What's it like to not speak english out loud? It must be weird to think in english all day long but never get to speak it.
The Off-Topic and Random Thoughts Thread(Anything Goes!)
- Thread starter JCSteel
- Start date
What's it like to not speak english out loud? It must be weird to think in english all day long but never get to speak it.
Apparently a lot of people don't have an inner voice where they think about things in words like talking inside their minds. If they don't think in words inside their minds, are they thinking in english or another language?
I voice chat in games every once in a while, so I'm not absolutely rusty.
I went to Florida around a decade ago to both visit America and to buy a PS4 since consoles and other electronics have that issue in South America. I remember talking to the clerk, and he gave me a loud "WHAT?" because of the accent and general shy tone. I might have spoken to more people during it, but that was the most memorable part for me.
After I got a PS4 I'd voice chat very frequently as well, in English for whatever reason, since I ran into that.
Good times. I would swear profusely and not even know, then ask "what does [word] mean?" I was the biggest squeaker ever, and I didn't even know english.
Apparently the word sl ut has been reclaimed. Yet funnily enough, none of the people who reclaimed it are using it.
No, women just like the aesthetics of meals and groceries and every day stuff. All the women on the Romanian side of my family obsessively take photos of every nice flower or even tree they walk by. I recently caught my mom with a smile in front of her computer (which made me wonder, because usually working on her computer puts her in a very bad mood) and she legitimately had just googled "snowy landscapes" and looked at the image results. Which I found very endearing.
There is something about femininity and a very strong emotional connection to simple aesthetics. It's one of those things one has to learn to appreciate about them.
They want you to do it. Do it.
I feel like the US would have been better off in the long run if the South had won the Civil War. The Confederacy may have actually protected the border in modern times. Blacks wouldn't have invaded Northern cities and perhaps the cities would be more European or Canadian in their safety and culture. Think of the presidents who came from the South who helped destroy the nation, like LBJ, the Clintons, the Bushes. The US wouldn't have likely gotten into WWI, it wouldn't have been a superpower by WWII and then mucked up the rest of the world and become a target of globohomo destruction. Perhaps Israel wouldn't have gotten nearly as much foreign aid, maybe the nation wouldn't have even been successfully formed, assuming Germany wins WWI and there is no WWII with the Allies dominating the world. The country wouldn't be dominated by the politics of CA and NY. There's probably a lot more, but I think having the slaves forcibly freed a few years earlier than they probably would have otherwise been (since they probably wouldn't have been peaceably freed once the industrial revolution and technology improved) was actually a terrible thing in how it changed the course of this country. I think the entire world would have been better off had the Confederacy won.
Disagree, the Confederacy were philosemitic free traders. You wouldn't have had any kind of economic miracle comparable to what happened in the Union based on the protectionist model (see: America's Protectionist Takeoff by Michael Hudson, and the Textbook of National Economy by Heinreich Pesch)
EDIT: Given the nature of free trade economies, you would have seen mass import of poor workers much earlier.
Last edited:
I like this type of creative thinking of "opposites." There was also a TV show (?) whose premise was based on "What if Hitler won?" It was a woke premise though. Maybe our side should start fighting fire with fire by creating reverse-woke Hollywood style propaganda? Your idea would make a great novel (and hence screenplay).
If I was a red pill anti-woke media producer I'd produce a band called Coomers And Simps. It would sound exactly like Rage Against The Machine except with the exact opposite political messages and lyrics.
The first single would be called Controlled Opposition (a.k.a The Alex Jones Diaries) and the opening stanza would go something like this (imagine Zack de la Rocha of RATM singing)...
It's called Controlled Opposition!
If you can't see it you ain't listenin'!
Alex Jones lives in a prison!
Controlled by JQ opposition!
Other song titles could be:
Nothing To See Here
Shut It Down (The JQ Saga)
Project Blue Beam In My Eye
Coomers And Simps
There's An Incel Among Us
Under The Bridge Troll Song
False Flag Operator
Psy Ops On My Mind
Trad Chad's And Ortho Wives
Freemason Blues
Down With The JQ
War Is Good For Business
Tranny Jab
Fans Only
Midocardisis Broke My Heart
I think the Confederacy definitely had some examples of mass import of poor workers!
Some of those worker's descendants are still causing trouble even now!
Last edited:
The problem is nearly all the manufacturing was in the North back then. The South was getting ripped off by the northerners, so they wanted to import goods from Britain and Europe instead. The North wouldn't allow that without massive tariffs because it would eat into all their profits. They also knew that would allow the port of New Orleans to grow at the expense of northern ports declining.
These are some of the biggest causes of the war, along with the vastly different cultures between the two nations. Because they really were separate nations, and the North was just as foreign as Britain to the South, so why shouldn't they set their own economic policies? If the South had separated, there would no longer be any reason to condemn free trade with Britain any more than trade with the North.
Without the influence of the South, America would long ago have devolved into a socialistic big brother state like you see in Europe, with much less free speech and higher taxes. Before the war, your average southerner was a yeoman farmer who didn't have to work too hard and lived a life with much leisure. After the war, they became slaves of the industrial revolution.
Yes, but don't forget that all those ships bringing slaves from Africa were owned by northerners. These hypocrites continued their operations and the Caribbean and Brazil until the start of the civil war.I think the Confederacy definitely had some examples of mass imporrt of poor workers!
Some of those worker's descendants are still causing trouble even now!
There are a lots of ins and outs to the issue of slavery, and which factions of society facilitated it, and which opposed it and ended it. Likewise the comparison of actual slaves to poor industrial workers. The north wasn't innocent, and the south had some grievances.
I just thought it was funny to suggest the confederacy wouldn't enable the mass importation of poor workers. There is a bit of irony to be found there.
Last edited:
Batman
Heritage
I guess. That may also explain their obsession with nails. Good to hear a more positive interpretation lol.
The nail thing, on the other hand, is beyond the pale. I mean, having nice nails is the one thing, but the hard plastic nails drive me up a wall. They should probably be illegal.
I didn't count those because they aren't who people think about, but it's obviously the same route economically.I think the Confederacy definitely had some examples of mass import of poor workers!
Some of those worker's descendants are still causing trouble even now!
Free traders compete in low wages, which precludes significant development of infrastructure and population. Dutch Disease is usually a phenomenon associated with natural resources, but in a free trade world, it can really just happen to a bunch of sectors. They die off because foreigners can offer better margins on production because they race to the bottom faster.
The funny thing is, all the transportation causes a middle man economy, where the middle men will charge more and drive up prices once they have monopolized trade routes.
And who are the middle men, historically speaking?
That's one of the reasons why Trump got demonized so much. Wharton school nationalist economist. I remember how all of the media went crazy about "Trump's insane protectionism". Protectionism is how you get your population to be productive and develop itself, but at the same time you are giving usurers a hard time because you automatically remove all the slits and cracks they like to slide their tentacles into.
National production, national law making. The usurer's nightmare.
I guess you could make that case about any separatist movement. The point is, nation states are formed through projection of power.
Emperor Constantine certainly didn't nicely ask whether regions wanted to remain within the Empire, and Theodosius also didn't run a referendum on whether Christianity should be accepted. Bismarck didn't beat the Habsburgers in the primaries.
One of the most powerful ideas behind the founding of the US was to create a self-sufficient nation that can practice self-governance. Being able to do that is contingent on geographical factors. Sure, they could have let the South secede and left it at that, but in that would have been opening themselves up geographically to a confederacy in the South that is strongly connected to the former colonial power (the Southern Elite was Anglophile and Jewish, to a larger degree than people like to admit nowadays).
An english-speaking free trade nation would once again have turned into an outpost of the then still very powerful British Empire, and the Unionists didn't want that. You can make an ideological argument that it would have been "more democratic" or stuff like that, but I don't really care about that. We've played the democracy game and it doesn't necessarily produce good outcomes.
I know, the first layer of revisionism is that ackshually, Lincoln didn't like black people and the South had a right to secede, but you have to go deeper.
The idea that the South would have been this Jeffersonian utopia upon secession is ridiculous, and it is solely rooted in viewing the past through the lens of today's political alignments. By the same token, both the North and the South would have looked a lot differently if they hadn't let all the Eastern Jews in at the turn of the century (which the South would probably have done en masse without anybody even asking, because they were just so Jewish and because they were susceptible to all the classic "muh competition" free trade arguments.
The South was pro free trade, pro France and Britain, they were happy to have a retarded peasant population and were also very, very Jewish and Masonic.
Lincoln's core idea regarding the Confederacy was "Look, we've got a great thing going here and I won't let you break it because you would rather employ negroes and work rednecks to death than invest in improvements" with a subtext of "I don't trust those Jewish masons and their army of ni**ers".
The true redpill on the Civil War is that libshids are right, but not in the way that they think. The rights of Black were neither here nor there, Lincoln would have preferred to get them off the land.
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that the South was so Jewish. Today the Jews are heavily concentrated in the northern states like New York and Massachusetts. Most of the South has few Jews aside from Florida, and I doubt that was much different back then.
Nine Jewish generals and 21 Jewish colonels fought for the Union. Very impressive for such a small minority in the 1800s. General Grant actually tried to expel Jewish smugglers from certain areas, but Lincoln made him rescind the order. Then after the war when he became president, Grant, the great northern hero, completely sold America out to the Jews. Probably didn't want to get shot in the head like Lincoln by the Jewish bankers who run Washington.
Was the northern victory really the best outcome for America?
It was the best outcome and we can bicker back and forth about Jews in either army, there were also plenty in the Confederacy. I'm also not saying that the Union was in any way morally superior. Well, actually, I am saying that, but they weren't totally based and redpilled Byzantine schizo edgelords. I am saying that from a perspective of political economy and nationalism, they were right. It is also a fact that free trade is Jewish. It's a Jewish policy. Free trade is never good for a settled nation, it's only good for the trading middle man.
See, you missed all the precious nuggets of information in my incoherent ramblings because all you focused on was how I badmouthed the South. I know it's painful, but you have to let that go. The Political Economy of the Confederate States was no bueno.
As for alternative history, I think the Southerners would just have gotten South Africa'd as soon as Marxism had spread to the Southern Jews, because they literally had nothing to offer to their peasantry. The North being able to suck them into their industry post war is what prevented the worst excesses. The problems with that only arose when the Marxist Jews decided that Blacks should get paid for simply standing around and smoking menthol cigarettes and complaining about their lot.
For instance, look at what happened in South Africa and Rhodesia: Both economies entirely focused on selling resources, so no investment in productive industries, import of low IQ peasants for cheap labor, fertile ground for revolution, bye-bye Aryan.
Jews --> Free Trade --> Poverty --> Revolution --> Hell.
Christians --> Nationalism --> Protectionism --> Development.
Shrimple.
Last edited:
Good discussion! I like both lines of argument. Each makes good points. It's all a moot point, because of course we can't go back to redo things. I think it is true that the South had some strengths that the conventional narrative misses, and the North has some weaknesses. This is especially true now that we see how a lot of things have turned out, with the jews, protectionism, the way minorities have turned out, and so on.
On the other hand, I like the counter argument that the South could have turned out like South Africa, and that any appeal to Southern freedom based on democracy has to be viewed more skeptically at this point.
On the other hand, I like the counter argument that the South could have turned out like South Africa, and that any appeal to Southern freedom based on democracy has to be viewed more skeptically at this point.
Last edited:
Caduceus
Heritage
ABRAHAM Lincoln may have been secretly part Jewish
See here: