houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

Theory: Any woman who unironically uses the term "the ick" is one that has a high body count. This is because these women have such damaged brains (the same that made them engage in sluttery) that they have no real proper discernment of what traits are important for a man to have that they just start looking for any stupid excuse they can find to mark a man in the "rejected camp."

"Oh he drinks his alcohol with a straw! That SO gives me the ICK!"

@Tfmonkey So if you were worried about Russia "slow walking" their plans, it might not be the case. It certainly would be a devastating blow to the Big GAE to sink even more money to Israel and have things go worse for them, all while not having to do a lot of the heavy lifting themselves, considering they have a whole lot of people in the region already pissed off at Israel.

Maybe I am reading too much into that, but I see it as a strong possibility.

@Tfmonkey Been doing some thinking. I remember you stating that Russia was talking with countries like Iran (and others in the Middle East). There are claims that the attacks from Hamas were coordinated by Iran. Not saying that is actually true, but if it is, I am seeing some possible connections.

Perhaps this is a attack against NATO by BRICS, considering every NATO country is all "rah rah Israel." It also falls in line with your theory about what you said before with Israel being a target.

You can find out if someone is "moderate" or more "extreme" on the political spectrum based on who they support in the Israel/Palestine conflict. And by extreme, I mean both the left and the right. "Teams are being scrambled!"

Challenge to anyone: name me a politician on the right that is not supporting Israel. While most left and right establishment politicians support Israel, I have only seen examples on the left support Palestine.

Therefore, there are no extreme right wing politicians.

The easiest way to tell how someone is politically aligned is what information or source of information they are least critical of. Anything that aligns with how you think will most likely be the very thing you question the least.

To make sure that your mind is sharp and that you know the truth, you must be ready to question things that you assume to be true. You should continually test what you see as true to make sure that it is that indeed. Otherwise, you do not value truth.

And if this starts WWIII (or progresses it further if it indeed has already started), I will not be too happy either. But perhaps that is inevitable, and this is just the time it would happen. After all, there is no way that the US can remain on top of the pecking order for all time. There has never yet been a permanent empire, and that is not going to change because we are somehow special or "the good guys." No, the US will go down. How quickly that happens remains to be seen.

I swear if the US sends troops to help Israel, I am going to be mad. Yeah, how many troops did our "greatest ally" send when our military was in Iraq and Afghanistan? So we should send just as many to them.

Though it might be another opportunity of embarrassment for our troops to fumble in being helpful, otherwise show that we are not the invincible force that the US government has been proclaiming. I guess we will see.

The whole Hamas attack on Israel should be considered another consequence of the declining American empire. I am going assume that members of Hamas and other groups are not uncritically accepting what Western news propaganda proclaims to be true (e.g. UKRAINE IS TOTALLY WINNING GUYS). They know the US is weak, and they figure now is the time to attack "OUR GREATEST ALLY" when we are less capable of helping them, considering the US military's current levels of incompetence.

One thing I find ridiculous about the projection of the African population over the century is the assumption that the population growth will be sustainable in any way. And add in the fact that when Western governments collapse, a lot of people are going to die when food aid is no longer coming in and the violence that will likely follow.

So if you want to increase birth rates, give men a better deal. Men getting a better deal will mean men are more likely to accept the idea of marriage again, and you will have a good number more of children per couple.

Sure, some couples will still opt to have only 1 or 2 kids, but 1 or 2 is better than 0 when it comes to improving the overall numbers. And many married couples will want more than just 1 or 2 (if they get started early enough).

Why are there less pairings/marriages overall? It is because men see that prospect as a bad deal and want no part of a deal that could destroy them in numerous ways. It is a worse deal due to the government giving women an easy way out to destroy the marriage for as little as "I don't feel like it," as well as the women themselves choosing to forego the best years they should be giving their husband and instead expecting their future husband to wait until she is in her 30s.

One factor with falling birth rates I see is not that married couples are necessarily having too few children (though family sizes overall are down), it is the lack of marriages/pairing overall going on that is at the head of the issue. Too many people not forming long term relationships means that there are going to be overall less children as a result.

I am aware of single mothers and all that, but that's a symptom of another issue as well (and certainly not making up for lack of births).