Page 1 of 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Survival Prep (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=141)
- - Survivalists just daydreaming Men? (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=92840)

Kahlil Gibran | 12-17-2006 10:29 PM
Survivalists just daydreaming Men? 2 Attachment(s) Quote:
But you're looking at it all wrong. When the world's economic structure fails our gold and silver will skyrocket in value! If we can find anything to buy with it. We will get the chance to tell the sheeple 'I told you so'. Then we can shoot them as they come begging for our hoard of food with their starving children. We won't have to put up with this corrupt American government anymore. Instead it will be some warlord who has taken power in our local area and will decide how much he will tax us for the right to stay alive. Well........maybe we ought to be coming up with some ideas around here as to how we can prevent this post America utopian society after all.
In another thread The Voice Of Reason posted this thought-provoking comment. I don't think the collapse of America can be prevented, but his post got me wondering about the real motives of so-called Survivalists. 1] Why are there no women actually reading Survivalist novels or participating in Survivalist website forums since tee-vee pretends they are interested: Attachment 21911 2] Why are Survivalist novels always depicting the guy with a hoard ending up with a woman who otherwise does not exist: Attachment 21912 Finally, since women now enjoy their own careers/incomes, is being a "good provider" even valued in the dating/mating game anymore? Isn't The Voice Of Reason's sardonic post a reality check? :getdown: <<< my point: a guy who is a good dancer in the real world prevails unless the economy collapses.

undefined | 12-17-2006 10:51 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? I'm not sure why any of this needs to revolve around women. But let's break down those comments in a different order: 1] Why are there no women actually reading Survivalist novels or participating in Survivalist website forums since tee-vee pretends they are interested: Women have just been empowered by the feminist movement. Survivalism is their worst nightmare and so they would rather not think about it. But that TV show lets them and metrosexual men pretend they could make it. since women now enjoy their own careers/incomes, is being a "good provider" even valued in the dating/mating game anymore? In a survival situation - the breakdown of economies, possibly a major war or nuclear attack, this will matter very little. She can keep track of the food I provide. 2] Why are Survivalist novels always depicting the guy with a hoard ending up with a woman who otherwise does not exist: She might not be the best looking in real life but if she's an accountant and hungry and TSHTF she'll be happy to see me. And If I'm desperate enough and unmarried, I might let her stay for a while. But really - why worry about what women think when it comes to survival prep? Do you go camping and let your wife set up the tent? What about start the fire? Some women can do it but most will not have a clue. And by women I mean ladies and your average metrosexual guy. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Worldmariner | 12-17-2006 11:02 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran (Post 448115) wondering about the real motives of so-called Survivalists. 1] Why are there no women actually reading Survivalist novels or participating in Survivalist website forums since tee-vee pretends they are interested: Attachment 21911 2] Why are Survivalist novels always depicting the guy with a hoard ending up with a woman who otherwise does not exist:.
Not pointing to anyone in particular, but I have noticed that sometimes, no always here but at other sites as well, that there seem to be a lot of guys that... seem to be reading... to many Gor novels...

Kahlil Gibran | 12-17-2006 11:14 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldmariner (Post 448141) Not pointing to anyone in particular, but I have noticed that sometimes, no always here but at other sites as well, that there seem to be a lot of guys that... seem to be reading... to many Gor novels...
:beer: that's who I was stereo-typing here. This thread is a wide-open topic so feel free to wonder why some guys seem to want society to collapse.

REV127 | 12-17-2006 11:21 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Dunno, not to bust on Voice Of Reason or anything, but a lot of that smacks of cultural binge and purge. On one hand you have the notion that an awful husband and father or terrible wife and mother has the right to usurp that which you have laid up for yourself and your family. Socialist/communist propaganda, force fed and regurgitated. On the other hand you have a sarcastic look at overly-militant survivalists and overly-enthusiastic investors. If there's anything to be learned here at all it is to avoid propaganda and consider your plans carefully. I fortunately evolved from backpack survivalist to bug-in-er to finally homesteader so survivalism isn't a daydream for me anymore, it is just simple everyday life. I am getting ever closer to self sufficiency in real, useful everyday practical ways. There are plenty of women posting all the time to survivalist groups, they are just typically more interested in the feminine aspects of survivalism that may currently not be on your survival-radar. Go to homesteading or gardening websites sometime, for instance. Or those that center around skills like herbalism, candle or soapmaking, weaving, knitting, all sorts of real, practical survivalist skills. The number of women interested in buying a gun and socking away some food and water is comparatively less. Actually, those kinds of ideas are really very simplistic survivalist preps, entry-level kinds of things. Renewability and sustainability are more advanced survival concepts and women have an advantage here as they have cultural and genetic imperatives that predispose them to ideas like creation and nurture. It is the healthy and natural role of a man to be a protector and provider, regardless of whether it is needed or not. I wouldn't hold much esteem for any man who was incapable of rendering these traditional male services. Stories where the survivalist gets the woman who wouldn't be able to exist without him are hamfisted and possibly subconcious attempts to tap into this primeval drive. While being a good husband and father are extremely important to me(and therefore implicitly being a protector and provider), in practical terms a woman who would have no chance of surviving on her own is of no interest to me, regardless of her physical appearance. If for no other reason than her questionable breeding and poor spirit. I played the dating/mating game for a long time, I thought I had it figured out on many different occasions with wildly varrying theories. At one point I even concluded the game was rigged. Eventually when my data set was large enough I realized that there is no such monolith as the dating/mating scene, it's really just a whole lot of individuals trying to make their way through life. After that realization I was able to find a really awesome chick and I married her. She's all into this survival stuff. I just bought a bigger gun without telling her first. I explained it was because I felt I needed a better weapon with which to defend ourselves, just in case. She was cool with that. OTOH I've dated women who were uncomfortable with the fact that I was a boxer because they associated my sport/martial art to pure, unrefined, indiscriminate violence. The only factor in dating/mating is be yourself and keep trying till you find someone who likes who and what you are. Some women like traditional men, others like bizarre yuppie metrosexuals, still others like complete losers. If you only look in bars you'll only find drinkers, etc. It's a ying/yang thing. Any given attribute you may be trying to gauge or sell is worth only what the person you're asking thinks its worth. Maybe it's more of a physics thing... is the cat in the box dead or alive?

hoarder | 12-17-2006 11:22 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran (Post 448146) some guys seem to want society to collapse.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
I think it's more of a "hope for the best and prepare for the worst" kind of thing. To be perfectly honest, I think the best we can wish for is for things to remain the same as they are now. Collapse will not be fun. Not being prepared for it would be worse.

RiverRat | 12-18-2006 12:13 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? :eek: On the eve of Y2K I had many friends who ignored the safety of their family...mainly dumbed down macho types who had one day's supply of food in their refrigerator and a weeks supply of breath mints as backup rations. No food,no weapons,no ammo,no batteries,no anything but a huge mortgage and an arrogant attitude towards anyone who thought the Empire of Debt could collapse for any reason. Fast forward to 2006 >>>> Nothing has changed. Survival mode was beaten out of most all American females about the same time The Beatles first set foot in America...it became an archaic concept to find a mate who could provide protection and common sense in favor of the guy with the coolest hair and the biggest dork. Survival talk will only send them screaming for Oprah and American Idol to shut out the reality that they made a bad choice and someone might call in the chips and demand accountability for their stupidity. I see no mystery in the lack of female participation in survival discussions. It's a alien concept to even imagine the Empire might fall... Sorry girls...I only got enough food to last my family for a couple of years... Go tell your husband Mr.Wonderful he's going to have to skip that pedicure next week...Bed,Bath and Beyond has now became a hardware store. So sorry,,,your cable service has been disconnected for past unpaid balance of $300.00 :D:D:D:D

Kahlil Gibran | 12-18-2006 12:25 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? 1 Attachment(s) Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRat (Post 448178) Survival mode was beaten out of most all American females about the same time The Beatles first set foot in America...it became an archaic concept to find a mate who could provide protection and common sense in favor of the guy with the coolest hair and the biggest dork.
Attachment 21920 :D Survival mode 2006 camo?

RiverRat | 12-18-2006 12:35 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? :D Dude...what kind of matching underwear goes with that outfit ? Need to get the wife a couple of those for covert emergency trips to trade a couple of silver rounds for a Lexus SUV... :banana::banana::banana: :D:D:D:D:D:D

Maddie | 12-18-2006 12:58 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? 1) "No" women???? I beg your pardon! Women do participate in survivalist Websites and read survivalist novels. Exhibit A: Me. There's also at least one female survivalist forum out there. There don't seem to be as many females on the survivalist forums as men nor as many women reading the novels. Yet, the majority of the hardcore survivalists I know in person are women. Many of the others are gay males. When I've gone to survivalist-oriented classes and workshops, there are usually nearly as many women as men, and the women are usually there alone, not as a ladies auxillary to their husbands. Anyway, few of the survivalists I personally know frequent survivalist forums. There are probably a number of reasons for that. The first is that their exposure to the term "survivalist" was likely through a media that portrays survivalists as camo-clad, gun-toting males. Most women don't identify with that image and wouldn't be drawn to investigate those forums. The gay male survivalists I know would assume those forums would be hostile environments for them (and they're correct) and would avoid them. Another reason is that food storage, protecting and providing healthcare for their families, etc., has long been part of what women do in everyday life. I think they have a more pragmatic view about it. It's not a big enough deal to seek out an Internet community to talk about it. Finally, males don't have much respect for women, and they don't really value them. Most women are going to avoid places that cater to males because they just don't want to hear the BS. Those of us who do stick around are usually pretty thick-skinned and easy-going. 2) Haha! Male novels tend to have the same kinds of characters: A male who always has some top-secret black ops experience in his background that is never really explained but allows him to out-macho all the other men and conquer every obstacle. Then there's the woman: Always tall, leggy, slender, with a flat belly, and always accomplished in ways the book makes clear are unusual for a female. Tomboyish but not mannish. At some point she'll have to get rescued because even though she's better than other men, she's not better than the hero. In other words, females write female fantasies. Males write male fantasies. I could write a survivalist novel from a female perspective, but since the perceived audience for this type of novel is male, I doubt I could find a publisher. At any rate, when women write their novels, they tend to follow an equation, too: Amazingly spunky, clever, and tough female kicks male butt and wins mysterious strong but sensitive male. Better yet, they win a couple of males. 3) Not really. Most women just want a male who will hold up his end of the family responsibilities, not just financially, but also including household chores and childcare duties.

GOLD DUCK | 12-18-2006 01:28 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? QWAK,Maddie,You got your head on strate and act together I injoy reading your posts! You rock!!:yippee: the DUCK

Curtman | 12-18-2006 01:41 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? 1 Attachment(s) I don't think these suvivalist are just dreaming. I think they have a better understanding of freedom than many in the U.S. The Rastafas living on the beach in Tobago are friendly and skinny. Man. Da Man only smokes ganja for lunch...

Kahlil Gibran | 12-18-2006 02:21 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Maddie (Post 448200) The gay male survivalists I know would assume those forums would be hostile environments for them (and they're correct) and would avoid them.
By definition homosexuals are not survivalists since they chose not to have children ---children being the very essence of what surviving really means. :wavey: Thanks for your thoughtful post Maddie!

RiverRat | 12-18-2006 02:27 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? :eek: Only in the tropics Curtman ......:D:D:D:D Wonder how those Rasta dudes would make out in Montana ? About like the Costa Rican Olympic Bobsled Team maybe ? They not be jammin' mon.... :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::eek::eek: :eek::eek: Good Post Maddie...nice to know a few smart women haven't totally lost it... I agree with the fashion statement terminology...survival mentality is a state of mind over media brainwashing...sounds like you found the White Rabbit. Right on....

Curtman | 12-18-2006 02:41 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRat (Post 448238) :eek: Only in the tropics Curtman ......:D:D:D:D Wonder how those Rasta dudes would make out in Montana ? About like the Costa Rican Olympic Bobsled Team maybe ? They not be jammin' mon.... :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::eek::eek: :eek::eek:
I dont think TSHTF scenrio is going to affect them much. I have a feeling they may just set up a little direct tv dish on the beach there and watch for an hour or so while we pearl into the coral bottom. "Crazy mon" I wouldn't be surprised if KEEF didn't know those guys.

RiverRat | 12-18-2006 02:57 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? :eek: I went back and studied the pic with a magnifying glass Curtman. That is most definitely Our Keef in the hammock,now that you mention it. :D:D:D:D:D He's been posting on GIM by cellular internet from Barbados...the lucky dog. Now we have proof... !!!! Looks like a cave or more likely a hidden bunker entrance behind the dude with the Hog Leg reefer... :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Hivemindgammahydra7 | 12-18-2006 05:56 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran (Post 448146) some guys seem to want society to collapse.
I have drawn this conclusion as well. I think being ready for a Katrina-type of disaster or a local/regional societal breakdown situation such as the L.A. riots of '92 is prudent and very wise. However, most of the "survival/preparedness" types I commonly encounter these days spend huge amounts of time, energy, and money trying to plan for, equip for, train for, and be set for every possible scenario the imagination can conjur up, to the point of dedicated fanaticism. It's as if they're salivating foam over the prospect of a Mad Max-type of future where they can grab their AR and "go into action." The types I'm talking about are the ones who spend days and weeks studying expounding on how to build a Faraday Cage and rehearsing "tactical scenarios" they plan to encounter, as if they could somehow lock horns with the NWO and not only survive it but come out on top. You will know them from their blogs and websites, a number of which make warped and apostate use of the Bible to rationalize their mentality. To me this crowd gives off a real Jim Jones type of vibe and to be candid, I find them extraordinarily creepy. They scare me.

Belloc | 12-18-2006 06:26 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemindgammahydra7 (Post 448862) I have drawn this conclusion as well. I think being ready for a Katrina-type of disaster or a local/regional societal breakdown situation such as the L.A. riots of '92 is prudent and very wise. However, most of the "survival/preparedness" types I commonly encounter these days spend huge amounts of time, energy, and money trying to plan for, equip for, train for, and be set for every possible scenario the imagination can conjur up, to the point of dedicated fanaticism. It's as if they're salivating foam over the prospect of a Mad Max-type of future where they can grab their AR and "go into action." The types I'm talking about are the ones who spend days and weeks studying expounding on how to build a Faraday Cage and rehearsing "tactical scenarios" they plan to encounter, as if they could somehow lock horns with the NWO and not only survive it but come out on top. You will know them from their blogs and websites, a number of which make warped and apostate use of the Bible to rationalize their mentality. To me this crowd gives off a real Jim Jones type of vibe and to be candid, I find them extraordinarily creepy. They scare me.
:dito: I like survivalism from it's simplicity/practicality aspect. I know I am going to made fun of for bringing this up, but I'll do it anyways - for the "Little House on the Priarie" aspect. You own a farm, work it, grow your own food, hunt for game, clean it, cook it. Get married, raise a large family (meaning more than 1 kid :haha: ). Coming from a family of farmers, butchers, and tradesmen... all of this is in my blood. IMHO, this is how we were supposed to live. Not in artificial cages or dark dungeons either in the OWO, NWO or after the SHTF.

Mercury Rising | 12-18-2006 06:33 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? i dont see a shtf happening..jmo..time will tell. dont mean to burst any bubbles though..keep preppin L &G's..keep preppin!:bandito:

gunner | 12-18-2006 08:00 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? "Out of chaos will come a new world order" - I DO believe TSWHTF, the biggest question is for how long. For those in NY on 9/11 - it did for the day, but I'm convinced that it will happen again on a bigger scale, and when it does, the dark lords will be ready to save us from ourselves...they're training while we sleep.

Kahlil Gibran | 12-18-2006 08:07 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemindgammahydra7 (Post 448862) I have drawn this conclusion as well. I think being ready for a Katrina-type of disaster or a local/regional societal breakdown situation such as the L.A. riots of '92 is prudent and very wise. However, most of the "survival/preparedness" types I commonly encounter these days spend huge amounts of time, energy, and money trying to plan for, equip for, train for, and be set for every possible scenario the imagination can conjur up, to the point of dedicated fanaticism. It's as if they're salivating foam over the prospect of a Mad Max-type of future where they can grab their AR and "go into action." The types I'm talking about are the ones who spend days and weeks studying expounding on how to build a Faraday Cage and rehearsing "tactical scenarios" they plan to encounter, as if they could somehow lock horns with the NWO and not only survive it but come out on top. You will know them from their blogs and websites, a number of which make warped and apostate use of the Bible to rationalize their mentality. To me this crowd gives off a real Jim Jones type of vibe and to be candid, I find them extraordinarily creepy. They scare me.
This is a wide-open topic and yet I think that RiverRat's first post got as close to what I am trying to get my head around in this thread. On some level I actually want the economy to collapse. Salivating foam is way too unfair a characterization of those who live by the Boy Scout's motto Be Prepared and...Mad Max is a very popular film. After all the humiliation that Y2K guys suffered since, I think that they will be entitled to a little "I told you so" pay-back attitude WTSHTF. Fact is...they were mocked and there will come a day when a "good provider" is suddenly highly valued. I'm not feeling as altruistic as before and wonder why. I still don't have this figured out and that is why this thread is open-ended. :smokin: why hasn't H7 fled Los Angeles yet?

Kahlil Gibran | 12-18-2006 08:13 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloc (Post 448896) :I know I am going to made fun of for bringing this up, but I'll do it anyways - for the "Little House on the Prairie" aspect. You own a farm, work it, grow your own food, hunt for game, clean it, cook it. Get married, raise a large family (meaning more than 1 kid :haha: ).
Not laughing since I liked The Walton's too. :beer:

J.D.Rockinfeller | 12-18-2006 08:23 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Hivemindgammahydra7 (Post 448862) I have drawn this conclusion as well. I think being ready for a Katrina-type of disaster or a local/regional societal breakdown situation such as the L.A. riots of '92 is prudent and very wise. However, most of the "survival/preparedness" types I commonly encounter these days spend huge amounts of time, energy, and money trying to plan for, equip for, train for, and be set for every possible scenario the imagination can conjur up, to the point of dedicated fanaticism. It's as if they're salivating foam over the prospect of a Mad Max-type of future where they can grab their AR and "go into action." The types I'm talking about are the ones who spend days and weeks studying expounding on how to build a Faraday Cage and rehearsing "tactical scenarios" they plan to encounter, as if they could somehow lock horns with the NWO and not only survive it but come out on top. You will know them from their blogs and websites, a number of which make warped and apostate use of the Bible to rationalize their mentality. To me this crowd gives off a real Jim Jones type of vibe and to be candid, I find them extraordinarily creepy. They scare me.
True that...to me the one indispensable is camo....not just the clothing..but to go unnoticed ...under the radar...friends,family...NO ONE KNOWS your state of readiness...plans....or cache....or even beliefs. The first assesment i made is well be dealing with superior #s....superior organization,etc.....this is NOT a pretty scenario...ill pray for peace every day.....those guys you speak of will be dead before morning in a real shtf scenario.

Unclad Lad | 12-19-2006 01:36 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? You aren't finding women survivalists because you're looking for them in the wrong places. (Broad generalization ALERT!) Look For Homesteading sites and groups. Raising animals, milking goats, spinning yarn, midwifery, herbalism, gardening-the home front, if you will. If anything, women are much more involved with the lifestyle of survivalism. Continuity versus distinct events. As I said, a generalization.

RiverRat | 12-19-2006 05:20 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? :D KG : It's not so hard to visualize Joe and Jane Six Pack going absolutely bananas when they lose their jobs,Walmart,Blockbuster,and the local Pizza Hut because that's their life in micro.Take away the cable box,their transportation and Julio cutting their grass and carting off the garbage and you got two braindead individuals who have no clue how the rest of the world operates outside the borders of the Empire. Pleasantville has been written off as a casualty of war...welcome to The Bates Motel. Paradise Lost for the majority...salvation and opportunity for the few. Uh Oh...you chose the wrong door Jane...the penalty for losers is death by nightmare. This scenario will be SOP for the majority of so called modern families raised and educated in the Empire.The Empire stresses group think and specialization of labor...the two things a person with common sense avoids like the plague. You made an excellent point on some of us dreaming and hoping for a total meltdown...I can't say I look forward to it...but I actually could care less if it hit tomorrow. The status quo of the Empire is a trap...it reminds me of a tribe of cannibals fattening up their captives for a big party.The captives think the cannibals are morons but the captives are the main course and too busy watching Oprah to realize doom is waiting at sundown. Oh...you can scream,and stomp and spit...but they won't be changing it. Frank Zappa had it figured out 20 years ago...Flakes :D :D :D :D The irony will be the fact that in about a week after the meltdown they will realize Big Brother has cried havoc and let loose the dogs of war three blocks from their house and all they got for protection is a checkbook and three soccer balls. Will they suffer ? Bet your last FRN they will...imagine total chaos and panic on a coast to coast scale beyond your wildest nightmare. My parents grew up during the great depression and never forgot the horrors of hunger and poverty their entire lives. Both were lucky in a sense because their parents were farmers,they owned their own land and could survive very well even if 95% of the US citizenry had bit the big one. The education system glosses over that era of US history like it was a minor bump in the road for the Empire....it was not...but if you don't talk about it...it never happened. GIM is a small band of free thinkers who quite frankly lost all trust in the system and are aware of the dangers of group think and media brainwashing. Our attitudes and posts reflect a deep mistrust of any and all system related events because the system is flawed by design...or twisted to reflect the needs of the few who vote or lobby for laws to outweigh the needs of the millions. Paranoia or common sense ? You be the judge KG. Not many look for flaws...very few see them and take precautions. Mark this as a wakeup call to common sense and a slice of the big picture. Men,women,children makes no difference.Turn off the TV and think :>). Our elected politicians have sold us out and someone is going to get stuck with the bill... You get three guesses and if you lose....what's for dinner Mogambo ? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Keef | 12-19-2006 06:21 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtman (Post 448244) I dont think TSHTF scenrio is going to affect them much. I have a feeling they may just set up a little direct tv dish on the beach there and watch for an hour or so while we pearl into the coral bottom. "Crazy mon" I wouldn't be surprised if KEEF didn't know those guys.
I do know those guys. I think they would say onto YOU, "Don't worry so much about the future, try to relax and take the bob marley tour": http://youtube.com/watch?v=XAB_5MpLdLQ Rasta's also believe that survival is a state of mind and "long as woman have cooter, she too will SURVIVE" See ya lads on the Island, mon...

Kahlil Gibran | 12-19-2006 07:18 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRat (Post 449290) :D KG : It's not so hard to visualize Joe and Jane Six Pack going absolutely bananas when they lose their jobs,Walmart,Blockbuster,and the local Pizza Hut because that's their life in micro.Take away the cable box,their transportation and Julio cutting their grass and carting off the garbage and you got two braindead individuals who have no clue how the rest of the world operates outside the borders of the Empire. Pleasantville has been written off as a casualty of war...welcome to The Bates Motel. Paradise Lost for the majority...salvation and opportunity for the few. Uh Oh...you chose the wrong door Jane...the penalty for losers is death by nightmare. This scenario will be SOP for the majority of so called modern families raised and educated in the Empire.The Empire stresses group think and specialization of labor...the two things a person with common sense avoids like the plague. You made an excellent point on some of us dreaming and hoping for a total meltdown...I can't say I look forward to it...but I actually could care less if it hit tomorrow. The status quo of the Empire is a trap...it reminds me of a tribe of cannibals fattening up their captives for a big party.The captives think the cannibals are morons but the captives are the main course and too busy watching Oprah to realize doom is waiting at sundown. Oh...you can scream,and stomp and spit...but they won't be changing it. Frank Zappa had it figured out 20 years ago...Flakes :D :D :D :D The irony will be the fact that in about a week after the meltdown they will realize Big Brother has cried havoc and let loose the dogs of war three blocks from their house and all they got for protection is a checkbook and three soccer balls. Will they suffer ? Bet your last FRN they will...imagine total chaos and panic on a coast to coast scale beyond your wildest nightmare. My parents grew up during the great depression and never forgot the horrors of hunger and poverty their entire lives. Both were lucky in a sense because their parents were farmers,they owned their own land and could survive very well even if 95% of the US citizenry had bit the big one. The education system glosses over that era of US history like it was a minor bump in the road for the Empire....it was not...but if you don't talk about it...it never happened. GIM is a small band of free thinkers who quite frankly lost all trust in the system and are aware of the dangers of group think and media brainwashing. Our attitudes and posts reflect a deep mistrust of any and all system related events because the system is flawed by design...or twisted to reflect the needs of the few who vote or lobby for laws to outweigh the needs of the millions. Paranoia or common sense ? You be the judge KG. Not many look for flaws...very few see them and take precautions. Mark this as a wakeup call to common sense and a slice of the big picture. Men,women,children makes no difference.Turn off the TV and think :>). Our elected politicians have sold us out and someone is going to get stuck with the bill... You get three guesses and if you lose....what's for dinner Mogambo ? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Another great post RiverRat! Quote:
My parents grew up during the great depression and never forgot the horrors of hunger and poverty their entire lives.
Same here. Dad had one blue suit and one brown suit. They came with two pair of pants. Mom wore cheap cotton dresses as a homemaker until they frayed. Together, they raised four kids. Dad bought his first new car only after the last kid left home...paying cash. :driver: wheeeeeeeee I'm debt freeeeeeeeee

GOLD DUCK | 12-20-2006 03:29 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? QWAK,What people realy NEED is a PRATICAL SURVIVALIST SCHOOL not so much the how to shoot a gun sort of stuff but pratical stuff that they can do in their every day lives to help them to be better prepared for the changes that the coming economic catastrophy is going to bring. BTW: (and this is a bit off topic) Wile THIS teacher most likely does NOT have a clue about SURVIVAL :confused:She is "TEACHER of the YEAR" and after seeing her I would like to sign up for some NIGHT CLASSES, just to brush up on my some of my TECHNIQUES!:hahaha: :haha: :haha: I also understand SHE grades on the CURVE so IF she did not KILL ME I just might pass her class with a decent?? (or indecent) GRADE! Either one would be OK with me and since I have been DEAD before I think it would be a GREAT way to go the next time! HA HA HA HE HE HE just being ME! http://fastvideosite.com/html/school...school-783.php (Hope that don't get me in trouble here!) It must just be my unconventional sence of humor! :banana: :hahaha: :getdown: the DUCK

RickW | 12-20-2006 03:40 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Dang.....Hot for Teacher:banana:

GoldWampum | 12-20-2006 03:41 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? You're not in any trouble with me if that helps at all DUCK. :ARMS1:

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18 AM. |
Page 1 of 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM

Gold & Silver Forum - Survivalists just daydreaming Men?

Page 2 of 3 | < | 1 | 2 | 3 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Survival Prep (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=141)
- - Survivalists just daydreaming Men? (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=92840)

Anty Ep | 12-20-2006 03:50 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Hey, what's the problem? Girls are not going to sit around and talk about this stuff. That doesnt mean they arent interested in survival. But for example most would rather CAN FOOD than TALK ABOUT CANNING FOOD ON A FORUM. Forums are very male oriented phenomenon. They are something akin to locker-rooms in terms of the usual level of conversation. GUNS are a very male oriented phenomenon. Probably that is a good thing esp if you have ever been on the wrong end of an angry woman. :stickyman That being said, my lovely wife the other day told me with evident satisfaction, about how her gas tank cover was frozen shut and having busted two fingernails, "she took a knife out of the survival kit and finally got it open." Silly but cute eh? :love:

TLM | 12-20-2006 04:53 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran (Post 449329) Another great post RiverRat!
I agree, great post River Rat. Thanks

Belloc | 12-20-2006 05:32 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Unclad Lad (Post 449193) Look For Homesteading sites and groups. Raising animals, milking goats, spinning yarn, midwifery, herbalism, gardening-the home front, if you will.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...7/food350a.jpg - WWII British poster If the brits could do it then, then we can certainly do it now. It does not have to be any daydreaming. ________ BTW... RiverRat, freak'n awesome post!

Reality | 12-20-2006 06:01 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran (Post 448235) By definition homosexuals are not survivalists since they chose not to have children ---children being the very essence of what surviving really means.
Would you say that straight couples who have decided to have their tubes tied and adopt already existing needy children also are not survivalists since they chose not to have children? Would you say that an infertile couple who adopts children can't be survivalists because they didn't "have" their children? Would you say that a homosexual uncle who is engaged with his nieces and nephews and playing a strong role in their upbringing can't be concerned with their survival? Would you say that a gay couple with children from former marriages CAN be survivalists? Lots of gay people have their own biological children and lots have adopted children. I would agree that survival is really about survival of future generations for the long haul (even with a 90 % dieoff). Anyone (straight, homosexual, men, women,young, old) can participate. Even those who volunteer for the dieoff are helping the others go forward.

Kahlil Gibran | 12-20-2006 06:10 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality (Post 450899) I would agree that survival is really about survival of future generations for the long haul (even with a 90 % dieoff). Anyone (straight, homosexual, men, women,young, old) can participate. Even those who volunteer for the dieoff are helping the others go forward.
I read someplace the term "Darwinian Deadenders" and here might be an example of a doomed community: http://www.eyewitnessnewstv.com/Glob...75369&nav=F2DO :wavey: Thanks for the thought-provoking post Reality!

RickW | 12-20-2006 06:25 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? My brother is a homo and there is noone that I would rather have by my side when it comes down to surviving with me and my family......He counts 4 times bigger, in my eyes, than anyone else I know. He embodies the term-Courage.

REV127 | 12-20-2006 06:43 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality (Post 450899) Would you say that straight couples who have decided to have their tubes tied and adopt already existing needy children also are not survivalists since they chose not to have children?
No, but I would say they're nuts. Quote:
Would you say that an infertile couple who adopts children can't be survivalists because they didn't "have" their children?
No, that makes sense. While they can't propagate their own personal genetic material they can help preserve their tribe's genes by raising its orphaned children. Quote:
Would you say that a homosexual uncle who is engaged with his nieces and nephews and playing a strong role in their upbringing can't be concerned with their survival?
Since he has removed himself from the gene pool and adoption isn't a ready option, his next best chance for some form of survival is propagating his memes. Quote:
Would you say that a gay couple with children from former marriages CAN be survivalists? Lots of gay people have their own biological children and lots have adopted children.
Provided they don't work against their children's chances of successfully reproducing they should be fine. Quote:
I would agree that survival is really about survival of future generations for the long haul (even with a 90 % dieoff). Anyone (straight, homosexual, men, women,young, old) can participate. Even those who volunteer for the dieoff are helping the others go forward.
Well kind of. The goal shouldn't be just to make more people, there is a huge people bubble right now. Children should be created with an eye towards bettering the breed. For this reason great care should be taken in selecting a mate who not only will be a good spouse and parent but who also posseses good genes as defined by what you're trying to breed for which of course will vary according to personal, familial or tribal standards. I chose my wife for her superior intellect, health, strength and spirit.

hoarder | 12-20-2006 06:56 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by skytrooper (Post 450932) If things got really bad the cops, which are the front line muscle for TPTB wouldn't last 6 hrs. at best. The next line would be the national guard, well supplied but hardly front line infantry. The regular Army, Marines would have their hands full trying to secure major cities... most of the country would be pretty much lawless.
There is one more piece to this equation. It's called "foreign assets". Just as the military sometimes enlists non-citizens to fight our wars today in exchange for citizenship tomorrow, when our rulers feel they have lost their control of the masses they will simply enlist 50 million Chinese. Out of chaos comes order. Welcome to the New World Odor. How will the citizens prevent 50 million Chinese "peace keepers" from coming here after our rules have invited them? That's what I'm worried about.

Reality | 12-20-2006 07:02 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran (Post 450904) I read someplace the term "Darwinian Deadenders" and here might be an example of a doomed community
I get your point concerning the article. It does sound doomed, but not because they are gay. In most social animals there are social structures with many roles. Only two bees in a beehive have offspring, the queen and one of the drones. All of the others are workers and they do not reproduce, yet their genes carry forward because the queen (and her replacements) share most of their genetics. The workers do this for selfish reasons. It is the most successful way to ensure their genes carry forward. In a wolfpack, only the Alpha pair breed and everyone else helps out with the pups. This formula is very successful. The genes of the helpers are carried forward because they are related to the pups. Without the helpers, the Alpha pair would be less successful in feeding their pups. A homosexual that helps his sister successfully raise her children is not at a genetic dead-end. By ensuring his sister's children get the extra support, he/she ensures the ongoing success of his/her own genetics. Children with homosexual uncles/aunts are probably more successful due to extra support mechanisms in addition to their parents. You should consider including some non-breeders in your survival plan. They can do more work than breeders who are busy with children and use far less resources (because of lack of children).

REV127 | 12-20-2006 07:06 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by skytrooper (Post 450932) If things got really bad the cops, which are the front line muscle for TPTB wouldn't last 6 hrs. at best. The next line would be the national guard, well supplied but hardly front line infantry. The regular Army, Marines would have their hands full trying to secure major cities... most of the country would be pretty much lawless. It would be interesting to see how well people would pull together for mutual security. A neighborhood or community in a suburb or rural area may do fairly well until people really started to get hungry, then it would get ugly. In my town there are 4 cops for 15 thousand people, I don't give them 2 hrs. if things got bad. It would sort of be like the country was when it was born. Each man providing for himself, helping his neighbor when he can , and providing for his own families security instead of handing that responsibility over to another man.
That is a much more realistic outlook than that held by those who think TPTB are some kind of unstoppable juggernaut. There's a couple points though... The National Guard and regular Army, probably the Marines too, don't really have much if any ammo for their guns. Munitions are usually centrally stored and the gate guards at most bases who conspiciously carry rifles or pistols usually don't have any ammo. The police don't have nearly the manpower to control a city should there be an outbreak of lawlessness. For the most part the big stick TPTB waves over our heads is nothing but an empty threat. The idea of us all being bombed or blown up with missiles is completely ludicrous, there simply aren't enough of those munitions to go around blowing up individuals or homes all onesies-twosies. There isn't even enough small arms ammunition to really suppress an insurrection, they're always running on thin margins in Iraq and a few well placed molotovs at a couple factories could put a stop to it. The Iraqis can't do that but an American populace who has suddenly been faced with a government using military weapons of war against its own people could, and likely would. It would be an extremely ugly conflict, it always is, but TPTB are nothing near invincible. That said, the beergut militias intending to directly oppose modern military forces in a toe to toe fight are seriously lacking in strategy and likely to meet a greusome end after inflicting only light casualties on their enemies.

hoarder | 12-20-2006 07:15 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality (Post 450942) In a wolfpack, only the Alpha pair breed and everyone else helps out with the pups. This formula is very successful. The genes of the helpers are carried forward because they are related to the pups. Without the helpers, the Alpha pair would be less successful in feeding their pups.
But this example is not disgenic, the human examples you suggested are. When one tribe or race of humans has many of it's members taken out of the gene pool via homosexuality, the strongest of that tribe are not the ones impregnating the remaining females. Instead these females often have no children at all if they are lesbian, if heterosexual they often go to more primitive tribes and races for impregnation and the original tribe is weakened. This is not survival mode. Also, when members of the original tribe choose not to have children of their own and adopt Nigerian children instead, this is disgenic and not good for the survival of the original tribe.

REV127 | 12-20-2006 07:29 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality (Post 450942) I get your point concerning the article. It does sound doomed, but not because they are gay. In most social animals there are social structures with many roles. Only two bees in a beehive have offspring, the queen and one of the drones. All of the others are workers and they do not reproduce, yet their genes carry forward because the queen (and her replacements) share most of their genetics. The workers do this for selfish reasons. It is the most successful way to ensure their genes carry forward. In a wolfpack, only the Alpha pair breed and everyone else helps out with the pups. This formula is very successful. The genes of the helpers are carried forward because they are related to the pups. Without the helpers, the Alpha pair would be less successful in feeding their pups. A homosexual that helps his sister successfully raise her children is not at a genetic dead-end. By ensuring his sister's children get the extra support, he/she ensures the ongoing success of his/her own genetics. Children with homosexual uncles/aunts are probably more successful due to extra support mechanisms in addition to their parents. You should consider including some non-breeders in your survival plan. They can do more work than breeders who are busy with children and use far less resources (because of lack of children).
Bees and wolves are two examples, but many other successful animals use a different breeding strategy. A great many bird species mate for life and produce all their own children. Since women are the reproductive bottleneck many other species such as mountain gorillas and lions form groups that are protected and ruled by a single powerful male who has children with a number of females. Humans unlike any other species I am aware of get to choose their mating and family behaviour. If you're dead set on involving non-breeders you should note the obvious, grandparents, which have successfully been non-breeding helpers and valuable educators for thousands of years until recently when socialism and communism began ravaging the world.

Maddie | 12-20-2006 07:37 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran (Post 448235) By definition homosexuals are not survivalists since they chose not to have children ---children being the very essence of what surviving really means. :wavey: Thanks for your thoughtful post Maddie!
I think you need to clarify your definition of "survivalist" to justify a statement like that. I'd be willing to bet that most people don't define survivalism strictly in terms of genetic survival, especially given the age spread among survivalists. There's also evidence that among mammals individuals will work on behalf of the survival of the group rather than solely their own genetic line. Sociologists, psychiatrists, and biologists have long sought to explain altruistic behavior in animals, including humans, as it doesn't seem to serve strictly the survival of one's own genetic line, occuring as it does even in those with no offspring for which to provide. Humans and other mammals appear to have more motivation for survival than the survival of their own genetic line. We should also consider that primates, including humans, have most commonly tended to live in groups because survival usually takes the efforts of a group larger than a family unit. Survival has rarely been a matter of only looking out for one's own offspring and mate. Even today most of us live that way. We turn outside the family group for everything from education and healthcare to building shelter and obtaining food. Not every soldier who marched off to war has his or her own offspring to fight for. While in general individuals may be working together because it's in the best interest of their own genetic line's survival, the survival of their genetic line often relies heavily on contributions from others who are outside that genetic line. Those roles could be filled by anyone altruistic enough to work for survival of others rather than only their own genetic offspring. Additionally, one can't assume that because someone is gay he or she does not have genetic offspring. Many gay people do have children. Biological imperative apparently is strong enough to find its way around the biological pitfalls of a same-sex attraction.

Kahlil Gibran | 12-20-2006 07:58 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? 1 Attachment(s) Quote:
Originally Posted by RickW (Post 450917) My brother is a homo and there is noone that I would rather have by my side when it comes down to surviving with me and my family......He counts 4 times bigger, in my eyes, than anyone else I know. He embodies the term-Courage.
Let's all take a big deep breath before my thread gets hijacked by a "gay" agenda. RickW only proves my point in that he is passionately defending his own brother...what anybody does when his own FAMILY is at stake. My guess is that his brother is also a good uncle and contributes to the genetic advancement of his nieces and nephews. A Condo dedicated to homosexuals does nothing to advance their nieces and nephews. They don't even allow their nieces and nephews to live in their "community" so they could help with the daycare while their "breeder" brothers and sisters work paying into their Social Security. Reality has posted the most intelligent comments regarding this topic. Maybe the rest should read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins: Attachment 22033 :yippee: I want to thank everybody for their contribution to this thread! REV127 really gets it

J.D.Rockinfeller | 12-20-2006 08:08 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? you have shown amazing restraint in dealing with off topic posts:thumbs up :thumbs up KG.

RickW | 12-20-2006 08:17 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? no comment Kahil......you know everything....sorry for my interruption of your thread...WOW

Kahlil Gibran | 12-20-2006 08:19 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? 1 Attachment(s) Quote:
Originally Posted by Maddie (Post 450975) I think you need to clarify your definition of "survivalist" to justify a statement like that. I'd be willing to bet that most people don't define survivalism strictly in terms of genetic survival, especially given the age spread among survivalists.
Attachment 22035 How much you want to bet Maddie? WTSHTF nobody will be moving on Walton's Mountain unless they contribute to the advancement of the Walton kids. Even grandma and grandpa babysit to earn their keep and they "own" that mountain. :wavey: again..thanks for your thoughtful post Maddie

Kahlil Gibran | 12-20-2006 08:21 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by J.D.Rockinfeller (Post 451010) you have shown amazing restraint in dealing with off topic posts:thumbs up :thumbs up KG.
:coolbeer: Your thread has over 60,000 HITS!...how do you keep your cool?

Anty Ep | 12-21-2006 08:42 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran (Post 448235) By definition homosexuals are not survivalists since they chose not to have children ---children being the very essence of what surviving really means.
I agree with this, because survival should mean not just one man living, but living well. And living well, from the tribes of primitive men, to Aristotle's eudaemonia discussed in his Nicomachean ethics, to John Dunne's famous statement that "no man is an island," has always meant being part of a social organism-- which on some level is and must be bound by shared blood. Now the example of an older post-children heterosexual couple does not trouble me or detract from your excellent formulation there, in part because the heterosexual couple is not defining its social identiy accordig to a fundamentally anti-social idea-- that of an ongoing buggery relationship that we are supposed to "accept." Anyhow-- Well said.

Anty Ep | 12-21-2006 08:48 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by RickW (Post 450917) My brother is a homo and there is noone that I would rather have by my side when it comes down to surviving with me and my family......He counts 4 times bigger, in my eyes, than anyone else I know. He embodies the term-Courage.
I'm happy for you that you have a nice thought for your kin. How natural, I applaud your warmth. Of course your inheritance will probably go up to because many or perhaps most queers get disowned, and in my opinion rightly so, considering that parents generally want their resources to go to the kids who are bringing more of their own line into the world, not genetic "dead ends." I have no problem interacting with gays in regular society but "when tshtf" all bets are off. These sorts of modern aberrations which go against millenia of social tradition will quickly either go back in the closet where they used to wisely stay, or they will find themselves facing exclusion from the new social columns that will gain power. Right now the social push for "gay pride" and "acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle" is a function of the globalist elite that has socially engineered us into "accepting" it by relentless mass media indoctrination and educational brainswashing and also state employment and housing laws that prevent us from wisely "discriminating." So far those laws arent federal but that's probably in the cards too. Anyhow when "free trade" and international finance collapse, I think gays will be among the first to see the writing on the wall that it's time to adopt a less obnoxious public face. Whatever else they are I think they are quick to adapt to social trends. So this is perhaps another reason why some men are "survivalists." They long for the day when the "social engineering" of repulsive and un-natural social customs is no longer shoved down our throats.

GOLD DUCK | 12-21-2006 10:31 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? QWAK,Anty Ep,You are operating out of FEAR and IGNORENCE and allowing it to color your thinking or lack there of wile at the same time making assumptions based on previous misguided fears and assumptions of others who came befor you. That which people do NOT understand they quickly FEAR and what they fear they try to eliminate or destroy so that it no longer conflicts with their paradign and beliefs. Just as a small % of people have always been DYSLIXIC and helped mankind by discovering new and better ways to do things, a similar % have always been HOMOSEXUAL and both are just as NORMAL as YOU ARE! It is just that NOT being DYSLEXIC or HOMOSEXUAL is much more common so the HERD mentality (which is actualy the ABSENCE of independent THINKING) takes over and any one diferent from the percieved NORM is SHUNED and percicuted! Your insecurity and fears are thinly vailed and just under that vail is HATE and mistrust and an UNEARNED sence of SUPERIORITY:hahaha: that you have learned to use as a SHIELD to protect your FALSE paradign and beliefs ,that are based in a primitive LACK of understanding and comprehension! In DUCK talk, "You see the surface of the POND but not its DEPTH and the UNDERCURRENTS that make the pond a living natural inviroment" You would prefer to see an AQUARIUM ware a STAIRLE inviroment is maintained by artificial means. If any thing YOURS is the UNNATURAL way of people being people!:albertein :proud: IF you took away the many contributions of both DYSLIXICS and HOMOSEXUALS from mankind over the eons of history, we would still be living in trees and eating raw food ,IF we survived as a species at all! the DUCK

GoldWampum | 12-21-2006 10:46 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Good Post DUCK! Not everyone sees life as clearly as you do. In fact, some see it quite "queerly". Us or them, with or against, Bush style "beans" glasses on at all times. Must be in their "genes" :D

hoarder | 12-21-2006 11:09 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldWampum (Post 451554) Bush style "beans" glasses on at all times. Must be in their "genes" :D
Because of Bush's unpopularity, anything he advocates against becomes "cool". Methinks this is intentional, as shrub is overty anti gay and covertly gay: http://www.lcrga.com/archive/199910221235.shtml http://www.ragemeister.com/Opinions2...an%20Party.htm http://www.rense.com/general64/newrevelationsabout.htm http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?n...print&sid=3032

Kahlil Gibran | 12-21-2006 11:21 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Anty Ep (Post 451378) Now the example of an older post-children heterosexual couple does not trouble me or detract from your excellent formulation there, in part because the heterosexual couple is not defining its social identiy accordig to a fundamentally anti-social idea-- that of an ongoing buggery relationship that we are supposed to "accept." Anyhow-- Well said.
Before this thread gets hijacked by quacking Bush-bashers...let's focus on what Anty Ep just said and consider this very old wisdom: Darwinian success can be judged by the quality of your grandchildren...not your children. Think about it. :wavey: Please stay on topic and don't hijack this thread.

REV127 | 12-21-2006 11:34 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Bush, like all federalists, is a treacherous parasite. He had to have gay sex in a coffin to become president, but beyond that perverted initiation right I don't know or care what his innermost tender feelings are. I also don't know what Anty_Ep's innermost feelings on the matter of homosexuals is, either, because I'm not him. I do find it extremely suspicious that everyone who doesn't think gays are the bees knees only holds that opinion because they are motivated by ignorance, fear and hate. At least that's what the gay boosters allege with unswerving consistency. Gays exist. It is a form of perversion brought on by trauma. Many gays are otherwise perfectly functional but because of the nature of their injury there will always be some who will act out in immoral or even evil ways. Other than the specific nature of these offenses I do not see it as being any different than any other criminal act and as such warrants equivalent penalties. Gays are not a particularly critical link in human development and aside from a possible allowance for a random error there isn't really a gay gene and even if there were it would have no chance to survive and propagate because it would be outcompeted and lost in the background. It isn't at all unreasonable to be offended or dislike the real flamers as that persona is deliberately cultivated to identify the individual as a member of a specific subculture that advances many undesirable and antisocial ethics. This is similar to not hating all blacks by default but rejecting gangsta culture for its advocacy of criminal activity and disgusting attitudes towards women. It is in all ways wrongheaded and ultimately destructive(therefore completely anti-survival) to suggest that all behaviors by any people should be accepted in a given society, that doesn't work. It also doesn't mean that nonconformers should be killed or otherwise harmed or rendered infertile, it just means that the world should be divided up into many countries and many cultures so everybody can find a place they belong and we can all live as good neighbors if not necessarily best friends in every case. Territoriality is at the heart of the vast majority of social and political issues. It isn't wrong or unevolved, it is simply a practical matter. To survive all organisms and all societies need a certain ammount of space to meet their various needs. The gays don't have their own territory, so there is conflict. This is not unlike the case with the Kurds, who had their territory stolen from them and we should all be familiar with the conflict that arose from this given the current unpleasantness in Iraq. The condo project linked in this thread was nothing more than an attempt to create a gay territory, which makes sense from a sociological perspective. I'm immune to accusations of the terrible trio of ignorance, hate and fear. I lived with a gay couple for quite a while and even attended a lesbian wedding. It just is what it is.

Kahlil Gibran | 12-21-2006 11:52 AM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by REV127 (Post 451627) I lived with a gay couple for quite a while and even attended a lesbian wedding. It just is what it is.
If your happy community is childless then this is just a gay-agenda hijack and does not even address the topic of this thread...the motivations of Survivalists. :offtopic:

REV127 | 12-21-2006 12:00 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran (Post 451639) If your happy community is childless then this is just a gay-agenda hijack and does not even address the topic of this thread...the motivations of Survivalists. :offtopic:
Actually it does directly address the motivations of survivalists, you just aren't seeing clearly.

GoldWampum | 12-21-2006 12:10 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by hoarder (Post 451587) Because of Bush's unpopularity, anything he advocates against becomes "cool". Methinks this is intentional, as shrub is overty anti gay and covertly gay:
Taken in context I know that you know my statement does not say what you imply. Read the whole thing. It referred to the with us or against us attitude, which is prevalent with a few on this board. Don't try to BS me hoarder. REV, I doubt you really believe it's about thinking it's the "bees knees". Also if you read some of the posts on this board on such subjects as genetics, tribalism, and such, it's very easy to see what some think. And they are in my opinion, as DUCK said, driven by ignorance and fear. You obviously are changing context also. It's about people owning their own lives and others advocating that they should be ostresized for it, not being gay or of mixed race or white christian tradition or the rest of the lame excuses you folks use. Some of you think that freedom is freedom under "my terms". Context is twisted to rationalize that belief. The DUCK is quite correct. Such people see the surface and a dreamlike reflection (shared and cherished illusions) and call it real, but they see no depth. And I will remind them of that from time to time, whether they like it or not.

Anty Ep | 12-21-2006 12:14 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by GOLD DUCK (Post 451535) QWAK,Anty Ep,You are operating out of FEAR and IGNORENCE
I am not ignorant of the topics of which I speak here. Nor do I fear individuals gays. Do I fear the nation-wrecking effects of their GROUP campaign to force tolerance upon the majority population? You bet I do, partly, I fear for my children and their posterity as well. I fear not individuals but powerful groups set on destroying my way of life. I fear that with damn good reason because it's been happening here in this country for at least a hundred years and the bad results are obvious. Quote:
That which people do NOT understand they quickly FEAR and what they fear they try to eliminate or destroy so that it no longer conflicts with their paradign and beliefs.
Yeah, gays FEAR "breeders" and traditional families, so they try to "DESTROY" us. Quote:
Just as a small % of people have always been DYSLIXIC and helped mankind by discovering new and better ways to do things, !
It's not clear what percentage of the population is dyslexic but it's certainly heritable. It's less clear, both what percentage of the population is seriously homosexual-- as oppposed to just "experimenting" with it-- and even more unclear if and to what extent it's heritable. I have a serious problem agreeing to the heritability of a characteristic which discourages sexual reproduction as such. I think people who appreciate the theory of natural selection will acknowledge the problem intellectually. Quote:
a similar % have always been HOMOSEXUAL and both are just as NORMAL as YOU ARE
Who defines normal? A majority? Because then homosexual orientation is obviously not normal. Who else might define it? Homos? Of course they consider themselves normal. Quote:
Your insecurity and fears are thinly vailed and just under that vail is HATE and mistrust and an UNEARNED sence of SUPERIORITY:hahaha: that you have learned to use as a SHIELD to protect your FALSE paradign and beliefs ,that are based in a primitive LACK of understanding and comprehension!
Hey, that's quite a mouthful of insults from someone whose posts I rather tend to like. Ah well, I guess I'll change my beliefs so you will like me...not! Sorry my good fellow, but what the gay pride coalition has done to marriage and the family is a seriously screwed up development in society in the West-- the only place where this crap is "tolerated"-- and I am under no illusions about the total worthlessness of the Enlightenment baloney about "ignorence" etc. Now again I will disabuse you of your false impression that I am ignorant. I am highly educated, well traveled, and reasonably well off. I will not give you the details of my CV but it should be evident to you if you know what to look for. In terms of personal experience, in case you wonder if I know queers, well, I work with them when and as needed, successfully and for mutual benefit; but I do not associate with them personally. They're plenty of gays who are fairly decent in their personal conduct (outside of sex) and I have known a few who seemed courteous and kind. This is not an individual personal issue sir, this is about GROUPS and SOCIAL CUSTOMS and PUBLIC MORALITY. Quote:
IF you took away the many contributions of both DYSLIXICS and HOMOSEXUALS from mankind over the eons of history
I think it's unfair of you to conflate homosexuality with dyslexia. I will have you know that in the past ten years, I have volunteered hundreds of hours of my personal and professional time to public charities which remediate dyslexia, and I have contributed hundreds of dollars to them as well if not in the thousands. So I hardly appreciate your comments on that account. Now to any persons here who feel aggrieved by my comments, I say, well, dont take it personally. These big social issues are about groups and it's not personal. But just because I will be courteous as possible in my dialogue and discourse does not mean that I would not take "any means necessary" to protect my family, my faith, my people; and our way of life.

Anty Ep | 12-21-2006 12:23 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Say here's another thing that bothers me. Gays have a tendency to refer to certain historical figures as "gay" when they had wives and families-- but, may have been suspected or even known to have engaged in some incidental homosexual activity. A good example of this is Alexander the Great. Where is the evidence that he was "gay?" He had a wife, Roxanne, and children. He had a close relationship with many of his commanders including Hephaistion. Oliver Stone made much of this-- but where is the historical record that they were gay lovers? Go ahead and cite this for me because I have read book after book and far as I can tell this is groundless speculation. ah but someone well say the pagan Greeks were very tolerant of incidental homosexual conduct. well guess what, so were the pagan Romans and the Germans too for that matter. One of the things Christianity brought was intolerance of homosexual activity, no question. I don't regard that as bad. But what about "the homosexual lifestyle?" Make no mistake about this-- even among the pagans, there was no damn thing as "gay marriage." Marriage has always been between man and wife. Now the relationships that are maintained long-term between sodomites and catamites are not "marriage" and they never can be regardless of what arbitrary and capricious laws are "rammed" down the throat of a supine population by an illegitimate government long bent on social-engineering traditional customs out of existence. Anyhow, my point is that gays are not just practicing homosexual activity in private-- that has always been around and is of little consequence between two adult men sodomizing each other in the closet-- the significant issue today is PUBLIC MORALITY AND DESTRUCTION OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18 AM. |
Page 2 of 3 | < | 1 | 2 | 3 | >
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM

Gold & Silver Forum - Survivalists just daydreaming Men?

Page 3 of 3 | < | 1 | 2 | 3
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Survival Prep (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=141)
- - Survivalists just daydreaming Men? (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=92840)

Kahlil Gibran | 12-21-2006 12:26 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by REV127 (Post 451648) Actually it does directly address the motivations of survivalists, you just aren't seeing clearly.
Homosexuals are a self-correcting problem according to Darwin. They won't be around in the next generation. :smokin: Please stop your Gay Parade on this thread...back to the motivations of Survivalists...

Anty Ep | 12-21-2006 12:27 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? This debate exposes one of the flaws in "survivalism" as any kind of social "movement." It's an aglomeration of totally disparate elements-- many Mormons, Seventh day adventists-- who have nothing in common-- practice it religiously-- many traditional Catholics "home school" and garden and feel withdrawn from society-- one might say the Amish "Live" the survival lifestyle by avoiding the use of electricity-- and you have lots of others in it too who have absolutely zero interest in religion of any kind-- such as certain White nationalist or "racist" elements, or some gay liberterian anarchists-- all these disparate elements. Well; at least it makes for lively conversations at this message board. :applause_

Kahlil Gibran | 12-21-2006 12:32 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldWampum (Post 451666) The DUCK is quite correct. Such people see the surface and a dreamlike reflection (shared and cherished illusions) and call it real, but they see no depth. And I will remind them of that from time to time, whether they like it or not.
Keep this up and people will think that the Mods are holding your coat as you and your quacking tag-team pal hijack this thread. :offtopic:

REV127 | 12-21-2006 12:36 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Freedom has to be under terms of a specific culture or social contract, otherwise the system is too unbalanced to be sustainable. Those societies that try to be all things to everyone do not survive. This goes back to territoriality's relationship to survivalism, any given individual or group requires a certain ammount of space to provide for its biological and psychological needs, as well as to act as a buffer between its potential enemies. Attempting the "oneness" philosophy in real life, an idea that is contrary to harmony, only leads to destabilization as no group and few individuals will have sufficient territory. In certain individual cases things like hate and fear may even be real factors, but bear in mind that these are really just a means through which a deeper survival trait exerts its will on the ego. As far as genetics and tribalism are concerned, I'm a strong supporter of eugenics in its decentralized, personal form. It makes sense to choose the mate with the best attributes you desire your children to have. I am also very much pro-my tribe, but that doesn't necessarily imply I am anti-anyone. Aggression and seeking out conflict are not survival traits. While many meek races have been extinguished by violent or aggressive rival cultures, many other meek races have survived it. All the aggressive cultures perish, without fail. More than one relgion claims that the meek shall inherit the earth, I believe this is less an article of faith and more a matter of the baggage that goes with being overly aggressive, eventually when outsiders are difficult to find aggressive cultures focus their aggression in on themselves. This is currently happening in America and indicative that we are in decline.

Anty Ep | 12-21-2006 12:40 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? [QUOTE] Quote:
Originally Posted by REV127 (Post 451690) Freedom has to be under terms of a specific culture or social contract, otherwise the system is too unbalanced to be sustainable. Those societies that try to be all things to everyone do not survive. This goes back to territoriality's relationship to survivalism, any given individual or group requires a certain ammount of space to provide for its biological and psychological needs, as well as to act as a buffer between its potential enemies. Attempting the "oneness" philosophy in real life, an idea that is contrary to harmony, only leads to destabilization as no group and few individuals will have sufficient territory. In certain individual cases things like hate and fear may even be real factors, but bear in mind that these are really just a means through which a deeper survival trait exerts its will on the ego.
Fantastic comment, highly relevant. Well said! Quote:
As far as genetics and tribalism are concerned, I'm a strong supporter of eugenics in its decentralized, personal form. It makes sense to choose the mate with the best attributes you desire your children to have. I am also very much pro-my tribe, but that doesn't necessarily imply I am anti-anyone. Aggression and seeking out conflict are not survival traits. While many meek races have been extinguished by violent or aggressive rival cultures, many other meek races have survived it. All the aggressive cultures perish, without fail. More than one relgion claims that the meek shall inherit the earth, I believe this is less an article of faith and more a matter of the baggage that goes with being overly aggressive, eventually when outsiders are difficult to find aggressive cultures focus their aggression in on themselves. This is currently happening in America and indicative that we are in decline.
Excellent insights. You've packed a lot of good observations, ideas, and hypotheses into a short two paras. I am tempted to bookmark this post as one of the best I have ever read at this forum.

GoldWampum | 12-21-2006 12:45 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran (Post 451684) Keep this up and people will think that the Mods are holding your coat as you and your quacking tag-team pal hijack this thread. :offtopic: This thread is a wide-open topic so feel free
I did not bring up the aspect of homosexuality and survivalism, I just commented on what had already been brought up. You didn't seem to mind as long as the comments were anti-homosexual ones. So, is this intended as censorship or a veiled personal attack Book? Or both? We all know you have been thrown off the board twice for this type of behavior.

REV127 | 12-21-2006 12:45 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahlil Gibran (Post 451681) Homosexuals are a self-correcting problem according to Darwin. They won't be around in the next generation. :smokin: Please stop your Gay Parade on this thread...back to the motivations of Survivalists...
It isn't about homosexuals. Survivalism is an emergent behaviour in a complex system. We are discussing the complex system which lies at the very heart of the motivations of survivalists and survival itself. Most of my post was specifically addressing territoriality, which is one of the most primal motivators of survivalist behaviour. Why do you think so many survivalists want a retreat? Why do you think so many more fantasize about becoming warlords? Why do immigrant minorities form homogenous communities in their host countries? Why do gays want a condo complex? Or retirees an over-55 community? They are all forms of territoriality motivated by personal and group survival. No one person is the sum total of the brain trust here on GIM. Methinks you should tone it down a little and learn, or else stop reading when the conversation gets too deep.

Kahlil Gibran | 12-21-2006 12:46 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by REV127 (Post 451690) As far as genetics and tribalism are concerned, I'm a strong supporter of eugenics in its decentralized, personal form. It makes sense to choose the mate with the best attributes you desire your children to have. I am also very much pro-my tribe, but that doesn't necessarily imply I am anti-anyone. Aggression and seeking out conflict are not survival traits.
Good point REV127! WTSHTF my guess is that women will chose the aggressive guy rather than the passive. :D

GoldWampum | 12-21-2006 12:50 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Freedom has to be under terms of a specific culture or social contract, otherwise the system is too unbalanced to be sustainable.
It's called the Constitution. Not the bible, not a race, not "the world of freedom according to REV". One of the things that makes the US different from other countries. Please feel free to show us the part in the Constitution where it only applies to white Christians.

hoarder | 12-21-2006 12:52 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by REV127 (Post 451690) All the aggressive cultures perish, without fail.
I appreciate your articulate and intelligent posts, Rev127, but although ths generalisation often holds true, it does not hold true for the dominant tribe. It only holds true when the aggressive tribe suffers a devastating number of casualties as a result of their aggression. Aggression only results in casualties as a consequence of accountability, but since they have siezed all means of accountability and held them in their corner, they suffer few consequences from their aggression. Instead they prosper and continually improve their position in the world.

Anty Ep | 12-21-2006 12:59 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldWampum (Post 451703) It's called the Constitution. Not the bible, not a race, not "the world of freedom according to REV". One of the things that makes the US different from other countries. Please feel free to show us the part in the Constitution where it only applies to white Christians.
his assertion was that freedom has to exist "under the terms of a specific social contract or culture ... or its.. unsustainable." You say that the US constitution IS the social contract; perhaps it was at one time-- when the polity, the people, was made up almost entirely of White Gentiles. If they did not specify themselves as the polity-- then perhaps the constituion and the United States will prove itself "unsustainable." Time will tell. Right now, it seems to me that the invasion of the United States by disparate throngs of poorly educated and very different groups of non-White immigrants, the expropriation of the institutions of power by non-Gentiles, the rapid and uncertain economic changes aka globalism, and the quiet submissiveness of the majority population as it's herded into oblivion, are all going to add up to one certain trajectory: devolution or civil war. We shall see eh?

Kahlil Gibran | 12-21-2006 12:59 PM
Re: Survivalists just daydreaming Men? Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldWampum (Post 451703) It's called the Constitution. Not the bible, not a race, not "the world of freedom according to REV". One of the things that makes the US different from other countries. Please feel free to show us the part in the Constitution where it only applies to white Christians.
This thread has been hijacked.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18 AM. |
Page 3 of 3 | < | 1 | 2 | 3
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM