Patrick Brown

The misogynous posturing thread? - Or are some people just too touchy?

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, 2ndchance said:

 

Unfortunately, it is so much easier for women to embrace and surrender to their own feminine Divinity Love rather than men whose inner nature of war and anger give us bigger obstacles to embrace and surrender to our own feminine Divinity Love.

 

 

I'm a man (of sorts) and my inner nature is not war and anger.

 

I think you may have developed a rather idealised and abstract view of women characterised partly by this expression 'feminine Divinity Love' and the supposed ease with which women generally embrace it.  I would suggest that if you look with interest at women in the world you will see that they are living breathing real individuals with the full range of both positive and negative qualities, contradictions, brilliances, flaws and perfections - and hardly ever, if at all, exist in a state of surrender to the divine.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, Aetherous said:

I'm not one to be intimidated by the anger of a woman in the slightest, and I have an expectation of every person I come across to be able to reason above all else (especially those who have previously earned my respect, like you), and am so used to being let down that it doesn't even phase me if my expectations aren't met. Basically, feel free to go full on bear mode...I don't give a shit. I still treat you the same.

 

Aetherous, I wrote what I did about bristling due to the nature of the post I'd already written - there isn't something further I was warning you about, and I certainly wasn't trying to intimidate you. 

Edited by ilumairen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading that a few years ago the US womens soccer team (which is well funded) played the 16 year old men counterparts and lost 8-2, which indicates that the best women could be at an equivalent level of the 15 or 14 year old men.

The vital force in men has become strongly adapted towards speed and power.

So what happened to the vital force in women, where did that go, do they have no power and no way to get what they want ?

No, it went into the emotions and psyche, and they use that to get what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rideforever said:

I was reading that a few years ago the US womens soccer team (which is well funded) played the 16 year old men counterparts and lost 8-2, which indicates that the best women could be at an equivalent level of the 15 or 14 year old men.

The vital force in men has become strongly adapted towards speed and power.

So what happened to the vital force in women, where did that go, do they have no power and no way to get what they want ?

No, it went into the emotions and psyche, and they use that to get what they want.

 

 

Evolutionarily men are expendable because the future of the species can be ensured by a small number of surviving men providing there are enough women.  So men are selected for the dangerous occupations of hunting and warfare - which means bigger bones and muscle which takes longer to develop hence the late development of males.  After a certain age men will beat women on average in competitive sports because of this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Apech said:

Evolutionarily men are expendable because the future of the species can be ensured by a small number of surviving men providing there are enough women.  So men are selected for the dangerous occupations of hunting and warfare - which means bigger bones and muscle which takes longer to develop hence the late development of males.  After a certain age men will beat women on average in competitive sports because of this.

 

Is there any historical evidence of a society without men ?   There should if you are right.
Genghis Khan fathered many children but he didn't live in a world without men.

It seems men overtake women physically at 14 or 15, at least in soccer, women can have children from 10 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many decry the seemingly new ease women have with their sexuality, their Sex-in-the-City brashness.  It`s a trend that`s been in the works for some time now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aetherous said:

But being a piece of shit, like most of the people in that video

 

You mean the young people out on a Friday night saying they want sex ?

 

There was a "movement" last year I think were husbands and wives had sex with each other every night for a whole month, as an experiment.   Seemed to work out quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apech said:

I'm a man (of sorts) and my inner nature is not war and anger.

 

I think you may have developed a rather idealised and abstract view of women characterised partly by this expression 'feminine Divinity Love' and the supposed ease with which women generally embrace it. 

 

Evolutionarily men are expendable because the future of the species can be ensured by a small number of surviving men providing there are enough women.  So men are selected for the dangerous occupations of hunting and warfare - which means bigger bones and muscle which takes longer to develop hence the late development of males.  After a certain age men will beat women on average in competitive sports because of this.

 

Why do you think women are not selected for war?

 

Is it just because women have less muscular strength and less endurance than men?

 

Or is it because the nature of men is war (not necessarily anger)?

 

And is it because the nature of women is love?

 

I am a man too and I recognize the flaws within myself and my fellow men, not to mention the flaws within women as well.

 

How many children are raised by their mothers while the fathers go to work especially in non-western countries?

 

Men as I said before are too full of war, too full of lust, too full of sex, too full of greed.

 

Women are more content to Surrender to the Divine and this is why there are not too many women at the top political, business, financial circles of this world.

 

It is only in the West where women is taught to learn how to compete with men, how to fight with men, how to conquer like men thus arise the deviant thoughts of women to want big dicks which is the counterpart of men wanting big breasts whereby both big dicks and big breasts signify pure sex and pure sexuality.

Edited by 2ndchance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apech said:

I would suggest that if you look with interest at women in the world you will see that they are living breathing real individuals with the full range of both positive and negative qualities, contradictions, brilliances, flaws and perfections - and hardly ever, if at all, exist in a state of surrender to the divine.

 

The sad story is that I find more women living in the East, especially the Far East, are more able to surrender to the Divine than women living in the sex-obsessed West full of material desires.

 

There are so many more spiritual power in the East than spiritual power in the West and the spiritual power of the East, mostly empowered by so many Eastern spiritual masters living in the East...

 

Such Spiritual Power serve to destroy the sex-obsessed Western materialism consciousness..

Edited by 2ndchance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.oshoworld.com/onlinemag_galleria/feb13/htm/special_feature.asp

 

Not A Single Woman Enlightened Master?

 

Special_Feature.jpgA woman cannot be a Master - it is not possible. When a woman arrives she becomes a Mistress, not a Master. The fulfilment of a woman is love. The flowering of a woman is love. Mastery is not the goal of the feminine mind; they don't become Masters, they become Mistresses. To be a Master is basically a male effort.

 

Awareness is the way of man, love is the way of woman.

 

On the path of awareness it is possible to teach; one can become a Master. On the path of love, how can you teach love? You can flower, you can bloom in love, but how can you teach it? Yes, if somebody wants to learn from you, he will learn it, but you will not be a Master. And such women have existed: Rabiya, Meera, Mallibai, Magdalen, Teresa. Such women have existed: Sahajo, Daya, Lalla. Many women have existed, but they were not Masters. They were so surrendered to God that they became Mistresses.

 

Meera says 'I am a mistress to you. My Lord' - a mistress to Krishna, to God himself. She sings the song of the glory of her Lord, she dances. If somebody can catch something from her, it is overflowing; but she cannot be a teacher. She is surrendered, her surrender is absolute. Yes, if you are in her company, you will learn what surrender is... but you will have to learn, she will not teach. A woman cannot be a teacher.

 

To teach, a certain different quality of energy is needed. Let me say it in this way, this is my experience: it is very difficult for a man to become a disciple, very difficult for a man to become a disciple. Even if he becomes, he becomes reluctantly. Surrender is difficult. How to surrender the will? Even if he surrenders, he only surrenders conditionally, in order to become a Master one day. He becomes a disciple in order to become a Master. It is difficult for a man to surrender; it is very simple for a woman to surrender. It is very simple for a woman to become a disciple, it is very difficult for a woman to become a Master. Even after she has arrived, she remains surrendered. And for the man, even when he has not arrived, he remains deep down unsurrendered. On the surface he will show surrender, but deep down somewhere the ego persists.

 

A man can become a good Master. A woman can become a good disciple because to become a disciple means to become a receiver, to be receptive, to become a womb. To become a Master means to become a giver.

 

The same phenomenon continues... as it is there on the biological level, it remains on the spiritual level. Biologically, a woman is ready to receive the sperm from the man she loves. The man cannot become a mother, he can only become a father. He can trigger the process: the woman will become the mother, she will carry the child in her womb for nine months, she will nourish the child with her blood and her being, she will be carrying the pregnancy. The same happens on the spiritual level too.

 

When a woman comes to a Master she is immediately ready to surrender. If sometimes it happens otherwise - sometimes there are women who are very reluctant to surrender that simply shows they have lost contact with their womanhood. They don't know who they are, they have become distracted from their centre. They don't know how to surrender because they don't know how to be a woman. If you know how to be a woman, if you are a woman, surrender is so simple, it comes so easily.

 

All the great disciples in the world were women. Buddha had thousands of disciples, but the proportion has always been the same: three women, one man. So was the proportion with Mahavir. He had forty thousand sannyasins: ten thousand men, thirty thousand women. And so was the case with Jesus.

 

The really devoted people around him were not the men but the women. When he was crucified, all the men escaped, there was not a single man. All those so-called 'apostles' had all disappeared, but the women were there. Three women were there: they had no fear, they were ready to sacrifice themselves. When Jesus was taken down from the cross, it was not by men - those disciples had gone far away, and one or two were there but they were hiding in the crowd women took down the body. And it is very significant that when Jesus appeared after three days, resurrected, he appeared first to Mary Magdalen, not to a man. This is very significant. Why? What about those twelve apostles? Why to Mary Magdalen? And she immediately recognised him, and she rushed to him and she said 'So, My Lord, you are still alive!' And when Jesus appeared to the disciples, male disciples, they would not recognise him, they thought 'It seems tricky. How can this man come back?'

 

It is said that when he appeared before two disciples, male disciples, he walked with them for hours and they would not recognise him. And they continued talking about Jesus and Jesus was walking by their side. They were a little puzzled about the appearance of this man -- he looked like Jesus but how could he be? 'Just appearance?- one should not be deceived by appearance alone.' For two hours they walked together. When they went to an inn, all three sat there to eat their dinner and when Jesus broke his bread, THEN they recognised. Very materialistic mind. Suddenly they saw... because Jesus' every act, his every gesture, was his, authentically his. Now they recognised because he was breaking the bread in the same way that they had seen Jesus break bread for years - then they recognised. But for two hours, the presence was not recognised. Magdalen recognised immediately. When she went to tell the male disciples that Jesus was resurrected, they laughed. They said 'Woman, you are hallucinating.' And they laughed and they said 'This is how women always are - imaginative, dreaming, romantic. Now look at this foolish woman. Jesus is dead. We have seen him die on the cross with our own eyes.' But she cried and she said 'Listen to me. I have seen him.' But they would not listen.

 

A woman can be a perfect disciple, and this is how it should be. Woman is receptive, an opening, a womb. They have never been Masters in the sense that men have been Masters - like Mahavir, Buddha, Zarathustra, Lao Tzu. No, they have never been Masters like that. But there have never been disciples like women; no man has ever been able to equal them as far as disciplehood is concerned. And let me tell you this, that as far as this division of male and female is concerned, the female mind is more blessed. Because the real thing is to receive the truth, the real thing is not to give it that is secondary. And a woman is always more total than a man. Whenever she receives the truth, she becomes luminous: her whole body, her whole being shows it; she carries an aura. Have you not seen a woman who is pregnant, how beautiful she becomes? Her face glows, she is carrying a new life within her. And this is nothing compared to a woman who really becomes a disciple. She is carrying God himself within her. Her glory is infinite.

 

So don't be worried why women don't become Masters. There is no need. If you can become disciples, that is natural and you will always remain true to nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The correct title of this thread is "Why Masculine Women Who Behave & Think Like Men Destroy Nations?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the IChing there is a reading that states that if you are unsure whether to emphasise male or female, then emphasise male ... something like it's never a wrong thing to err on the side of more discipline.

Patriarchy seems to be the thing that works on this planet, given the recorded history.   Meaning that the outward form of society that survives is male, just like the outer meridens are male.

Also Adam was made first, and in the same way God is male in relation to our relationship with him, we receive.

Make of all that what you will, but it seems there are laws in this universe and if you wish to survive you simply follow them.

If the male is visible outside, does that mean women are not valued.
Not at all, that is the evil ideas that the newspapers teach today : but then again they only want your money, and the more desperate they make you the more of your money they get - if they ever nourished you you wouldn't come back.

On one side my grandparents were married for 60 years, in a traditional way, they stood the test of time and succeeded in their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I'll inject some clarity into this debate to help people out!

 

Consider that people who seek power and control will use the polarity of masculine and feminine to achieve their ends. So instead of arguing who is right or wrong perhaps we should figure out who is pulling the strings and what their motives are?

 

The inception of a 'meme' into society is now easier than it's ever been with the advent of the internet. A deep analysis of any ideology involves a lot of time for anybody to reach a clearer understanding of what is actually being proposed. People often tend to take things at face value without really understanding what they support. So while males may feel they are being dis-empowered and women feel they are being empowered this is simply an illusion as the hierarchy always holds ALL the power. Basically it's a mind-job that simply undermines cultural cohesion to ultimately gain greater control and manipulate the masses to bend to the will of their masters! So it's a process of changing one cultural paradigm for another to keep people distracted while they are further enslaved.  

 

So what's going on is the manipulation of the masses by people that want greater power and control. The homogenisation of cultures into a mindless mass of consumers is the end goal, i.e. Globalism. Slaves that build the machinery of vanity and greed higher AKA 'The Beast'. The promise of great freedom which is in fact greater enslavement lured and ensnared by the carrot of desire manifesting as vanity and greed. Of course if you don't realise you're a slave you may never awaken! 

 

What I'm suggesting here may well be a fact but please try and prove me wrong.   

 

Oh and let's not forget that 1% of the worlds population holds 99% of the worlds wealth/power, I remind myself of this everyday. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rideforever said:

 

 

Is there any historical evidence of a society without men ?   There should if you are right.
Genghis Khan fathered many children but he didn't live in a world without men.

It seems men overtake women physically at 14 or 15, at least in soccer, women can have children from 10 ?

 

Who said anything about a society without men?  If there was such a thing it would die out in one generation.

 

Women can have children from puberty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2ndchance said:

 

Why do you think women are not selected for war?

 

Because they can bear children and men cannot.

 

2 hours ago, 2ndchance said:

 

Is it just because women have less muscular strength and less endurance than men?

 

They do, because they a selected for, for other attributes.

 

2 hours ago, 2ndchance said:

 

Or is it because the nature of men is war (not necessarily anger)?

 

Nope.

 

2 hours ago, 2ndchance said:

 

And is it because the nature of women is love?

 

Nope.

 

2 hours ago, 2ndchance said:

 

I am a man too and I recognize the flaws within myself and my fellow men, not to mention the flaws within women as well.

 

How many children are raised by their mothers while the fathers go to work especially in non-western countries?

 

Most of them.

 

2 hours ago, 2ndchance said:

 

Men as I said before are too full of war, too full of lust, too full of sex, too full of greed.

 

Women are more content to Surrender to the Divine and this is why there are not too many women at the top political, business, financial circles of this world.

 

B/S.

 

2 hours ago, 2ndchance said:

 

It is only in the West where women is taught to learn how to compete with men, how to fight with men, how to conquer like men thus arise the deviant thoughts of women to want big dicks which is the counterpart of men wanting big breasts whereby both big dicks and big breasts signify pure sex and pure sexuality.

 

Too much porn.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patrick Brown said:

OK I'll inject some clarity into this debate to help people out!

 

Consider that people who seek power and control will use the polarity of masculine and feminine to achieve their ends. So instead of arguing who is right or wrong perhaps we should figure out who is pulling the strings and what their motives are?

 

The inception of a 'meme' into society is now easier than it's ever been with the advent of the internet. A deep analysis of any ideology involves a lot of time for anybody to reach a clearer understanding of what is actually being proposed. People often tend to take things at face value without really understanding what they support. So while males may feel they are being dis-empowered and women feel they are being empowered this is simply an illusion as the hierarchy always holds ALL the power. Basically it's a mind-job that simply undermines cultural cohesion to ultimately gain greater control and manipulate the masses to bend to the will of their masters! So it's a process of changing one cultural paradigm for another to keep people distracted while they are further enslaved.  

 

So what's going on is the manipulation of the masses by people that want greater power and control. The homogenisation of cultures into a mindless mass of consumers is the end goal, i.e. Globalism. Slaves that build the machinery of vanity and greed higher AKA 'The Beast'. The promise of great freedom which is in fact greater enslavement lured and ensnared by the carrot of desire manifesting as vanity and greed. Of course if you don't realise you're a slave you may never awaken! 

 

What I'm suggesting here may well be a fact but please try and prove me wrong.   

 

Oh and let's not forget that 1% of the worlds population holds 99% of the worlds wealth/power, I remind myself of this everyday. 

 

 

Ah! the Illuminati.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

Ah! the Illuminati.

 

 

Not quite but it may be that no one is in control except the ineffable 'Beast' together with his sidekicks of 'Vanity' and 'Greed'! 

 

Ironic that the west wants more breeding as population growth slows and the rest of the planet breeds as if it's their only reason to exist. Past conditioning and mind-jobbing has a lot to do with this. This will all soon be changed as estrogen pollution from chemical-plants has been doing it's damage for many decades and continues to do so. 

 

The 'Brave New World' will soon be upon us if humans do become sterile! This may not happen but is already seen to be happening by degrees.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Patrick Brown said:

 

Not quite but it may be that no one is in control except the ineffable 'Beast' together with his sidekicks of 'Vanity' and 'Greed'! 

 

Ironic that the west wants more breeding as population growth slows and the rest of the planet breeds as if it's their only reason to exist. Past conditioning and mind-jobbing has a lot to do with this. This will all soon be changed as estrogen pollution from chemical-plants has been doing it's damage for many decades and continues to do so. 

 

The 'Brave New World' will soon be upon us if humans do become sterile! This may not happen but is already seen to be happening by degrees.  

 

 

You're beginning to sound like Alex Jones.

 

 

Edited by Apech
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apech said:

 

You're beginning to sound like Alex Jones.

 

:D Poor Alex runs on way too much speculation and not enough facts.

 

The world of materialism is before us and nobody can deny it. People don't work to raise a family because the welfare states does that, people work because they want stuff! Holidays, cars and bigger and bigger, err houses! You thought I was going to say breasts or penis's there didn't you!!!?!!! 

 

Yes modern enslavement within the machinery of vanity and greed which is really ironic as the people work to make the shit then buy it! It's a perpetual heaven or hell depending on how you see it. Oh well, who cares? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Patrick Brown said:

 

:D Poor Alex runs on way too much speculation and not enough facts.

 

The world of materialism is before us and nobody can deny it. People don't work to raise a family because the welfare states does that, people work because they want stuff! Holidays, cars and bigger and bigger, err houses! You thought I was going to say breasts or penis's there didn't you!!!?!!! 

 

Yes modern enslavement within the machinery of vanity and greed which is really ironic as the people work to make the shit then buy it! It's a perpetual heaven or hell depending on how you see it. Oh well, who cares? 

 

I detect a slight sense of disaffection in your words.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

I detect a slight sense of disaffection in your words.

 

Well it's all a bit of a drone after a while. Some peoples words are closer to the truth, a truth, although the endless hum often nullifies the chance of any coherent message getting through. If anybody thinks humans are going to make this world a paradise then...

 

The Alex Jones video certainly gave me a headache!! 

Edited by Patrick Brown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Kar3n said:

could say a lot about that video and most of it would be far beyond the scope of what is appropriate for this forum, however, I will say this...

 

That video is pure oppressive, misogynistic, dehumanizing, vile, retrogressive propaganda!! To place the down fall of western civilization on the backs of women when men have predominately been in power, worldwide, for centuries is just asinine! If there is no inherent sense of protecting the 'tribe' in women, answer this... who was/is taking care of the home front and keeping the economy alive while still nurturing their families when men have been called out to fight senseless wars?

 

The days of steamrolling women because they have opinions, careers and personal goals are over in most of modern civilization. It is time that certain men get used to it and get onboard. Working together is far more productive to society as a whole than creating division by labeling certain groups or women in general as demolitionists who should be subservient to the chest pounding males who think a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

 

To call this food for thought is the only thing that is confusing...

 

Whereas I agree with much of what you say I think you fall into the trap that the author of the video wants! If you step back you will see that people, male and female, are often manipulated, think memes, to push a narrative that benefits those in power.

 

Certain aspects of the video are undeniably true whereas others are distorted by the author to serve his agenda. The key is to take what is true and leave the rest. People will always use polarisation to push their own agenda. 

 

The question is:

Does importing large numbers of foreign males into a stable society as cheap labour benefit the social cohesion or destabilise it? 

 

Other questions, that are valid include (this will be annoying to women):

  1. Is a woman's choice of a partner based on income and/or the physical strength of the man/woman?
  2. Do women consider a mans kindheartedness before his finances or ability towards physical aggression?  
  3. How important is a mans physical appearance when weighed against his heart and do women consider this when contemplating the outcome of breeding? 

Of course I could go on but that would be to labour the point. Perhaps a similar list could be created for men? Be my guest. 

 

Of course other elements of the video are very contentious and even offensive but they simply highlight a more base kind of individual, male or female, and are not indicative of the majority of society. Having said that the right for a woman to dress in a provocative guise is up to her and I would support her right to do so. Yet there is dressing in such a way and then adding behaviour with intent to illicit a response! I'll leave it there as I'm sure you can figure out where that goes!  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole ‘all powerful 1%ers controlling the world thing’... I used to think along those lines... my views have matured a little though.

 

I’ve actually met a couple of people in the ‘1%’... and the reality of the matter is a lot less black and white than Patrick Brown espouses (the standard liberal pigeonhole).

 

The fact is, some people behave like idiots whether they are a man or woman or extremely wealthy or extremely poor. 

 

A large number of these 1%ers got there through dedicated hard work, coupled with an extremely high inborn natural intelligence and propensity for doing big things. Incidentally this is exactly the same group that goes on to the highest levels of spiritual practice. This is the infamous Pareto distribution in action - where a smallish advantage (say +40 IQ points and an industrious inner nature) gives hugely disproportionate rewards.

 

Another grouping that seems to be highly represented in the 1% are what could be called sociopaths... they have no regard for others’ feelings. They don’t empathise and in fact they don’t ‘feel’ much at all. This is actually also a group that do very well in some lines of spiritual cultivation (controversial, I know). They get ‘to the top’ by making decisions that simply aren’t naturally ‘available’ to most people. Aka ruthlessness.

 

In both groups there are people that care about power and there are people that don’t. There are ones that care about money and there are ones that don’t. There are ones that care for humanity and society and there are ones that don’t.

 

Do I think rich people should give their share of taxes. Yes - I certainly do! But similarly I see their point of view. If you’re giving 10s of millions in taxes every year and see the government squandering it on ridiculous things. I don’t know that if I was in their position I wouldn’t also want to limit my tax liability and instead create my own philanthropic organisation...

 

(where will Aetherious invest his dividends!? :) )

 

Maybe there’s a cabal of them organising how to enslave society for their own good. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some like that.

 

Or maybe a large percentage of people (the 99%) eagerly put themselves in that ‘enslaved’ position. This is what I think is going on more than we realise.

 

Before anyone jumps down my throat - of course I’m not saying people choose to live in extreme poverty or actively want others to take advantage of them.

 

What I’m saying is that many people (most, in fact) prefer that others make decisions for them. The magazines decide what I wear. The packaging on supermarket shelves decide what I eat. My neighbours decide where I go on holiday, what car I drive and how I design my home.

 

They may complain, but in reality they feel comfortable that these things are taken care for them. Of course advertisers and corporations find this irresistable and exploit it as much as possible - otherwise they wouldn’t be doing their ‘jobs’ properly!

 

Do I think the world could be run better? Of course I do!

 

But conversely - do I think we tend to generally be making progress in that direction, and actually doing the best we can as a very flawed and also wonderful race? Yes I do.

 

Do I think homogenising people - cutting down the best and brightest so that they’re rewarded the same as the laziest and least intelligent is the way to make the world better?! Nope. I’ve actually experienced communism - it doesn’t work.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites