@Botond173's banner p

Botond173


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

				

User ID: 473

Botond173


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 06:37:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 473

They were initially told the measures will be temporary so as to flatten the curve, in other words they were justified by the logical-sounding reasoning that the epidemic will spread through the whole of society anyway, and it needs to be ensured that health services do not get overwhelmed. It was also claimed that this will take no more than two or so weeks.

I remember the time between autumn 2021 and the beginning of the Ukrainian War. It did seem like the status quo stabilized and we’re in a new normal. Those who refused to get vaccinated were going to live as pariahs, modern untouchables, not permitted to travel, to fly with airlines, check into hotels etc. and those who were vaccinated were going to need to have their certificate of it on them.

I reckon reading that huge numbers of Indian peasants, then penniless urban seasonal workers, starved to death and died as they tried in vain to go back to their villages on foot, hoping to get home before the government locked down all travel as well.

Noted.

Anyway, since I replied to only one half of a sentence, I think it makes sense to reply in a bit more detail: what I described would have readily been available to Ukrainian nationalists (at least before 2014) without firing a single shot or wasting even 1$ of US aid. When weighing past options, I think we need to take this into account.

I imagine it's one thing to be married as a woman to a man you're not sexually attracted to, but it's entirely something else to be married to one who is not, and is incapable of being sexually attracted to you. I'm guessing most women would opt to remain single than to sign up for the latter.

Straight men do chase lesbians too, and even more gay men have a thing for trying to "convert" straight men.

For/Into marriage? With children? Because this is what OP was describing.

One of the things I noticed when trawling reddit was absolute lack of sympathy from anyone.

Not even from his native Ukraine? Which he donated large sums to during the war?

Either way, I think any modern society is well-advised to at least try drawing lines in the sand and establish clear rules regarding all the gooners, simps, e-thots, porners, "incels" and whores in its midst. We can all go on pretending that these seismic social changes have not actually happened, but what good does that do us? We need to acknowledge a bunch of unpleasant facts: enormous segments of both men and women will never marry and never breed. Calhoun's mice/rat utopia experiment has been put into practice in the human world. Not only is the Christian patriarchy dead; anyone who has ever had even indirect social experience of it is already dead. Should it ever return, it will definitely not be Christian. We need to decide what our attitudes should be towards women whose sole aim in life is to whore themselves out, and towards the faceless mass of males financing them.

Borders that were drawn up by Communist functionaries, ironically.

Ukrainian nationalists would prefer a future of a smaller Ukraine with fewer Ukrainians

Were that true, that'd have at least meant a nationalist policy of tolerating the idea of autonomy and general otherness of the Donbass as a predominantly Russian region in character, at least before 2014. In other words, a compromise with Russian separatists. But, as far as I know, not only did this never happen, in fact the opposite was happening.

I'd argue you mistakenly have cause and effect completely reversed. It's not that surprising, since many Atlanticists seem to share your assumptions. I'd say the plain truth is that the only reason the Ukrainians keep fighting, to the extent that they do, is because they assume the West will keep supporting and supplying them.

Why should a woman marry him? What's in it for her, from her point of view?

If your argument is that Europe is free to import oil from any place other than the Persian Gulf or Russia, I agree. But that does not represent global trade in any practical sense.

I think the US deep state was been unconditionally supporting Ukraine and prodding it to prepare a revanchist war since 2014.

At this point the global trade of crude oil is essentially blocked.

All this seems to be the unfortunate consequence that was the disaster that was the Versailles “Treaty”. Nobody wants to become yet another fool like the Germans did in 1918. Politicians seem to all believe that if you voluntarily sue for peace, you’re a dunce.

And if Europe is left without oil - it is their own fault for antagonizing Russia.

I’m benevolently assuming this is supposed to be a reference to events after the US presidential elections in 2024 and you’re suggesting that Western European leaders should have assisted Trump in pushing for at least a negotiated ceasefire in Ukraine. Unfortunately there is only one Western European government that is theoretically able to decisively choose not to antagonize Russia, doing so in a way that compels smaller European states as well; that is Germany, but they are beholden not to Trump but to the globohomo US deep state, which is their creator, master, trainer and indoctrinator, as the German federal state itself is an artificial construct of theirs.