Consept

Its almost as if voting the way they did made no difference to their personal circumstances Interesting, looking at the different cities, basically they have been done a disservice and have been manipulated to vote against their best interest. These places are typical of what i was talking about in terms of the population make up, Hull is 94% white, Boston 93.3%. Its so strange that even though they see such a small percentage of non-white people but still blame all their problems on them, it shows the power of deception that people like Farage are capable of

The lower class has been heard, thats partly why we're in the mess we're in. They got a conservative government whove fucked up the country for the last 14 years, theyve got their brexit which was and continues to be a disaster, UKIP and now Reform have got seats in parliament. So no they have been listened to. But yeah i agree the financial issues have thrown fuel on the fire but these are not really to do with immigrants, the crisis was mainly due to the crash in 2008 and then covid and also brexit as well just a general terrible management of the economy.

Yeah definitely and thats an interesting thought experiment. So i can empathise with them in that its a nature that we all have within us, that kind of purple tribal thinking but its completely outdated. Even the conservative party wouldnt claim them because their mindset just doesnt work in modern society, its so low conscious, Conservatives didnt even really want brexit. Essentially these people become useful idiots for those trying to grab power.

Its not true, show statistics if so. Also Id be looking for convictions not arrests. Where are you?

I agree with you, fear is at the bottom of this. Whatever arguments they have are just a flimsy cover for the fear and hatred that they have. What's interesting is that this mindset is more prominent in areas that are heavily white, as in 98% white, so these are people that don't actually come into contact with non-white people regularly and are not really affected by them. Their fear is allowed tp fester because they haven't got any real life experience they can draw upon. In a way I can understand that, imagine you never came across let's say cats, and all you hear is how bad and dangerous they are and how theyre ruining the country, of course you would hate them. But I agree this is a complete feelings issues and is leading to some decisions that make no logical sense. Brexit of course but also claiming immigrants are costing taxpayer money but then going on a rampage through the country which will probably cost more money.

Yeah anti-immigration is a go to for those trying to get into power. It's an easy way to get the population scared and have a perceived enemy thats 'invading' (the word they actually use) your country. You can blame all societies issues on them. This isn't new they've been doing this everywhere for years, most if not all genocides are because of these ideas. But all it comes down to is someone trying to gain money and power by whipping up the masses and they fall for it everytime

The reality is we need a healthy level of immigration, the NHS is on its knees largely due to many workers having to go back after brexit and us not being able to recruit as easily from overseas. As well the low level jobs that British people don't want to do could easily be taken and were previously taken by immigrants. However there has to be a sensible immigration policy, whereby people are processed and are able to bring something to the country. Refuges are a different situation and that's what a lot of the rioters are complaining about. Either way Britain has always been able to set its own immigration policy its just fumbled it basically and the average brexit leave voter thought that being out of Europe would let us do it but it was never the case. Conservatives had 14 years to sort it out and they just wasted more money and left the country worse off, immigration wise. If you're asking whether there will be some kind of civil war or endless unrest, I just don't think the nationalists have enough behind them, majority of people don't want them having any power and those in power wouldn't be able to have those type of sentiments and get in power. What Farage and Robinson have managed to do is Stoke up the underlying sentiment that was already there but what you're seeing now is the maximum of that, I don't think it will get worse than this, although I may be wrong of course. Also keep in mind that the Conservative vote has been steadily declining amongst young people for a long time now. What will eventually happen is the nationalistic sentiment and votes will decline and more progressive young voters will increase. The Conservative party will die out, being replaced by something like Reform. Politics will become more polarised. However I am optimistic, I think things will improve, I'm hopeful that Keir Starmer can at least be common sense pm with good intentions but we will see. What the nationalists are trying to do is take the UK back to 60s or 70s which will not happen and they wo t have enough man power to overturn anything. The tide has turned and societies change, they are just a backlash to inevitable change.

this is the type of belief system these idiots have. Ill give you lot a quick rundown of this, i probably am biased but whatever. Im mixed race mainly British and Nigerian, born and raised in London. There's always a contingent of white British people who didn't want any brown or black people in the country. Britain through history has taken over many countries around the world, calling it the commonwealth, they took resources but also got the various to believe they were part of the UK. Many citizens grew up believing this and saw Britain as their homeland. In the 50s many Caribbean people were invited to work in the UK with the promise of a better life, they were welcomed off the ships to racism and hatred from the locals. Shifted into various ghettos no matter their standing in their own countries. This also happened with Indians in the 60s and Africans in the 80s and 90s. This racist contingent shrunk during the 90s or at least were not as outspoken as before. However in recent years due to the government's poor handling of immigration and various policies, it led to the rise of people like Tommy Robinson and Niger Farage who through straight up lies, make the immigration problem look much worse than it actually is as well as pointing the finger directly at the immigrants as well as people born in the country but with African or Asian heritage. This hatred has nothing really to do with immigrantion or violence they allegedly bring, its old school racism, basically a fear of what is different or of society's inevitable changes. One note is that these attacks could never happen in places like London or Birmingham, because of the diversity in these places no one wants these people coming in. Also in most places in the UK these racists are not wanted, what they're doing is taking the train and travelling miles away to different towns, its the same people, so it doesn't represent the sentiments of the towns themselves. In normal towns people do actually get on, when these people come their sole intention is to stir up discontent. In most cases it doesn't work as the locals counter protest and outnumber them. Side note, fuck Elon Musk who said a civil war is inevitable underneath a video of the riots. For him to be commenting that blasé from his mansion in the states when actual real people are being affected like its some fun game, fuck him. Anyway there are positives and a lot of genuinely good people in this country, like this guy

In reality you dont need to have money to be attractive to women, theres literal homeless people that can get women. If youre setting this barrier up for yourself it just means that you dont feel as though you deserve for a woman to be attracted to you and if you find a good reason youll resonate with it. The issue is more logistical both short term and long term. So short term, if you want to meet her go out with her, look nice, have a haircut, decent clothes etc you need some money. Then long term, are you dating to get married, have kids etc? then you need more money or at least be on some kind of path that is improving financially every year. If you cant support yourself then you definitely cant support getting married and having kids. If this is what a woman wants then this is something she will take into account, she could still be attracted to you but if she doesnt think you could at least bring something to the table it can disqualify you from the long term (unless you do dark arts and manipulate her).

Yeah post some music, you could be terrible and then its an easy choice

Yeah read that, its pretty good i liked it more than 48 laws

I know but he might push you into it

Id definitely watch it, but what are the main topics youd want to discuss? Also do you think youre a good debater? I dont think ive ever seen you debate before. I know you just want an open convo but i feel like JP will push back on a lot of what you say

Trump is not smarter or quicker, he just looks like that next to Biden. He makes multiple gaffes constantly and just kind of rambles. The reason people like him is because he doesnt sound like a politician but he doesnt sound like a normal person either. Its kind of like saying I dont understand science so i relate to this guy who says scientists dont know what theyre talking about. But that doesnt mean they know what theyre talking about, theyre just good at making you feel better about your lack of knowledge and telling you what you want to hear.

I feel sorry for Biden, I think he was only really staying in because of the lack of options, he's got that not quite with it grandpa vibe, I think.his intentions were good anyway. Kamala I'm not 100% sure on, she has that kind of fake politician vibe and I think she will remind people of Hilary. Saying that at least someone under 70 is running. Are there any other contenders for the nomination?

Just need to vent, I like to think theres not too much that causes emotions to spike for me but Ive noticed these two specific things just piss me off. 1. Blatant hypocrisy - We're all guilty of saying one thing and acting the opposite way even if we consciously try not to do this, but when the hypocrisy is blatant and theres not even an attempt hide it, its almost unbelievable for me. Case in point, the conversation around the Trump assassination has been conservatives insinuating or even outright claiming, that all this aggressive rhetoric is coming from the left and it is what has led to the attempt on Trump. Not taking into account at all the jokes they made about Pelosi's husband getting hit with a hammer and the obvious firing up of maga that led to them storming the capital. Destiny has pointed it out, although i dont agree with how hes done it his point is basically highlighting the hypocrisy which is 100% valid. Worse is that people who have left comments on social media saying things like 'They should have hit him square' are being targeted and losing their jobs by the mob, even though this mob is supposedly completely against cancel culture, not only that what theyre doing to the people is objectively worse than the initial comment! My brain cant compute the level of hypocrisy. This is an example of the hypocrisy im talking of - 2. People not understanding racism - A story came out where an Argentine football player got in trouble for gleefully singing a racist chant about the French team not really being French because the heritage is African (ill post a vid below to explain). Obviously this a racist message, essentially saying you dont beling in the country because your black so you cant be really from that country, despite the fact that Argentinian people are the least indigenous country in South America, most if not all their ancestors are from Germany and Italy. What gets me though is looking at the comments on these type of videos some people dont even get why its racist or why it might be offensive. There seems to be such disconnect there in terms of understanding another's experience. On a personal level it gets to me because its an attitude ive experienced a lot even though im not particularly outspoken about racism, its the feeling of being looked at as though you dont belong. Same thing is happening with European football teams, the English football team for example has about 11 black players and when you see people talking about it they speak like its a bad thing, but then if people complain about that sentiment they say 'its because your woke' or 'we need to control immigration better'. I'm disgusted in these people, I can rationalize it and be empathetic in that they are very fearful people and obviously for them to get into this rhetoric they are easy to manipulate and they themselves dont have empathy which is sad. But then also theres a part of me that just thinks Fuck them. Anyway, probably too much time on the internet, im gonna go work out and release some of this energy!

@Brittany a lot of his views are left generally but yeah great example I actually think his debate and conversational skills are top level and he genuinely talks to all sides in good faith.

Yeah I agree its not surprising. Although the left has become more progressive i think the big change is that the right has gone nearly full mask off, in that before if they were caught out in a blatant there would be consequences. Now its this 'post-truth' reality where they can just completely spin anything no matter how ridiculous. Nixon had to resign following the watergate scandal and Clinton was impeached for the Lewinsky affair which left a stain on his legacy, these things are just a normal week for Trump with minimal consequences. Its especially strange because the right is the side of conservative values, yet this guy is getting a pass to bang porn stars and chill with Epstein, its actually insanity. So now when the left does make them look stupid it doesnt hit hard because they dont actually stand for anything anymore. @zurew lol exactly, the funny thing is in that Destiny Piers Morgan debate, the people on the panel on the right were going on Destiny but couldnt actually admit that Trump lied about the election being stolen. How can you be accusing someone of something youre literally doing at the same time? I feel you man, I wouldnt say im easily angered generally but some things i just find so annoying. But youre right its a ll about channelling that energy for good

To be a "good" leader you would have to lead in a way that is beneficial to the group as a whole, fulfilling the goals and objectives of that group. This means your perspective would have to be one of sacrifice for the group ie a certain action you take may not benefit you personally but it has to be taken as it works for the group. The problem with that is that it takes a lot to not use your position to further your own personal goals. This has been and still is the central problem with organisations of people, someone has to be entrusted to helm the ship, however if they helm the ship they can take advantage of the vulnerabilities to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Ambitious people will pursue leadership specifically because of this fact, even as we consider the social media dynamic of influencer and follower, the title influencer is sought as a career path in which the influencer can monetise the followers. If you are self-focused by definition you will be a poor leader as you will look to how your followers can serve you instead of vice-versa. If you look at people who are especially self-focused like Tate and Trump, they are incapable of caring for everyone in their group but they are also able to understand the needs of those in their group. Once these are understood they can say whatever is needed to get these people to follow, whilst milking them for their resources and devotion. Nowadays we seem to have trouble distinguishing a good leader from a bad leader. What i notice from 'bad' leaders, is that they always push that you will get to the promise land but that day just never comes. End of the world cults always have that judgement day just around the corner but it never comes but it keeps the followers hanging on. They know how to weaponise hope and sell you the fantasy. What I also notice is that many want to become leaders because of an emptiness within themselves. If they can get adoration from others this will, at least temporarily, fill that void. If you are already complete within yourself, its hard to make a sacrifice and serve the people because you dont need to, which is part of the reason we get such damaged people rise as leaders.

Pretty good analysis tbh, I agree in that i think Nigel has a strong superiority complex, my sense is that he thinks people that dont agree with him are idiots. Also the culture war is the big thing, Nigel wants his 'team' to win, I dont think its to do with policies as you say, but they are a way for him to get his people on side. Ill check out the other vid you posted as well. Actually another point I just want to add with Robinson, he organised these EDL marches in towns across the UK, the town I live in has a significant Muslim population but generally is a mix between different cultures, mainly English, Caribbean descendents and Muslims but there are also other smaller ones. Anyway he organised a march on the town I live in, but very few if any people from the town wanted to march, so he gets people from wherever to march with him. Lots of people came out from my town to counter protest of all backgrounds, they didnt want him anywhere near. The reality is there isnt really trouble between cultures at all but when someone like Robinson comes in hes trying to stoke something between people and then just go back to wherever he came from, he doesnt live here. So it struck me in terms of the chaos he causes or attempts to cause and then does nothing to help those affected.

Im not talking about being a saint, of course when you lead you are part of the group as well and you want to see the outcome that the group is striving for. But the key to my argument is that im using the term 'self-focused' which is to say by definition your goals for the group are focused on you completely and convincing people to do what you want is just a necessary step in achieving what you personally want. For example if you think of a cult leader like Charles Manson, he wanted to achieve his own personal goal regardless of what happened to those that followed him. His leadership was nothing to do with the betterment of those that followed, they were completely disposable in service of what he wanted, he just had to convince them to fulfil his desires even if it was at the expense of their lives. This is what i mean by a bad leader, you can make the argument that he was an effective leader in terms of getting the job done but not a good leader because the outcomes for his group were terrible. So im not speaking in terms of a binary where its your completely focused on everyone else at your expense, there obviously has to be a balance. But i believe that if you are unbalanced in terms of being self-focused you will most likely be a bad leader. However the same could be said if you are too empathetic and trying to please everyone. The only difference is that youll find more self-focused people as leaders because they want to fulfill their eo and having followers is a good way to do that, whereas someone overly empathetic probably wouldnt gravitate to a leadership position. Theres a saying thats something like 'You get the leader you deserve', which is basically, whatever leader you look up to is probably the stage of consciousness youre at. So if you were bringing lets say a green leader into an orange organisation it most likely wouldnt work because the orange members would look at them as someone who just doesnt get them or get 'it'. Also the green would look at them the same way. I think if you got someone who was yellow and above they would be able to handle the situation a lot better, in fact yellows probably would make great leaders as they would be able to identify where the others are and how to appeal to them. So yeah i agree they would have to adapt their leadership style, but even that would be a self-less way of being.

A leader knowing whats best for the group is not necessarily blue, it depends on how that leader gets into power. Representative democracy would be about putting someone in power that the group decides. A green leader would be more empathetic and listen to people more but ultimately they would make the choice that would best suit the group from their perspective, even if some members of the group werent happy theyd put the collective above that. Higher consciousness leadership is not self focused, lower level is self focused. Im talking more of a leader who you have direct contact with. I guess you could say someone who produces content is a leader to some extent but they are not really doing anything to be a leader, theyre just producing content. Like if someone makes comedy videos on instagram and gets a million followers are they actually leading anyone? But either way you could still make the argument that Leo is a good leader in the sense that his focus is on creating the best content he can and creating a community, he isnt self-focused in that terms of what he produces because his goal is to communicate his ideas as best as he can. He may also have individual goals but they are separate to the goals of his business. As in his followers are not really fulfilling his own goals for his actualization

Truth is to do as much of it as possible, accept the anxious feelings before and just do it. You cant get around the anxiety and theres no studying or tips that are going to make you not feel anxious, but if you want to do it you have to do it

Thanks for your input, I would however disagree but it might be my fault because i havent explained it clearly enough. Its not really your vision, your aims, your goals, its all those things but for the group that youre leading. So for example lets say im a union leader for construction workers, if my individual goal overall is to do whats best for me and make as much money as possible for myself, then if a company offers me money to stop a strike my workers have taken to get a pay rise, its very likely that ill take the better deal for myself and not hold out for a pay rise for the union members. So when I say a leader cant be self-centered what i mean is that the overall goals need to be whats best for the group and this has to be unwavering, the moment the overall goal is whats best for me, i am a crappy leader. Now to get to that goal for the group, i may have to be single minded, which means having as you say a vision and a plan for that, even if others think its wrong which some inevitably will, but my job as a leader is to present as good a plan as possible and get people to buy into that plan and be willing to execute on it. If i am self focused, its very possible that i could be good at getting people to buy into a plan and get people to fulfil it even if it benefits me at the expense of them. This happens all the time and never ends well. As you mention leaders in history, this is usually the case when things go terribly wrong, Hitler and the Nazis is a great example of this, he was amazing at selling people the dream but ultimately it was all about his ego and him wanting power. Similarly this happens all the time now in African countries, where leaders get into power and milk the country dry for them and their families to live in luxury. There are countless examples, I think the definition of a good leader is someone who can create a positive outcome for those that follow him, a bad leader can be good at leading but creates a negative outcome for those that follow them. Im not sure i would call Leo a leader, he is more of a teacher which i think is expressly different, in that he provides information and advice but hes not directly responsible for the circumstances of your life. If you think about your boss at work, they are your leader at work because you are all working together on where that organisation is going but they are providing leadership in terms of the direction. They can sack you or promote you depending on how important they find you toward that goal. Leo has no such power or responsibility for you, he has a responsibility to himself and his platform. The dynamic is more that we are consumers and he is a creator, were essentially his customers. He would be the leader of anyone on his team, ie mods or anyone who works for him.

I know when you use "ghetto" youre making reference to poor and black, but this question is more why do those in poverty act differently? When you break it down like that the answer is a bit easier to grasp. If we compare someone who grew up in poverty and lives around others in poverty, them and their family live in a survival mode, both financially but also because of the environment, physical as well. The family structure will be more likely to be broken or extremely difficult. You mentioned the kids you went to school with had poor emotional control, this would be very likely considering the parents may not have had that themselves due to the struggles and then would not be able to pass that down to their kids. If you compare this with a middle class family, they do not have the same fear of financial, survival issues or physical danger, they most likely have a home with 2 parents who are able to instill confidence in their children and so they are not as susceptible to fall in with gangs and low level criminality. Because an impoverished community doesnt have as much opportunity, the people who kids see as successful are usually criminals. This sets the ways to achieve as being a criminal. To use a metaphor, if you think of a plant, it always wants to get to the light, if its a healthy plant outside absorbing sun, it will grow strong, upward and green, if its cut off from light in a dark room, but maybe theres a crack of light it will grow crooked and discoloured. Its still doing everything it can to find the light but it will not be as healthy as the plant that grows in good conditions. So if a young child is taught through experience that it will get results with being aggressive and committing crimes, then they will do that. I will caveat to say that if there is a strong family that grows up in poverty and is able to instil healthy values into their kids, those kids can definitely transcend their environment. A good example of this is when immigrants go to the US or UK and maybe in their country they were successful but in the western country they have to start from scratch and live in poor areas, usually their children do very well and dont fall into the ghetto culture. People often dont recognise the advantage of growing up middle class, not saying its perfect because you could definitely have shitty parents, but the general advantage you have over poor people is incredible, but many take it for granted and blame those in poverty for their circumstances.