Gang violence is not the problem

[godelian]

Gang culture is a culture of rape

The government is the official mafia. Am I part of the government? No, and I am not interested in being. I am not interested in being part of any other mafia. But then again, we will always have a mafia running the show. It only has become clear to me that the official mafia needs to be replaced. When the official mafia is way worse than the unofficial ones, regime change is needed.

I am not interested in the culture of gangs. I just find them less obnoxious than the official gang which has long ago outlived its purpose.

[Sculptor]

The feminist State is a very serious threat to the nuclear family.

Gang violence is not.

Gang violence is merely somewhat inconvenient. Furthermore, their protection fees are substantially cheaper.

When an unofficial mafia is less of a problem than the official one, substitution is a natural process.

Therefore, gang violence is not the problem. It is rather the solution to the problem.

The level of delusion is breathtaking

[Iwannaplato]

I am not interested in the culture of gangs. I just find them less obnoxious than the official gang which has long ago outlived its purpose.

It's great that you can take a strong moral stand - your lack of interest - in gang culture: rape, domination, trafficking of weapons, drugs and sex slaves, including children, blackmail, protection rackets, intimidation and undermining of productive members of society. We need that kind of clear moral position-taking.

And yes, obnoxious is the perfect way to describe them and their activities. One might even go so far as to call them 'rude.'

[godelian]

I am not interested in the culture of gangs. I just find them less obnoxious than the official gang which has long ago outlived its purpose.

It's great that you can take a strong moral stand - your lack of interest - in gang culture: rape, domination, trafficking of weapons, drugs and sex slaves, including children, blackmail, protection rackets, intimidation and undermining of productive members of society. We need that kind of clear moral position-taking.

And yes, obnoxious is the perfect way to describe them and their activities. One might even go so far as to call them 'rude.'

A lot of people expect that the collapse of western civilization is nigh.

In my opinion, it will be replaced by gang violence.

That is actually not as bad as it sounds. Instead of one official mafia, there will be several and they won't have the time nor the inclination to interfere with people's private lives. It will probably look a bit like Somalia. But then again, Somali warlords are not as bad as current feminist governments in the West.

As soon as the dollar has collapsed, chaos will break loose in the West.

[Age]

"godelian" were once married, but ended up divorced and having to hand over half the possessions to your ex?

[commonsense]

For the purpose of discussion, define “feminist government’. Please.

[Sculptor]

For the purpose of discussion, define “feminist government’. Please.

Any government he does not like.

[promethean75]

But yo, still we stickin' to the G Code, we playin' by the rules. We don't fuck around with new n*ggas, 'cause new n*ggas is fools

[commonsense]

Therefore, gang violence is not the problem. It is rather the solution to the problem.

Sucks to be an innocent bystander caught in the middle of gang violence, though. Same way with governments that get their people involved in wars. Gang violence is no solution to any problem, any more than national violence is. It's just violence at a more intimate level.

There is still one important difference: Unlike the feminist State, the gangs do not seek to destroy the nuclear family.

In Afghanistan, the gangs became militia. They successfully eradicated the Soviet feminist state out of the country. After that, they successfully deported NATO, i.e. the western feminist state, from Kabul Airport. Now the Taliban are themselves the government. As long as they do not degenerate into a feminist state that seeks to destroy the nuclear family, the regime can last for a very long time. The dead bodies are the price to pay for survival from generation to generation. It is a rather small price to pay, if it successfully leads to the complete eradication of the feminist State.

In my opinion, a good bout of rule by gangs is necessary. A national state may sooner or later return, decades later, but not a feminist one.

In the context of eradicating the feminist State, I begin to see gang violence differently. For example, the gangs in Haiti are undoubtedly necessary too. It is against the laws of nature and biology to allow the feminist State to return. In that sense, the Haitian gangs fulfill an important biological role. Violent gangs emerge to save humanity from worse.

For the purpose of this discussion, please define “feminist government’. This is not a trap. I just want to understand what it means to you so that I can understand better what you’re saying.

[godelian]

For the purpose of this discussion, please define “feminist government’. This is not a trap. I just want to understand what it means to you so that I can understand better what you’re saying.

The number one characteristic of a feminist government, is one that intervenes at the breakup of a relationship/marriage to perpetuate the payments that the man made to the woman.

Typically, it tries to do that through division of his assets by using the fiction of "communal property", and by burdening his income with alimony and/or child support.

Pretty much all western governments are feminist. Conversely, pretty much all non-western governments are not.

When the relationship has ended, she does nothing for him any longer, but the government will still force him to keep making payments to her, or at least will try to.

This one of the main reasons why men in the West no longer want relationships. The other reason is of course hoeflation.

It is obvious that the fundamental problem will be solved when the western governments finally collapse. The question then becomes what will replace them? In my opinion, it will be replaced by gang violence.

Since the West has the bad habit of trying to impose, in neocolonial fashion, its misguided views onto countries outside the West, the rest of the world will benefit tremendously from the destruction and/or implosion of the West.

In the meanwhile, the Russian Federation is doing a great job at systematically confronting the West, and along with China, taking the lead in the global anti-western coalition.

Russia is currently doing a great job expelling the West from Africa. China had already largely achieved this economically.

BRICS+ is also a great initiative as it may lead to stopping the trade with the West altogether.

The world is clearly splitting into two blocks.

The truth is that the rest of the world does not need the West for anything. It is actually better off without the West.

Geopolitically, it is not even clear if war between the two blocks can be avoided. Both the war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza can still degenerate into a global shootout.

[Gary Childress]

For the purpose of this discussion, please define “feminist government’. This is not a trap. I just want to understand what it means to you so that I can understand better what you’re saying.

The number one characteristic of a feminist government, is one that intervenes at the breakup of a relationship/marriage to perpetuate the payments that the man made to the woman.

Typically, it tries to do that through division of his assets by using the fiction of "communal property", and by burdening his income with alimony and/or child support.

Pretty much all western governments are feminist. Conversely, pretty much all non-western governments are not.

When the relationship has ended, she does nothing for him any longer, but the government will still force him to keep making payments to her, or at least will try to.

This one of the main reasons why men in the West no longer want relationships. The other reason is of course hoeflation.

It is obvious that the fundamental problem will be solved when the western governments finally collapse. The question then becomes what will replace them? In my opinion, it will be replaced by gang violence.

Since the West has the bad habit of trying to impose, in neocolonial fashion, its misguided views onto countries outside the West, the rest of the world will benefit tremendously from the destruction and/or implosion of the West.

In the meanwhile, the Russian Federation is doing a great job at systematically confronting the West, and along with China, taking the lead in the global anti-western coalition.

Russia is currently doing a great job expelling the West from Africa. China had already largely achieved this economically.

BRICS+ is also a great initiative as it may lead to stopping the trade with the West altogether.

The world is clearly splitting into two blocks.

The truth is that the rest of the world does not need the West for anything. It is actually better off without the West.

Geopolitically, it is not even clear if war between the two blocks can be avoided. Both the war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza can still degenerate into a global shootout.

Good grief. No wonder the world is going to hell in a handbasket, some people apparently think it's a good thing!

So basically, you're pro-violence. Is that correct?

[godelian]

Good grief. No wonder the world is going to hell in a handbasket, some people apparently think it's a good thing!

By neutralizing and ring fencing the West, the rest of the world is improving dramatically.

So basically, you're pro-violence. Is that correct?

Ha ha ah!

Do you also believe that Churchill was "pro-violence" when he refused to appease the German Third Reich?

You have a very, very naive view on "violence"!

So, in my opinion, the Russian Federation should continue to resolutely further and defend its own geopolitical interests, if only, because that suits me perfectly fine.

[accelafine]

Sculptor is moderator so watch out, you have to crawl up his massive, hairy, anti-semitic asshole or he will ban you. It's ok for him to be as abusive as he likes though (which is why he's a moderator).

[Gary Childress]

You have a very, very naive view on "violence"!

I'm not in favor of it, that's for sure. Not sure what is "naive" about that.

[Gary Childress]

Sculptor is moderator so watch out, you have to crawl up his massive, hairy, anti-semitic asshole or he will ban you. It's ok for him to be as abusive as he likes though (which is why he's a moderator).

I didn't realize Sculptor was "anti-semitic". I thought he was just against the relentless destruction of Gazans.