing that your own country is doing.
I can criticise Trump for what he is doing, much as I criticise my country and write to MP's criticising what some of them are doing over here.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9144
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Arising_uk wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 2:53 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:You can't really compare the two. Jews assimilate, aren't even religious for the most part except for a small minority of orthodox ones, and are generally hugely beneficial to any population. Sadly, because of the actions of the US and your own country, muslim extremism has increased enormously over the last few decades--along with muslim emigration. ...
Refugees not immigrants. I note you never say anything about how the Soviets fuelled Muslim extremism and how the Russians are still doing so?

In general the Muslims in my country have been good neighbours, they pay their taxes and follow the Law as much as any other citizen.
Muslim fanatics are not exactly the sort of people to assimilate well and blend into the population. ...
:lol: I'd have thought that this would be exactly what they would do?
I find it interesting that self-serving pommy do-gooders such as yourself, who are always touting the virtues of mass immigration, come from a country that happily helped destroy the countries of muslims, yet doesn't have the decency to then give those people a new home away from their ruined countries. ...
:roll: This from a Kiwi whose country ranks very low in it's welcome to immigrants and refugees.

I did as much as any do-gooder could do in such a situation, went on the demonstrations, wrote to my MP and MP's in protest and voted against my party at the next election in disgust at their actions.
You can't criticise Trump for doing the same thing that your own country is doing.
I can criticise Trump for what he is doing, much as I criticise my country and write to MP's criticising what some of them are doing over here.
Where did you get that googled shit from? Refugees in NZ get put straight to the top of the list for social housing, they get automatically made citizens, instant access to very generous benefits, and even get a lump sum of 20k to buy anything they want. Just look at the way Australia treats refugees--or do you think NZ and Australia are the same country?
You also have to take into account that NZ now has a huge problem with homelessness (non-existent little over a decade ago). How can it house masses of refugees when it can't even house its own people; refugees that your fucking kunt of a country created!
And what 'demonstrations' would those be? As far as I can tell the PC do-gooding lobby has been silent on the destruction of the ME since the very beginning of the mess in the early 2000s. Any demonstrations against the despicable attacks on Libya and Syria? Hmmm. What's that noise? Oh yes. It's the deafening cacophony of ....complete....silence.......
Stop commenting on things you know nothing about.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Arising_uk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Where did you get that googled shit from? Refugees in NZ get put straight to the top of the list for social housing, ...
I'll take your word for this.
they get automatically made citizens, ...
No they don't, they get permanent resident status and after five years can apply for citizenship.
instant access to very generous benefits, ...
If the benefits are so generous I'm surprised the unemployed Kiwi complains?
and even get a lump sum of 20k to buy anything they want. ...
Show me where this is the case?
Just look at the way Australia treats refugees--or do you think NZ and Australia are the same country?
Nope but what I do note is that OZ has more refugees per thousand of the population than NZ and the UK more than either of them.
You also have to take into account that NZ now has a huge problem with homelessness (non-existent little over a decade ago). How can it house masses of refugees when it can't even house its own people; refugees that your fucking kunt of a country created!
But you don't take masses of refugees so your homelessness problem is due to other factors.
And what 'demonstrations' would those be? As far as I can tell the PC do-gooding lobby has been silent on the destruction of the ME since the very beginning of the mess in the early 2000s. ...
So you didn't join the ten thousand of your fellow countrymen in the worlds biggest public protest? Figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_Februa ... r_protests
Any demonstrations against the despicable attacks on Libya and Syria? Hmmm. What's that noise? Oh yes. It's the deafening cacophony of ....complete....silence.......
And your voice has been doing what?
Stop commenting on things you know nothing about.
Best you leave your troll cave now and then and get out and about before you make a fool of yourself.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9144
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Arising_uk wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 11:59 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Where did you get that googled shit from? Refugees in NZ get put straight to the top of the list for social housing, ...
I'll take your word for this.
they get automatically made citizens, ...
No they don't, they get permanent resident status and after five years can apply for citizenship.
instant access to very generous benefits, ...
If the benefits are so generous I'm surprised the unemployed Kiwi complains?
and even get a lump sum of 20k to buy anything they want. ...
Show me where this is the case?
Just look at the way Australia treats refugees--or do you think NZ and Australia are the same country?
Nope but what I do note is that OZ has more refugees per thousand of the population than NZ and the UK more than either of them.
You also have to take into account that NZ now has a huge problem with homelessness (non-existent little over a decade ago). How can it house masses of refugees when it can't even house its own people; refugees that your fucking kunt of a country created!
But you don't take masses of refugees so your homelessness problem is due to other factors.
And what 'demonstrations' would those be? As far as I can tell the PC do-gooding lobby has been silent on the destruction of the ME since the very beginning of the mess in the early 2000s. ...
So you didn't join the ten thousand of your fellow countrymen in the worlds biggest public protest? Figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_Februa ... r_protests
Any demonstrations against the despicable attacks on Libya and Syria? Hmmm. What's that noise? Oh yes. It's the deafening cacophony of ....complete....silence.......
And your voice has been doing what?
Stop commenting on things you know nothing about.
Best you leave your troll cave now and then and get out and about before you make a fool of yourself.
Been using wiki again :lol: They definitely get NZ citizenship--not that that means anything. I think it's the only country where you don't have to be a citizen to vote. It was you who said your country only takes a handful of muslim refugees. You can't get around the fact that your shit of a country created the muslim refugee problem in the first place. Where did I say that refugees created the homelessness problem in NZ?
And yes, they do get a lump sum to get them started. They get treated better in NZ than probably any other country.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Arising_uk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Been using wiki again :lol:
Nope, your own government's immigration site. :roll:
They definitely get NZ citizenship--not that that means anything. ...
No they don't, try reading your own government's immigration site.
I think it's the only country where you don't have to be a citizen to vote. ...
You have to have been given permanent resident status and have lived continuously in NZ for one year or be a citizen.
It was you who said your country only takes a handful of muslim refugees. ...
It is low but it's much higher than NZ per one thousand of the population.
You can't get around the fact that your shit of a country created the muslim refugee problem in the first place.
Never argued that we haven't but have also protested about it, something you apparently couldn't be bothered to leave your troll cave for.
Where did I say that refugees created the homelessness problem in NZ?
You seemed to think them a problem with respect to your homelessness?
And yes, they do get a lump sum to get them started. ...
Show me proof of this?
They get treated better in NZ than probably any other country.
If they can get in that is.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9144
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Arising_uk wrote: Mon May 20, 2019 4:20 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Been using wiki again :lol:
Nope, your own government's immigration site. :roll:
They definitely get NZ citizenship--not that that means anything. ...
No they don't, try reading your own government's immigration site.
I think it's the only country where you don't have to be a citizen to vote. ...
You have to have been given permanent resident status and have lived continuously in NZ for one year or be a citizen.
It was you who said your country only takes a handful of muslim refugees. ...
It is low but it's much higher than NZ per one thousand of the population.
You can't get around the fact that your shit of a country created the muslim refugee problem in the first place.
Never argued that we haven't but have also protested about it, something you apparently couldn't be bothered to leave your troll cave for.
Where did I say that refugees created the homelessness problem in NZ?
You seemed to think them a problem with respect to your homelessness?
And yes, they do get a lump sum to get them started. ...
Show me proof of this?
They get treated better in NZ than probably any other country.
If they can get in that is.
How strange. The NZ immigration site is blocked from all the browsers I tried. Perhaps it's another example of that ridiculous little country's new anti-free speech laws. I do know that refugees have always been given automatic citizenship there (whether they want it or not), but perhaps that's changed. You seem to be the 'expert' (expert at Wiki-ing).
I don't see what NZ's exemplary treatment of refugees has to do with the price of fish though. You do like to use the alleged 'implications' of others as a basis for your 'arguments' (talk about clutching at straws). There was no suggestion/implication/assumption whatsoever in my comment regarding homelessness in NZ that it has in any way been caused by refugees. NZ has the over-privilged parasites of the UN 'ordering' it to take more refugees, while it's ovbious that the country is having a huge amount of trouble housing its own people. That makes no sense. Most of the motels are filled up with homeless Kiwi motel-hoppers. There are several causes for the homelessness problem and all of them involve greed and the self-serving neo-liberal policies of the last Govt.
England has persecuted practically every race on the planet--often in the most extreme ways imaginable.
Its arrogant, high-handed and racist policies have systematically destroyed any chance of peace or stability in the ME.
You really have no room to criticise any other country.
It's difficult to find exact figures for England because it doesn't seem to have a refugee quota. I found this though.

''Refugees can be resettled to the UK via the Gateway Protection Programme, the Mandate Scheme, the Vulnerable Children Resettlement Scheme (VCRS), or the Syrian Vulnerable Person’s Resettlement Scheme (VPRS).

In 2018, 5,806 people were resettled in the UK, (7% fewer than the previous year), including 4,407 under the VPRS, 688 under the VCRS.''

Wow. A whole 5,806 in a country of 56 million people (not including the rest of the UK).

For some strange reason the English seem to have an innate superiority complex. Odd, for possibly the least attractive or charming people on the planet (or perhaps because of it). You can even see it in the arrogant and condescending way you use the 'quote' function, knowing that it annoys and inconveniences others.

Couldn't find a single thing on NZ's policy for refugees and citizenship but I did find this:

''Information for Transgender Applicants

Return to Births, Deaths and Marriages home page
Return to Passports home page
Return to Citizenship home page
All of the Department of Internal Affairs' information for transgender people is located on this page.
............'
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by Arising_uk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:How strange. The NZ immigration site is blocked from all the browsers I tried. Perhaps it's another example of that ridiculous little country's new anti-free speech laws. ...
Or maybe your lack of IT skills.
I do know that refugees have always been given automatic citizenship there (whether they want it or not), but perhaps that's changed. ...
It was never the case I suspect and still isn't now. They get right to remain and in five years can apply for citizenship.
https://www.unhcr.org/3c5e59d04.pdf
"12.4 Requirements for citizenship After a qualifying period of five years as Permanent Residents, quota refugees are eligible to apply for New Zealand citizenship."
You seem to be the 'expert' (expert at Wiki-ing). ...
No idea why you like wiki so much?
I don't see what NZ's exemplary treatment of refugees has to do with the price of fish though. ...
No more exemplary than any other nation.

Can you post up this source that says refugees get 20,000 dollars to do as they like with as I can find nothing to support such a claim?
You do like to use the alleged 'implications' of others as a basis for your 'arguments' (talk about clutching at straws). There was no suggestion/implication/assumption whatsoever in my comment regarding homelessness in NZ that it has in any way been caused by refugees. NZ has the over-privilged parasites of the UN 'ordering' it to take more refugees, while it's ovbious that the country is having a huge amount of trouble housing its own people. That makes no sense. Most of the motels are filled up with homeless Kiwi motel-hoppers. There are several causes for the homelessness problem and all of them involve greed and the self-serving neo-liberal policies of the last Govt. ...
Then vote another one in.

No one is 'ordering' NZ to take refugees, NZ has signed up to international agreements and is just honouring them.
England has persecuted practically every race on the planet--often in the most extreme ways imaginable. ...
Well the extreme ways generally occurred in the penal colonies and I guess that's what happens to the morals of those governed by psychopaths.
Its arrogant, high-handed and racist policies have systematically destroyed any chance of peace or stability in the ME.
We have had fuck all influence in the ME for nearly a hundred years, look elsewhere. But I think you are asking a lot if you think there will be peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
You really have no room to criticise any other country. ...
Of course I have, as I've protested against the things you've just sat in your troll cave and moaned about and I wasn't around for the far past just the last fifty odd decades and I've protested in pretty much forty of them, you?
It's difficult to find exact figures for England because it doesn't seem to have a refugee quota. I found this though.

''Refugees can be resettled to the UK via the Gateway Protection Programme, the Mandate Scheme, the Vulnerable Children Resettlement Scheme (VCRS), or the Syrian Vulnerable Person’s Resettlement Scheme (VPRS).

In 2018, 5,806 people were resettled in the UK, (7% fewer than the previous year), including 4,407 under the VPRS, 688 under the VCRS.''

Wow. A whole 5,806 in a country of 56 million people (not including the rest of the UK).
Let's play figures then, here's the first ones I based my assertion that NZ is worse than the UK when it comes to accepting refugees. It's the amount of refugees accepted between 2007 and 2016 per thousand of the population. You'll find NZ quite a way behind the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... population
If you don't like those here's the figures for refugee population by country up until 2017,
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sm.pop.refg
And by percentage the UK has 0.18 of it's population as refugees and NZ as 0.02. Both pitiful figures I'm sure you agree but NZ just a little more pitiful no?
For some strange reason the English seem to have an innate superiority complex. Odd, for possibly the least attractive or charming people on the planet (or perhaps because of it). You can even see it in the arrogant and condescending way you use the 'quote' function, knowing that it annoys and inconveniences others. ...
One, I'm not here for your convenience, two, you speak for others now? Three, now I know it annoys you I find myself slightly happier and five, write coherent paragraphs and you'll get a paragraph in response.
Couldn't find a single thing on NZ's policy for refugees and citizenship but I did find this:

''Information for Transgender Applicants

Return to Births, Deaths and Marriages home page
Return to Passports home page
Return to Citizenship home page
All of the Department of Internal Affairs' information for transgender people is located on this page.
............'
Like I say, your IT skills appear lacking.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9144
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Arising_uk wrote: Wed May 22, 2019 10:05 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:How strange. The NZ immigration site is blocked from all the browsers I tried. Perhaps it's another example of that ridiculous little country's new anti-free speech laws. ...
Or maybe your lack of IT skills.
I do know that refugees have always been given automatic citizenship there (whether they want it or not), but perhaps that's changed. ...
It was never the case I suspect and still isn't now. They get right to remain and in five years can apply for citizenship.
https://www.unhcr.org/3c5e59d04.pdf
"12.4 Requirements for citizenship After a qualifying period of five years as Permanent Residents, quota refugees are eligible to apply for New Zealand citizenship."
You seem to be the 'expert' (expert at Wiki-ing). ...
No idea why you like wiki so much?
I don't see what NZ's exemplary treatment of refugees has to do with the price of fish though. ...
No more exemplary than any other nation.

Can you post up this source that says refugees get 20,000 dollars to do as they like with as I can find nothing to support such a claim?
You do like to use the alleged 'implications' of others as a basis for your 'arguments' (talk about clutching at straws). There was no suggestion/implication/assumption whatsoever in my comment regarding homelessness in NZ that it has in any way been caused by refugees. NZ has the over-privilged parasites of the UN 'ordering' it to take more refugees, while it's ovbious that the country is having a huge amount of trouble housing its own people. That makes no sense. Most of the motels are filled up with homeless Kiwi motel-hoppers. There are several causes for the homelessness problem and all of them involve greed and the self-serving neo-liberal policies of the last Govt. ...
Then vote another one in.

No one is 'ordering' NZ to take refugees, NZ has signed up to international agreements and is just honouring them.
England has persecuted practically every race on the planet--often in the most extreme ways imaginable. ...
Well the extreme ways generally occurred in the penal colonies and I guess that's what happens to the morals of those governed by psychopaths.
Its arrogant, high-handed and racist policies have systematically destroyed any chance of peace or stability in the ME.
We have had fuck all influence in the ME for nearly a hundred years, look elsewhere. But I think you are asking a lot if you think there will be peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
You really have no room to criticise any other country. ...
Of course I have, as I've protested against the things you've just sat in your troll cave and moaned about and I wasn't around for the far past just the last fifty odd decades and I've protested in pretty much forty of them, you?
It's difficult to find exact figures for England because it doesn't seem to have a refugee quota. I found this though.

''Refugees can be resettled to the UK via the Gateway Protection Programme, the Mandate Scheme, the Vulnerable Children Resettlement Scheme (VCRS), or the Syrian Vulnerable Person’s Resettlement Scheme (VPRS).

In 2018, 5,806 people were resettled in the UK, (7% fewer than the previous year), including 4,407 under the VPRS, 688 under the VCRS.''

Wow. A whole 5,806 in a country of 56 million people (not including the rest of the UK).
Let's play figures then, here's the first ones I based my assertion that NZ is worse than the UK when it comes to accepting refugees. It's the amount of refugees accepted between 2007 and 2016 per thousand of the population. You'll find NZ quite a way behind the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... population
If you don't like those here's the figures for refugee population by country up until 2017,
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sm.pop.refg
And by percentage the UK has 0.18 of it's population as refugees and NZ as 0.02. Both pitiful figures I'm sure you agree but NZ just a little more pitiful no?
For some strange reason the English seem to have an innate superiority complex. Odd, for possibly the least attractive or charming people on the planet (or perhaps because of it). You can even see it in the arrogant and condescending way you use the 'quote' function, knowing that it annoys and inconveniences others. ...
One, I'm not here for your convenience, two, you speak for others now? Three, now I know it annoys you I find myself slightly happier and five, write coherent paragraphs and you'll get a paragraph in response.
Couldn't find a single thing on NZ's policy for refugees and citizenship but I did find this:

''Information for Transgender Applicants

Return to Births, Deaths and Marriages home page
Return to Passports home page
Return to Citizenship home page
All of the Department of Internal Affairs' information for transgender people is located on this page.
............'
Like I say, your IT skills appear lacking.
Love your cherry-picked bullshit. 'In 2018 5086 people were resettled in the UK'. How difficult is that to understand? And I do know how to look up a website. I recall you arguing the toss that there is no country where you don't have to be a citizen to vote. You argue about things that you know nothing about and then spend your time frantically 'googling' to find something to back up your assertions. If that doesn't work you claim that the other person has said things they haven't said at all, saying they 'implied' it when in fact they had 'implied' no such thing.
Btw, what does any of this have to do with the thread? Your country has always been a kunt. Accept that and move on.
BlackChristianMind
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu May 23, 2019 3:40 am
Contact:

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by BlackChristianMind »

It's actually powerful men who have created this system through which men are emasculated and women are "empowered." They do this in order to weaken and defeat their only real perceived competition: other men. If they can convince men that they want to conquer to take on the characteristics of women and become like women, then they have won. Of course the rulers don't care about women either. They took women out of the home and put them in the workforce to break up the family so that the kids too could be indoctrinated by their system in their school systems, and the woman, no longer protected by her husband and no longer burdened with raising her own kids, could become just another workhorse for their corporations and their wealth-building. It used to be admirable to have your own land, farm it, live off of it. But now people brag about getting jobs at huge corporations where they are a number and could be fired at any moment.

Women get a false sense of pride thinking about feminism and women's empowerment, not realizing that the rulers, the men who want to control the whole world, only lift them up because they need to weaken, disempower their men. They use the people closest to us to indoctrinate us into their system. So many single-mother households nowadays because the media has convinced us that a child doesn't need a father in the home and a woman can do it by herself. And that woman can only teach her son how to be a woman or a counterfeit man. Only a real man can teach a male how to become a real man. So their agenda is to break up the family and confuse gender roles to weaken the man, who is supposed to protect his family and keep it intact so that outside forces can't attack it physically or mentally for their own agenda.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9144
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: are women to blame for tyranny?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

BlackChristianMind wrote: Thu May 23, 2019 5:38 am It's actually powerful men who have created this system through which men are emasculated and women are "empowered." They do this in order to weaken and defeat their only real perceived competition: other men. If they can convince men that they want to conquer to take on the characteristics of women and become like women, then they have won. Of course the rulers don't care about women either. They took women out of the home and put them in the workforce to break up the family so that the kids too could be indoctrinated by their system in their school systems, and the woman, no longer protected by her husband and no longer burdened with raising her own kids, could become just another workhorse for their corporations and their wealth-building. It used to be admirable to have your own land, farm it, live off of it. But now people brag about getting jobs at huge corporations where they are a number and could be fired at any moment.

Women get a false sense of pride thinking about feminism and women's empowerment, not realizing that the rulers, the men who want to control the whole world, only lift them up because they need to weaken, disempower their men. They use the people closest to us to indoctrinate us into their system. So many single-mother households nowadays because the media has convinced us that a child doesn't need a father in the home and a woman can do it by herself. And that woman can only teach her son how to be a woman or a counterfeit man. Only a real man can teach a male how to become a real man. So their agenda is to break up the family and confuse gender roles to weaken the man, who is supposed to protect his family and keep it intact so that outside forces can't attack it physically or mentally for their own agenda.
What bollocks. You talk as if single motherhood is a new phenomenon. When you do a bit of genealogical research you find that this is anything but the case. Women have been having and bringing up children on their own for as long as they have been having children.
And what exactly is a 'real man'?
Post Reply