Consept

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.

Yeah good analysis, hes basically a more evolved version of Robinson in that he can appeal to moderates more and he doesnt have as checkered a past as Robinson. His communication is a lot better and his anger is either better hidden or just less than Robinsons. He doesnt care about the other nations in the UK, most English politicians dont which is why there was such a big rise of the SNP and the devolution of Wales and Scotland. I agree with your analysis in terms of him feeling a sense of superiority and being 'right'. I havent watched the video but i assume Peterson soft balled him. Its interesting but not surprising that Peterson is giving a platform to these characters. Petersons understanding of British politics is severely lacking, he went on Question Time last year and was completely ill informed about everything. I dont know why we think that if someone is good in one field he must be wise in all fields. He is an accomplished psychologist but his views on politics are not necessarily better than the next man, however hes positioned as if it is. Anyway back to Farage, Id be interested in your analysis in this interview where hes put under a bit of pressure -

Its interesting you picked up on the deceptiveness, he does basically have Nazi ideology, the party i mentioned BNP believe the whites are superior, dont believe in race mixing etc. The claim that he really just cares about the kids is nonsense, because if that was the case why just focus specifically on it happening in the muslim community, it happens more generally so why not focus on all child abuse? The senior member of his EDL party is currently doing 17 years for grooming and sleeping with a 10 year old but Robinson doesnt come out and condenm them - https://politicsandinsights.org/2018/05/29/the-edl-have-paedophiles-in-their-ranks-but-tommy-robinson-evidently-doesnt-condemn-them/ There have been other instances of members in his party getting in trouble for these types of crimes as well. So when you consider that, is he someone against child abuse at any cost or is he someone against muslims at any cost? I do find it fascinating the idea of trying to come across reasonable whilst simultaneously inserting your rhetoric in. This is what you talked about with the submissive hand gestures, hes trying to get across that hes the innocent and always being attacked, whereas if it came down to it he would be the one leading a civil war attack against muslims.

Tommy Robinson essentially started out as a thug, went to prison for assaulting a police officer and then joined a far right political party. At the core he is anti-muslim and wants Britain to be for white anglo saxon people only, this is his purpose and what drives him. The first party he joined BNP had this as their key pledge in their manifesto - "At current immigration and birth rates, indigenous British people are set to become a minority well within 50 years. This will result in the extinction of the British people, culture, heritage and identity." So this is the fear that the far right has and this is what Robinson is fighting for. The issue with muslim rape gangs is not one to be dismissed so its not that hes wrong about it but to use that as the main point against immigration is extremely reductive and it plays on the fears of white british citizen. He uses this point to make a overall point about muslims taking over the uk. The police should crackdown on rape gangs part of the reason they dont is because of the persecution muslims have got from the far right especially since 9/11, makes them reluctant to come across as persecuting them further. But reducing an extremely varied group of people to their absolute worst minority is extremely disingenuous. It would be the same as taking the statistic that most pedophiles are older white men and saying all white people are bad and we should be scared of them because of it. Hes also funded by the pro-Israel far right orgs, this is because they realise that people listen to him and because of his anti-islam stance it aids their goals without them having to get directly involved. This happens with a lot of big internet mouth pieces, where they get funded to further their causes. If we break it down his main goal is to keep Britain white, the main threat to him is Muslims coming into the country, he is very smart and knows how to reach people emotionally and stoke up fear and hatred within them. What he tries to do is come across reasonable so that he can reach moderate people as if he said everything unfiltered the general population wont engage, which is basically the case now, although he has got some moderates on board. What could be interesting is that a lot of red pill, right guys are now muslim, however traditional far right is dead against islam, so im not sure how thats going to pan out but we will see. (btw i do understand that the trauma he experienced when he was young does explain a lot of this, he has a lot of hate within him)

If youre the only one thats drunk in a group you look like an alcoholic, if youre the only one sober you look like a party pooper

Dogs are really amazing, always in the moment whatever theyre doing and when they show affection its so real, all this makes it harder when they inevitably pass on. As you say he will always be with you and you will always have those experiences even just the mundane day to day. Sorry for your loss and admire the gratitude youve shown despite it

It's the same as in any large organisation, they'll be people that commit crimes covertly, the government is not immune to this and never has been, its just human behavior. The question is whether its trending better than before, which it probably is but there's still a long way to go

Its funny that 'winning' a debate for US president is just sounding somewhat coherent

I think Trump has really thrown a massive spanner into American politics, the only reason the dems feel like their only option is Biden is because of Trump. If the republicans put out a new younger candidate, theres no way the Dems wouldve stuck with Biden. I feel sorry for Biden because from his perspective hes just defending his country from Trumps madness, but hes obviously not in a fit state to do it, it feels like your ageing grandad just trying to get his words out. On both sides there will be people that will never vote for trump or never vote biden, regardless of this debate, so its whether the undecideds get swung either way. But genuinely i cant believe the state of this election, im in the UK as well which has been a shitshow the last few years, but America is on a whole other level.

The below vid isn't game related, but it just shows the perseverance and just willingness to do whatever was needed to achieve a goal. I don't even think this guys that funny but I love his attitude and dedication, its really inspiring