Ehh idk its kinda cool I guess
Firstly, Id rather see ‘unfit’ men make something of themselves then just embrace inferiority. While secondly, Im not quite sure how this would happen seeing even the most ‘alpha’ males watch porn, as sexual restraint isn’t something selected for (for the most part) in the dominance hierarchy, a social structure constructed by men. Which is also to say, the problem of porn can’t be reduced to mere biological terms and is far more existential than just infringing on your ability to reproduce.
I think this criticism, that being the Evolian one that a political structure must address the problem of existential suffering and hence, mustn't abandon the principle of struggle, removes volition from problems of existentialism in virtue of it being top down from a centralised power. What is to ask one not to abandon the principle of struggle if it cannot be abandoned in the first place? Hence, problems of existentialism are problems of the soul, they are problems that should be solved bottom-up and from within.
I don't believe one has to save themselves for marriage, as an atheist, marriage doesn't signify any change in the metaphysic but simply a relationship status that must have necessarily existed beforehand. However, that isn't to say anything goes and all sexual relations are interchangeably good. If you want to know what I think on sexuality, I have posted some thoughts on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dylan.thomas.121772/posts/1169588873177434
1) I probably would 2) ethnicity has ultimate significant when it comes to national unity, it is unmatched by any civil notion when it comes to uniting a group of people.
I was kidding
I tend to be an apologist for the south in some instances, I think they get it pretty unfair in modern discourse. However, I have no loyalty to the south simply because it isn’t my place, I share no heritage with them and the conversation is thus just for historicities sake.
I don’t think this is the case. Clearly it was Wilsonianism that brought down the ancient regimes, before world war 1 only 3 democracies existed in Europe while in only 3 years, almost all of the monarchies would either fall completely or have their absolute powers replaced with something merely ritualistic, celebratory and superficial. Of course, the western forces that delivered the end of traditional modes of governance may have also been nationalistic, but nationalism is a big tent i.e. the old socialists were nationalists, instead they were democratic, modernist and secularist.
My family has a business I want to slide into.
Im 21 and study economics.
He is incredibly arrogant, illiterate on economics, unprincipled and is sadly adhered to by many youth here.
If you aren't circumcised then what the fuck are you doing.
Yeah I would, good idea.
HAHAHA Lauren Southern is a coal burner!
To live without coercion.
I don’t think the austrian business cycle is sufficient to explain recessions, as would be the case for any theory that is both daring and vague enough to encapsulate every business cycle. Furthermore, it is extremely undetailed and offers very little value or explanatory power on the nature of busts. That being said, even if it sufficient to explain SOME business cycles, it doesn’t always comport to the data available on the money supply and inflation.
I call myself a race realist and am whole heartedly on the alt right’s side in this debate.
Probably The United States or Eastern Europe somewhere.
No, I've never even sipped on alcohol.
Only started recently, very interesting stuff.
If you are a beginner, I would recommend looking at readers and online lectures on whatever area you are interested in as opposed to reading raw materials (Hume, Kant etc).