What causes transgender?

[Aquarius]

You are born trans just like someone is born gay, bisexual, heterosexual, cisgender;

Wrong! Not everyone is born with a certain gender or sexuality locked in, it can change. For 18 years I was strictly hetero but now I find myself drawn to males as well. I wasn’t bisexual all my life, it’s a recent phenomena.

Dude don't fall for the changing gender crap. You most likely have always been bisexual, but you were repressed and those feelings weren't able to come out naturally.

 

[RYanK]

Just want to put my 2cents here.

There's discussion on trans people to both genders specifically and it's cause but another view is this.

But a problem is our diet. How many people have xenoestrogenical substances in their system like unfermented soy(fermented soy eliminates the xenoestrogen, safe to eat). How many boys are brainwashed with substances, media, etc.etc. Men are to be Women and Women are to Men as the jews/jewesses state in their rantings.

So then what about all that. I understand the Spiritual, Physical, Mental, and Technological. Ignoring the above, and focus on the below. What is happening to our food, drinks, water, and education.

Are they wanting to change cause it's their decision fully 100% no strings attached? OR are they having issues with their substances and education affecting their minds.

Dude I agree a lot on this too! Believe it or not for much people, our poor diets is also affecting people in all senses.

This is why many of the goals in my life is to be able to sustain myself, cultivate my own food, do my own food because lots of preservatives, chemicals and freaking GMO are the reason for the poor diet and health. Fluoride fucks up our pineal gland, chicken and other meats are full of hormones and fucked up chemicals that femenize men, cow milk contains the same puss found in acne, blood and also full of chemicals by the constant rape abuse of the cows. The ammount of casein in cow milk is definitely not for humans this is the main component that makes cheese and milk so addictive, duh cow milk is for cows.

Hell even the nuts alternative milks are not exactly healthy either and they do not contain enough minerals nor the fair ammount of nut (almond, cashew, halzenut...) (and contains carregenean ugh!). This is why the best way to go is to be autosustentainable and do your own milk and foods and if going to the supermarket, make sure to apply this "The front is for entertainment, the back is for education" - Orisha, @IAmSurvivingVegan, look at the ingredients.

It is also true the kike is pushing a 'trans-agenda' by any means either directly by fucking up someone mentally and psychologically, fucked up tranny fetish like mentioned to indirectly physically through manipulation of food and chemicals.

But does this justify a transsexual person being the way it is? No, this is not the case on a high percent.


hmmm... let me see how I can explain it simpler... ok! I know! Just because someone has mood swings doesn't mean they are bipolar, just because someone has hearing sensitivity does not mean is all full blown autistic, just because someone got nervous and is shy doesn't mean they suffer from anxiety. Does these factors are part of the mentioned examples? Yes, but these attributes is not enough to justify them.

This is why when someone comes to me telling me they are trans cuz they "feel like a man/woman" is not enough for me to justify they are transsexual because when they were small they played with the other "gender toys" or just simply liked some stuff of the other gender (My little nephew is really femenine, this is really noticeable, this doesn't mean is a trans kid. Is a sad thing he has a highly homophobic dad). Telling someone to straightforward start medical transition is the damn worst and negligent shit a person can do. I look for the factors, why do you think that? When did you get to that conclusion? ect ect

 

[SouthernWhiteGentile]

Dude don't fall for the changing gender crap. You most likely have always been bisexual, but you were repressed and those feelings weren't able to come out naturally.

I’m still unsure on what “changing gender” means. Some people think gender is interchangeable with personality. I don’t.

 

[Ol argedco luciftias]

You are born trans just like someone is born gay, bisexual, heterosexual, cisgender;

Wrong! Not everyone is born with a certain gender or sexuality locked in, it can change. For 18 years I was strictly hetero but now I find myself drawn to males as well. I wasn’t bisexual all my life, it’s a recent phenomena.

Sex and gender are the same thing, and neither of them say who you are attracted to. Your sex is male, your gender is a man. Who you are attracted to, I would say is completely unrelated.

But this is a great example of what causes most of this "transgender" stuff. People end up thinking for some strange reason that personality traits are tied to their gender, so if they have some personality trait, it must mean they are a different gender. It's just sexist and stupid. Like how some sexist people think that only women should cook every day, then if the man likes to cook, he must really be supposed to be a woman since he likes something that women are supposed to like. This is just one example, but you could use this pattern for anything. Like if a woman likes to have short hair then she must really be a man, and if a man likes to have long hair then he must really be a woman.

All of this is just insanity designed to destabilize and subvert civilization. Like how the communist terror organization Black Lives Matter, they say that their number 1 goal is to entirely erase the entire concept of the nuclear family. All of this transgender stuff is just a way of accomplishing this removal of the family structure, and removal of the societal structure.

If a man likes to have makeup on or wear a dress, that is perfectly fine. Let him do whatever he wants. The only thing I disagree with is the brainwashing to try to convince him that he is supposed to be a woman, instead of just telling the truth that he is just an extremely feminine man. Which there is nothing wrong with being a feminine man or masculine woman.

 

[SouthernWhiteGentile]

But this is a great example of what causes most of this "transgender" stuff. People end up thinking for some strange reason that personality traits are tied to their gender, so if they have some personality trait, it must mean they are a different gender. It's just sexist and stupid. Like how some sexist people think that only women should cook every day, then if the man likes to cook, he must really be supposed to be a woman since he likes something that women are supposed to like. This is just one example, but you could use this pattern for anything. Like if a woman likes to have short hair then she must really be a man, and if a man likes to have long hair then he must really be a woman.

It’s like when that guy posted here saying he was a “Femboy”. I don’t know what exactly the difference is between a normal Crossdresser and a FB but I guess they think it is a whole new gender.

I think the word “gender” needs to be gotten rid of. If Gender is just the same thing as Sex than what is the point of gender at all? It’s just a word that exists to cause speculation and confusion.

 

[Jrvan]

You are born trans just like someone is born gay, bisexual, heterosexual, cisgender;

Wrong! Not everyone is born with a certain gender or sexuality locked in, it can change. For 18 years I was strictly hetero but now I find myself drawn to males as well. I wasn’t bisexual all my life, it’s a recent phenomena.

Not interested, mate.

 

[Aquarius]

Dude don't fall for the changing gender crap. You most likely have always been bisexual, but you were repressed and those feelings weren't able to come out naturally.

I’m still unsure on what “changing gender” means. Some people think gender is interchangeable with personality. I don’t.

Well, you said it can change in the post I replied to, maybe it was a misspell. Your gender and biological sex are the same thing, as HoodedCobra said. Only confused minds can say the opposite.

 

[Jrvan]

But this is a great example of what causes most of this "transgender" stuff. People end up thinking for some strange reason that personality traits are tied to their gender, so if they have some personality trait, it must mean they are a different gender. It's just sexist and stupid. Like how some sexist people think that only women should cook every day, then if the man likes to cook, he must really be supposed to be a woman since he likes something that women are supposed to like. This is just one example, but you could use this pattern for anything. Like if a woman likes to have short hair then she must really be a man, and if a man likes to have long hair then he must really be a woman.

It’s like when that guy posted here saying he was a “Femboy”. I don’t know what exactly the difference is between a normal Crossdresser and a FB but I guess they think it is a whole new gender.

I think the word “gender” needs to be gotten rid of. If Gender is just the same thing as Sex than what is the point of gender at all? It’s just a word that exists to cause speculation and confusion.

Gender is how boys tend to act and how girls tend to act, things they are drawn to, etc. There's an example to draw from Greek mythology for this. When Odysseus was seeking to enlist Achilles for his war endeavors (whom was dressed as one of the females he was living with as a disguise), he gave gifts to all of the girls in the hall. All of them were drawn to the dolls, but Achilles was drawn to the sword.

Deviants and outliers have always been looked down on and shamed, and that's why we have problems with it today. People are confused while they seek to discover themselves in a society that gives them no information about themselves, and the jews throw in more confusion on top of that. When people don't fit in, they're thought of as freaks. It's just that not everyone fits the traditional molds, but in a jewish based society only the traditional molds exist. The Age of Aquarius will remedy this as people embrace their uniqueness and are allowed to express it in a non-kosher way.

 

[SouthernWhiteGentile]

Well, you said it can change in the post I replied to, maybe it was a misspell. Your gender and biological sex are the same thing, as HoodedCobra said. Only confused minds can say the opposite.

My point is that gender should be removed from the vernacular.

Not interested mate

:?:

Gender is how boys tend to act and how girls tend to act, things they are drawn to, etc. There's an example to draw from Greek mythology for this. When Odysseus was seeking to enlist Achilles for his war endeavors (whom was dressed as one of the females he was living with as a disguise), he gave gifts to all of the girls in the hall. All of them were drawn to the dolls, but Achilles was drawn to the sword.

Deviants and outliers have always been looked down on and shamed, and that's why we have problems with it today. People are confused while they seek to discover themselves in a society that gives them no information about themselves, and the jews throw in more confusion on top of that. When people don't fit in, they're thought of as freaks. It's just that not everyone fits the traditional molds, but in a jewish based society only the traditional molds exist. The Age of Aquarius will remedy this as people embrace their uniqueness and are allowed to express it in a non-kosher way.

This is my point. You seem to think gender is a sociological thing rather than biological. No one agrees on which it is so the discussion is a dead end.

 

[Jrvan]

Actually, out of all the "transgender" categories, the one that makes the most sense to me is "gender fluid." One week you feel like getting your hair styled and gossiping with the girls, and the next week you go out hunting/camping with the guys. That just makes sense. You don't have to mutilate your genitals nor do you have to chemically alter your hormones. There's a lot of societal factors that make this difficult, and I'll name a few. For one thing, not much support for crossdressers. Male clothing is boring IMO. And it's so firmly part of the male gender identity now to wear specific types of clothing that just looks... plain or limiting. If men had better clothing options then that might help. More color, more styles. They used to wear makeup and wigs for crying out loud. Being dazzlingly overdressed was just the thing to do. It looks nice, it feels nice. Women aren't the only ones who should be putting lots and lots of care into their appearance. Honestly, I think modern clothing is engineered to create a slave identity, but I think Tabby already covered the clothing topic pretty well in another thread. She knows so much about that. Men just need more variety I think.

Another factor is that traditionally men were shamed for being emotionally expressive. Only the stoic man was allowed to exist in society. Now it's even worse because the male gender identity itself even in its very limited form is under attack constantly. Television memes of the man being an ugly, stupid caveman essentially while the female form is worshiped, glorified, and seen as the epitome of the very concept of beauty. I'm not saying it's bad to glorify the female form, but when they juxtapose it to the male form in a way that makes it seem wrong and undesirable to be a man by comparison (on top of society screeching at men from the time they are little that it's not okay to be a man at all in the first place), this I believe makes many men feel like the only acceptable thing to be in society is a woman. Then you also have the food chemical factors which Jack has mentioned in great detail on different occasions, and he's right. Chemicals + not allowing men to be men... makes men want to become women.

If someone feels like they more fit into the opposite gender identity then there are things they can do. For males, volunteering at a daycare, reading stories to children, interior decorating, opera singing, figure skating, dancing, getting better at expressing your feelings to people and learning to listen to others talk about theirs (non-logical, not problem solving), dress up. Whatever you feel drawn to. You don't need hormones to be yourself or to express yourself. You just need to find people who are accepting and like-minded to hang out with (which you can psychically attract with your aura and other methods). I won't speak on females trying to experience the male gender identity because honestly I don't know what the fuck it is anymore. Slave away at work, drink beer, look like a slob, and go to sleep. Pretty much it. Males don't really do much besides pay the bills LOL. Maybe look to prior ages to gain insight into what the male gender is supposed to be like when it's a more healthy manifestation in society. I don't know, I think having your own ship in the harbor is pretty cool. Anyway...

Instead of surgical knives and hormones, I think society should provide mental healthcare options through work for people who feel like this. It could cover something like a support group that would have getaway trips where the people in the group all express themselves the way they want with no negative judgement. Touring cities while wearing what they want, planned activities that are engaging for everyone. Just a way for people to explore themselves in a social setting.

Basically follow your heart and keep your dick.

 

[Jrvan]

This is my point. You seem to think gender is a sociological thing rather than biological. No one agrees on which it is so the discussion is a dead end.

It's both.

 

[Jrvan]

Well, you said it can change in the post I replied to, maybe it was a misspell. Your gender and biological sex are the same thing, as HoodedCobra said. Only confused minds can say the opposite.

My point is that gender should be removed from the vernacular.

Not interested mate

:?:

Gender is how boys tend to act and how girls tend to act, things they are drawn to, etc. There's an example to draw from Greek mythology for this. When Odysseus was seeking to enlist Achilles for his war endeavors (whom was dressed as one of the females he was living with as a disguise), he gave gifts to all of the girls in the hall. All of them were drawn to the dolls, but Achilles was drawn to the sword.

Deviants and outliers have always been looked down on and shamed, and that's why we have problems with it today. People are confused while they seek to discover themselves in a society that gives them no information about themselves, and the jews throw in more confusion on top of that. When people don't fit in, they're thought of as freaks. It's just that not everyone fits the traditional molds, but in a jewish based society only the traditional molds exist. The Age of Aquarius will remedy this as people embrace their uniqueness and are allowed to express it in a non-kosher way.

This is my point. You seem to think gender is a sociological thing rather than biological. No one agrees on which it is so the discussion is a dead end.

I think the point jrvan was trying to make may have been something like the following:

Let's say a boy wants to play with dolls because that seems fun to him. His parents notice and don't want him to be a weirdo or don't want him to get bullied for it, so they tell him that's for girls and forbid him from playing with dolls anymore. There's a chance that he doesn't really care and just plays with something else and then it's all fine. But there's also a chance that he takes it as that he's not allowed to do what he wants because he's a boy. If this continues to happen with other things as he grows up, he might start to think that the gap between what he wants to do and what others expect from him means that he isn't a boy mentally, but rather a girl. Similarly, a tomboy who is pressured to act more feminine while growing up might start to feel like she's a boy on the inside for this reason. I believe this confusion is the basis of the dubious term "gender" referring to sociological sex.

I call it dubious, because I believe that to say that a person's personality determines their sex is extremely insulting and damaging to both masculine women and feminine men, and yet it's such people that sometimes end up thinking that way because they weren't allowed by others to follow their nature while growing up. I've even met a few individuals who considered taking hormones and changing their identity because they wanted to be free from the mismatched expectations and be free to be true to themselves, but after talking to me they fortunately realised that as adults they are far more free to live their lives and express themselves as they wish anyway, and all they need to do to be true to themselves is break down the barriers in their psyche that their upbringing imposed on them; that their true self is simply a feminine man, or a masculine woman, and that that's perfectly fine. Without having to take any hormones, they were able to make friends who liked them for who they really are, and just like that they found happiness.

The ridiculous idea that a person's "gender" is in their head was borne from a jewed up society with gender norms that were too restrictive for some people. Repression breeds mental illness.

I must defend the concept of sociological gender. It's something that changes with the ages and between societies. To make this more understandable, think to the most basic form first. Bare bones, raw tribal jungle survival - men have their most simple roles as warriors, hunters, and providers. Women are kept safe within the encampments of the tribe, and they care for the young. Can't get much more simple than those gender roles. Now, societies begin to evolve and become more complex as wealth is built up. Wealth is excess food and resources, in other words more than is needed to simply survive. More wealth creates more time for other things outside those strict, basic gender roles. More wealth, more complex society, more freedom for gender roles. The gender roles evolve with the society, and become less strict. They also are determined by the unique values of the particular society. What the jews have done is impose the values of xianity to replace healthy, naturally evolved pagan values. They made the female gender role extremely limited and oppressive even though there was still quite a bit of development of society. Now they've twisted things around, and have made the male gender role even more limited and oppressive. Both were limited by xianity, but now they've made it damn near impossible for the male gender to even exist in society (as well as removing the need for it beyond being a drone or a cog in the wheel), while artificially uplifting the female gender to be less restrictive.

So in summary, without wealth and without society, no one would ever have the freedom to be what they want to be. They'd be a one man team in the wild just trying to make it to the next day, every day. Gender roles are social roles. Without social gender roles, all we are is our breeding functions (which is all the jews want us to be - breeders and slaves). Once enough wealth and spirituality is built up, people are allowed the freedom to be however they want to be. How we fit into society at that point becomes our own choice.

Ironically they're right when they say that gender is a social construct, but rebelling against it is foolish when you could just rebel against the jews. They just want to tear society apart so they can once again impose their slave state. They hate that we have civil rights.

Most of what you said is pretty spot on though.

 

[SouthernWhiteGentile]

Actually, out of all the "transgender" categories, the one that makes the most sense to me is "gender fluid." One week you feel like getting your hair styled and gossiping with the girls, and the next week you go out hunting/camping with the guys. That just makes sense. You don't have to mutilate your genitals nor do you have to chemically alter your hormones.

I agree but gender fluid is still not the best word to describe it. Maybe “Sex/gender duality”.

I call it dubious, because I believe that to say that a person's personality determines their sex is extremely insulting and damaging to both masculine women and feminine men, and yet it's such people that sometimes end up thinking that way because they weren't allowed by others to follow their nature while growing up. I've even met a few individuals who considered taking hormones and changing their identity because they wanted to be free from the mismatched expectations and be free to be true to themselves, but after talking to me they fortunately realised that as adults they are far more free to live their lives and express themselves as they wish anyway, and all they need to do to be true to themselves is break down the barriers in their psyche that their upbringing imposed on them; that their true self is simply a feminine man, or a masculine woman, and that that's perfectly fine. Without having to take any hormones, they were able to make friends who liked them for who they really are, and just like that they found happiness.

I think you are wrong in saying that it is only a personality thing to be “feminine man” or “masculine woman”.

There are some guys that like to put makeup on and go out as a woman, there’s also butch women that like having short hair and dressing/behaving like men. I don’t think this is a merely a personality, it’s an entire identity.

 

[Stormblood]

This is my point. You seem to think gender is a sociological thing rather than biological. No one agrees on which it is so the discussion is a dead end.

It's both.

Sociology is not a real science. It's opinion. In other words, it's unsupported and unproven. It's a bunch of statements that are always completely defeated by a reality check. It is only considered a science because kikes dominate it and with the existence of "hate speech" any factual evidence that would naturally defeat it is immediately pushed out the door. Sociology does not exist in the way kikes have made it to be.

 

[Jrvan]

This is my point. You seem to think gender is a sociological thing rather than biological. No one agrees on which it is so the discussion is a dead end.

By the way, I already explained months ago that English speaking society is suffering from the tower of babel curse. Everyone is speaking their own version of the English language because everyone strayed from the puritan meanings of words. It was the reason why we had dictionary authorities, but people don't care anymore. Social cohesion has broken down, and younger people keep reinventing the meaning of words. There's writers, literary experts, people who read a lot, and others who bother to learn and use the proper definitions correctly, but there's also the camp of complacent idiots who just use a personal understanding of the definitions and call it good. This confuses everyone like the tower of babel curse because no one realizes that they're using the same words to mean different things. The English language in common modern usage is not the English language, it's a variously mutated bastardization. Jews are also responsible for reinventing words to confuse everyone, but we all know that already. It's a compounded problem with them commanding everyone on what to think (and being in control of our schools).

 

[Jrvan]

This is my point. You seem to think gender is a sociological thing rather than biological. No one agrees on which it is so the discussion is a dead end.

It's both.

Sociology is not a real science. It's opinion. In other words, it's unsupported and unproven. It's a bunch of statements that are always completely defeated by a reality check. It is only considered a science because kikes dominate it and with the existence of "hate speech" any factual evidence that would naturally defeat it is immediately pushed out the door. Sociology does not exist in the way kikes have made it to be.

Society exists though. Just because kikes have hijacked and sabotaged the field doesn't mean it's not a valid field of research. And they have also hijacked and sabotaged science itself.
We can study the way society functions and compare it to past societies. Social norms, customs, attitudes, perceptions, structure, hierarchy, styles and modes of interaction.

And you can say the same thing about fields like psychology. It absolutely is a pseudoscience simply because it's not measurable, but also because it's another kike dominated field of study. And yet they use their knowledge of the mind and the top psychologists for all their nefarious plots because it's effective.

I could argue all day with psychologists and body language experts about how they're full of shit to assume they know what a person is thinking and feeling based on ambiguous clues that didn't come from the person's mouth, but rather from a dogmatic perception and worldview within the own mind of the clinician - or whatever role they occupy for their skillset. But I know that a lot of it is valid even if it's not perfect, and even if their proposed solutions to the persons' problems sucks. There's value hidden in most things, Stormblood. We'll have our institutions back one day soon hopefully, and then we can study these things properly.

I'm interested though. What is your reasoning for concluding that social gender isn't a real thing? The way I see it, it's just how biological sex manifests and fits into functions and roles within society. That's why I said gender is both biological and sociological. It's the social role and function within society which is based on the person's sex.

 

[Jrvan]

...

As you mentioned as well, it's just a matter of semantics. I believe some uses of language can be harmful to people's mindsets, and I think talking as though not fitting into gender norms means you aren't the same sex as your body is one of those harmful things. Social roles of the sexes definitely are a thing though, as you say. But should that really be called "gender"? It's hard to say which way to put it is the least confusing, when everyone has their own bias and insists on using slightly different and vague definitions.

People argue and argue about such topics, but a lot of the time it looks like they're talking about a whole bunch of nothing as they're just saying the same things as each other but in different words, then misunderstanding each other and nitpicking which words should mean what or what the implications are. It's a bit silly.

Totally on the same page with you. However, gender is the word I have available to work with in this language for what it's supposed to mean. Someone could propose an entirely new word to replace it, but without solving the jewish problem it would be meaningless because they would just pervert it and confuse everyone again. The solution isn't to remove the word from vocabularies, but to tie civilians to chairs and teach them proper English and insist upon its uniformity. LOL
I jest, but unless people are willing to go back to a socially standardized language usage then I don't see any short-term remedies. We just have to work with what we've got and try to be crafty in getting past peoples' perverted perceptions and barriers to impart knowledge successfully, and the jews will fight us on that every step of the way by confusing them twice as hard and working to discredit us.

 

[SouthernWhiteGentile]

By the way, I already explained months ago that English speaking society is suffering from the tower of babel curse. Everyone is speaking their own version of the English language because everyone strayed from the puritan meanings of words. It was the reason why we had dictionary authorities, but people don't care anymore. Social cohesion has broken down, and younger people keep reinventing the meaning of words. There's writers, literary experts, people who read a lot, and others who bother to learn and use the proper definitions correctly, but there's also the camp of complacent idiots who just use a personal understanding of the definitions and call it good. This confuses everyone like the tower of babel curse because no one realizes that they're using the same words to mean different things. The English language in common modern usage is not the English language, it's a variously mutated bastardization. Jews are also responsible for reinventing words to confuse everyone, but we all know that already. It's a compounded problem with them commanding everyone on what to think (and being in control of our schools).

On another note I think English itself is cursed (only second to HeeBroo) which is why a lot of these problems exist. I’ve talked about it before but most of the words come from REVERSED Latin and are blended together with other European languages you can search the etymology of random English words and find this to be the case. Hopefully we will be fluent in Sanskrit+Elder futhark again at some point. Yeah English is the utility knife of languages but I still don’t like it.

speculation and confusion imply creative thinking, i can see your aversion
your company is as desired as your impression im sure.

Yeah Ok. How many transgender people do you think have creatively thunk? Genital mutilation and hormone therapy is creative in the same way that a schizophrenic painting the wall with their own feces is creative.

It really is the opposite of creative. If someone feels like the opposite sex than the creative thing to do would be finding a healthy way to express that feeling not doing the things I mentioned above.

And of course you got in a little jab at the end. You’re great at being a passive aggressive woman.

 

[Jrvan]

This is my point. You seem to think gender is a sociological thing rather than biological. No one agrees on which it is so the discussion is a dead end.

It's both.

Sociology is not a real science. It's opinion. In other words, it's unsupported and unproven. It's a bunch of statements that are always completely defeated by a reality check. It is only considered a science because kikes dominate it and with the existence of "hate speech" any factual evidence that would naturally defeat it is immediately pushed out the door. Sociology does not exist in the way kikes have made it to be.

I've reflected more on this. I think I now can justify such hostility towards sociology in general. We haven't had a proper civilization in thousands of years because the jews destroyed Rome and then corrupted what the ancients variously called, I believe, Themis in Greek, Maat in Egyptian, and Dharma in India. Society is from the Gods, and if you look into those three I think you'll understand what I'm getting at. The Divine model for which human society is based on was perverted and replaced by the jews and their xian values. Studying sociology based on a jewish society is a waste of time so you're right.

 

[Jrvan]

On another note I think English itself is cursed (only second to HeeBroo) which is why a lot of these problems exist. I’ve talked about it before but most of the words come from REVERSED Latin and are blended together with other European languages you can search the etymology of random English words and find this to be the case. Hopefully we will be fluent in Sanskrit+Elder futhark again at some point. Yeah English is the utility knife of languages but I still don’t like it.

Oh wow. I knew about the Greek, Latin, and Germanic/Norse influence in English, but I had no idea that the Latin was reversed. That's very interesting, thank you. You know, come to think of it... over the years as I became more proficient in English and built up my vocabulary, it's like the emotion and spirit of the words disappeared from my mind. Words just feel like words and nothing else - totally empty. Not at all like when I was a kid. No imagery is evoked, no meaning, no passion - just words. I don't know if I'm making sense haha

Yeah Runic would be amazing.

 

[Stormblood]

I'm interested though. What is your reasoning for concluding that social gender isn't a real thing? The way I see it, it's just how biological sex manifests and fits into functions and roles within society. That's why I said gender is both biological and sociological. It's the social role and function within society which is based on the person's sex.

[/quote]

Social gender is supposed to be identical to your biological gender. You do not need a gender studies lecturer to tell you what it's supposed to be. You can analyse improper attributions given by cultural marxism and take them as such: assumptions. You can analyse how close or far was from its true meaning across history in difference cultures, but cannot say for example "being male means being chill, smoking weed, backing down from arguments, etc" because x culture, pressure group or whatever says so, like the kikes are doing with gender "theory". You can also not say that there are more genders because the statement has no foundation in reality.

Man: Mars, Sun, fire, air, electric, yang...
Woman: Venus, Moon, water, earth, magnetic, yin...

There are mutation like asexual (not the "sexual orientation" which does not exist anyway, but the cases of people born without genitalia) and intersex (people born with both genitalia) but they are genetical mutations/aberrations like Aquarius stated, and they will be eliminated through eugenics.

TL;DR: Gender/Sex are objective and universal truths in nature. All I'm arguing is that defining it as sociological is unnecessary IN MY OPINION because it leads to the wrong connections in most people's minds. That's all.

 

[Stormblood]

By the way, I already explained months ago that English speaking society is suffering from the tower of babel curse. Everyone is speaking their own version of the English language because everyone strayed from the puritan meanings of words. It was the reason why we had dictionary authorities, but people don't care anymore. Social cohesion has broken down, and younger people keep reinventing the meaning of words. There's writers, literary experts, people who read a lot, and others who bother to learn and use the proper definitions correctly, but there's also the camp of complacent idiots who just use a personal understanding of the definitions and call it good. This confuses everyone like the tower of babel curse because no one realizes that they're using the same words to mean different things. The English language in common modern usage is not the English language, it's a variously mutated bastardization. Jews are also responsible for reinventing words to confuse everyone, but we all know that already. It's a compounded problem with them commanding everyone on what to think (and being in control of our schools).

English means "of England". Any non-British variation is not English. American is American, Australian is Australian, etc. They are derived from English but they are not really English. Spelling and vocabulary can vary a lot, even without taking into account dialects. Americans bastardise everything. They think they can do everything better but they actually never did. The only good thing that was born in the USA was the JoS. No accomplishments in other ways whatsoever. Only copy-pasting.

:arrow: Paratroopers copy-pasted from Italy.
:arrow: University structure copy-pasted from Britain.
:arrow: Patents stolen mostly from Italians, Germans and Frenchmen, which happen to be the most talented in the arts, science, music and architecture among White folk. Too bad Italians don't have a supportive educational system (except for the costs) and job market. Too bad the Germans, despite a good social welfare system, still can't catch up to Britain or Ireland, in terms of university quality and experience. Regardless, it's no wonder Germany and Italy were politically ahead of every White country during the NS period.

The list is endless.

 

[Stormblood]

It's both.

Sociology is not a real science. It's opinion. In other words, it's unsupported and unproven. It's a bunch of statements that are always completely defeated by a reality check. It is only considered a science because kikes dominate it and with the existence of "hate speech" any factual evidence that would naturally defeat it is immediately pushed out the door. Sociology does not exist in the way kikes have made it to be.

I've reflected more on this. I think I now can justify such hostility towards sociology in general. We haven't had a proper civilization in thousands of years because the jews destroyed Rome and then corrupted what the ancients variously called, I believe, Themis in Greek, Maat in Egyptian, and Dharma in India. Society is from the Gods, and if you look into those three I think you'll understand what I'm getting at. The Divine model for which human society is based on was perverted and replaced by the jews and their xian values. Studying sociology based on a jewish society is a waste of time so you're right.

I knew we were in agreement.

 

[Jrvan]

TL;DR: Gender/Sex are objective and universal truths in nature. All I'm arguing is that defining it as sociological is unnecessary IN MY OPINION because it leads to the wrong connections in most people's minds. That's all.

I suppose it does make things pretty confusing. I was trying to put my best effort towards untangling it, but maybe even I got a bit lost. It does feel better on the mind after having it simplified. Thanks, brother.

English means "of England". Any non-British variation is not English. American is American, Australian is Australian, etc. They are derived from English but they are not really English. Spelling and vocabulary can vary a lot, even without taking into account dialects. Americans bastardise everything. They think they can do everything better but they actually never did. The only good thing that was born in the USA was the JoS. No accomplishments in other ways whatsoever. Only copy-pasting.

:arrow: Paratroopers copy-pasted from Italy.
:arrow: University structure copy-pasted from Britain.
:arrow: Patents stolen mostly from Italians, Germans and Frenchmen, which happen to be the most talented in the arts, science, music and architecture among White folk. Too bad Italians don't have a supportive educational system (except for the costs) and job market. Too bad the Germans, despite a good social welfare system, still can't catch up to Britain or Ireland, in terms of university quality and experience. Regardless, it's no wonder Germany and Italy were politically ahead of every White country during the NS period.

The list is endless.

Hey that's not true! We have John Browning as a claim to fame, and nobody can take that from us. Even the Germans loved the M1911 :lol:

Maybe the USA could have been greater than it is right now if Freemasonry hadn't been infiltrated. I'll never understand why they didn't listen to Franklin about banning the jews. I mourn a little at what could have been, but I'm also hopeful about what America could potentially be in the future. And I agree, there's really no outdoing Europa. She has a long history of greatness.

 

[Stormblood]

TL;DR: Gender/Sex are objective and universal truths in nature. All I'm arguing is that defining it as sociological is unnecessary IN MY OPINION because it leads to the wrong connections in most people's minds. That's all.

I suppose it does make things pretty confusing. I was trying to put my best effort towards untangling it, but maybe even I got a bit lost. It does feel better on the mind after having it simplified. Thanks, brother.

English means "of England". Any non-British variation is not English. American is American, Australian is Australian, etc. They are derived from English but they are not really English. Spelling and vocabulary can vary a lot, even without taking into account dialects. Americans bastardise everything. They think they can do everything better but they actually never did. The only good thing that was born in the USA was the JoS. No accomplishments in other ways whatsoever. Only copy-pasting.

:arrow: Paratroopers copy-pasted from Italy.
:arrow: University structure copy-pasted from Britain.
:arrow: Patents stolen mostly from Italians, Germans and Frenchmen, which happen to be the most talented in the arts, science, music and architecture among White folk. Too bad Italians don't have a supportive educational system (except for the costs) and job market. Too bad the Germans, despite a good social welfare system, still can't catch up to Britain or Ireland, in terms of university quality and experience. Regardless, it's no wonder Germany and Italy were politically ahead of every White country during the NS period.

The list is endless.

Hey that's not true! We have John Browning as a claim to fame, and nobody can take that from us. Even the Germans loved the M1911 :lol:

Maybe the USA could have been greater than it is right now if Freemasonry hadn't been infiltrated. I'll never understand why they didn't listen to Franklin about banning the jews. I mourn a little at what could have been, but I'm also hopeful about what America could potentially be in the future. And I agree, there's really no outdoing Europa. She has a long history of greatness.

I don't know much about handguns. I hardly can find anything that looks better and is less fussy than an ARX160.

 

[Jrvan]

Hey that's not true! We have John Browning as a claim to fame, and nobody can take that from us. Even the Germans loved the M1911 :lol:

Maybe the USA could have been greater than it is right now if Freemasonry hadn't been infiltrated. I'll never understand why they didn't listen to Franklin about banning the jews. I mourn a little at what could have been, but I'm also hopeful about what America could potentially be in the future. And I agree, there's really no outdoing Europa. She has a long history of greatness.

I don't know much about handguns. I hardly can find anything that looks better and is less fussy than an ARX160.

It was only THE handgun of the US army for like over 70 years. It's the standard go-to image that people use when they think of or want to represent handguns. .45 ACP changed the game, and no 9mm fan can say otherwise. You can fire half a clip from those new fancy police arms, and the dude might still be moving towards you. If you have fired 3-4 rounds from a 1911, and they're STILL breathing then you're doing something wrong.

I read that the kris dagger contributed to the development of the 1911. I don't know if it's true, but it's a neat fact if so. Kris daggers are cool.

 

[Gearshift]

I'll never understand why they didn't listen to Franklin about banning the jews.

Because the jews were already in America since day one of their arrival in day one 5,776 years ago nearly 6,000 years ago.

Although in the America's they utterly failed and were massacred and bred out of existence. Non the less by the time of (((Columbus))) and the time of America building by the Spanish, French, English, and other European powers. They were already here in quite the numbers. For example many people site Aaron Lopez as one of the most major alcohol/Rum runners of their era as having tremendous influence financial and power in the colonies before the formation of the American Confederacy and American 13 colonies time period. So already by the 1600s this jew was running a lot of things.

The jews have pretty much been running this country to a degree or degrees by and by since whomever was the first jew or series of jews that decided to emigrate to New World. Of course in the Old World the jews were more into machinating wanting more shekels from spices, alcohol, mining, and plundering of civilizations in the end jews were already too powerful and in too great of numbers to do anything about. HAD the founding fathers done something to constitutionally prevent the jews from holding in America it might have created a situation whereby we'd be more war like. More European powers would kvetch on behalf of the jews that this is wrong and America is evil and whatnot. Especially the xtians and other judeo-bolshevik supporters. It might have created more civil protesting and civil reformation and potentially have created an atmosphere of the jews hijacking everything and drowning this country in philo-semitic rhetoric.

In essence it might have created a Weimar republic situation like Hitler encountered studying various newspaper organizations whether it be anti-semtic, philo-semitic, regular newspapers, and xtian newspapers. And it might have cause some sort of issue that could have collapsed America. Remember jews might not be militaristically strong and might use others to do their dirty work but that's exactly the issue it might have caused European powers and maybe even Middle East and Asian powers to attack America sooner rather than later.

It's not good being nice with jews cause they will always machinate evil. But non-the less the Founding Father's weren't stupid and probably realized they need to play the long and slow game for the SNWO to show up.

It was only THE handgun of the US army for like over 70 years. It's the standard go-to image that people use when they think of or want to represent handguns. .45 ACP changed the game, and no 9mm fan can say otherwise. You can fire half a clip from those new fancy police arms, and the dude might still be moving towards you. If you have fired 3-4 rounds from a 1911, and they're STILL breathing then you're doing something wrong.

I read that the kris dagger contributed to the development of the 1911. I don't know if it's true, but it's a neat fact if so. Kris daggers are cool.

I think your exaggerating the greatness of the .45, it's probably the Americana behind it but there are other bullets especially in modern times and modern ammunition that outshine the .45.

For example there was a shootout in Texas back around mid-90s whereby a mad trucker in a big rig starting shooting at cops. First few cops pelt his 18-wheeler with 9x19 ammunition, nothing. Next a trooper with a .45 shows up fires nothing. A little bit later a Sig-Sauer user comes up with the recently released .357 sig(9x22mm) fires 3 shots, silence. They spend a few moments investigating they sneak around the vehicle and are told unload if he is still alive. They opened up the door and from there they noticed the only gun that penetrated was the .357 Sig 3 shots struck and neutralized the target.

From that incident Texas changed all their pistols to .357 Sigs. As a matter of fact with rabid dogs or dogs attacking police. 9mm would require 4-5 shots to even make the dog think twice about attacking. With a single shot from a .357 sig the dog would immediately recoil in horror at being stopped. Not killed just injured to the point of thinking twice.

.45 = 11.43mm
9x19 = 0.354 or as some state 0.355
9x22 = 0.357 hence 357 sig

Despite the fact that both the .45 and 9mm used outdated designs and outdated cordite. Remember there is a number of people that believe that by the 1990s right after the FBI shootout ammunition the cordite and manufacture of bullets improved. Just as China was making it the China plastic meme in the 90s where EVERYTHING was Made in China. For ammo makers many bullets from pistols to rifles were being mass improved and manufactured with more precision, better designs, and better cordite(powder).

It's kind a meme that the ole' 45, ole '45 many wondered why the U.S. left it. Every reason points to the Germans and their WW2 usage of the 9x19. Despite the fact that in WW1 the Germans used the supersonic 9x19 to great effect especially the Stormtruppen with Artillery Lugars and within the last 3-4 months with MP18 SMGs. The Versailles treaty forbade German military from using SMG that's how much casualties and concern caused the allies from the newfound SMG design. But supposedly the Germans may have complained as well cause there is rumors some M1918 Thompson SMG mafia-style were used in the last 3-4 months of the war under beta testing. So the Germans may have dealt with the superior SMG themselves. It's just a rumor and it's believed that only a small number of Thompson's were used.

Still even with WW1 and WW2 with the MP38/MP40 despite SMGs being outdated for WW2 and especially considering the Germans and British used short barreled 2-4inch barrels for their SMGs(Sten/MP38/40) while the Americans and Russians used longer 6-8 inch barrels on their Thompson and PPSH42/43.

The Germans widely used the SMG in WW2 to great effect and it might have altered the decision of the Americans and later NATO as to believing the 9mm to be far superior than the 45. All this post-Vietnam investigation and all this theorycrafting and modernization of Warfare lead them to believe the 9x19 > 45. I think the reason or one of the most proper reasons is the .45 is subsonic great for suppressors but in the long run the supersonic ammunition allowed people to drop rounds further away the 9mm pistol caliber was reasonable despite being about 2mm smaller and it's distance fire is what changed it. Some guns do use the .45 like the UMP and whatnot but now a days both the 9MM and .45 are outdated.

But even for civilians they are to a degree outdated. For example just a few years ago a very powerful pistol caliber was released called the 7.5mm FK or 7.8 mm bullet in other words it's slightly bigger than a 30 caliber(7.62mm) still 30 caliber just slightly bigger. It looks like a 9mm or more precisely looks like a .357 Sig i.e. bottlenecked cartridge with a 27mm cartridge length. This bullet hits VERY hard and is noticeably smaller than the 9mm. Like their marketing slogan states weight of a .45, recoil of a .40 S&W(a snappier recoil like a .357 Sig), and the power of a .44 Magnum.

Like HonestOutlaw stated on youtube flies out of the barrel at 5.56 speeds. It comes out of the barrel at about 2,000 FPS similar to the 5.7x28mm like Garandthumb stated comes out of the barrel at terminal velocity. Both bullets are pretty similar despite the 5.7 being a spitzkern(rifle) bullet and the 7.5 fk looking more traditional like a 9mm.

Now a days in modern times many cops would state they fear smaller, faster high-velocity rounds than a big round. For example the .45 is nice not gonna deny it especially if it's been updated with newer manufacture, design, and cordite. But it's based on an older form of warfare. The 9mm another nice ubiquitous round is outdated. Some people have even done conversion kits on MP5 SMGs to have a .357 Sig version. Despite the .357 Sig being old by our standards since since early-mid 1990s. The problem with 9x19 is it stops at about 0.355 caliber it's max military weight even with military powder is about 127g load. The 9x22 or 0.357 Sig is so radically bigger that, that small increase in size makes some 0.357 bullets weigh in as much as nearing 200g. So the 9x19 tops out at 127g but some companies have pushed the 0.357 to nearly 212g. Plus the cordite having a slightly bigger cartridge the bullet comes out with much more force.

There are other good bullets out there in design or already made that require modernization. Like for example the 9x25 Dillon and other 9mm type designs with bigger cartridges. Again because of lack of modernization many had the thought if the 9mm is so good but does somewhat of a poor job to a degree. Why not just make the cartridge bigger and blast it out at a higher velocity.

I'll give you an example back around 2004-2005. The U.S. military issued a report that stated if Russia ever re-manufactured and re-engineered their 7.62x39mm their AK intermediate bullet. The amount of casualties and injuries of U.S. forces would increase substantially.

Remember many bullets and cartridges invented in the last 100 years since or pretty much since the mid-1800s when people discovered modern ammunition. Is based on older, outdated ideas. Now not outdated in bad but just an older way of thinking. For example the old way for intermediate cartridges modern Assault Rifle ammunition was a large full-sized battle rifle bullet with a intermediate cartridge. Well funny enough other ideas came in like for example a 0.223 or 5.56 or 5.45 i.e. make a smaller bullet but keep the intermediate cartridge. It's still hits hard maybe less hard depending on cordite but the idea is what if we use a smaller bullet that still hits hard but keep it at the assault rifle range. Again that doesn't mean militaries throwaway full-sized battle rifle bullets. The M40 with 7.62x51mm is an example the ole'30 caliber round even IF some proponents have mentioned that a bigger bullet should be used kinda like SOCOM with it's 0.338 Norma Magnum round or the other famous .338 round the Lappua cartridge. I'm personally surprised no one has ever told the Finnish manufacturers to combine the .338 Lappua and .338 Norma Magnum rounds and have a 70mm cartridge as good as the Lappua with the fatness of the Norma and use it for sniper rifles. A nearly 8.6mm bullet bigger than .30 caliber(7.62mm) with a massive cartridge to ensure reach further. I'm sure a lot of Sniper, DMR, and Scout Snipers of the U.S. military would appreciate the bump in performance and power of said bullet.

Anyways to return to the topic. I think various factors swayed America/NATO allies to the 9x19. Even the Russians still stick to their 9x18 Makarov like on the Bizon SMG and other SMGs hell a lot of Russian SMGs still rely on that outdated bullet.

So in reality we have a massive outdated warfare design despite modernization and re-engineering attempts. But because we are so invested in it possessing billions, tens of billions, if not trillions of rounds of ammunition of said outdated designs. We can't just switch, to a new caliber even though everyone agrees that pistol ammunition for a soldier should be deadlier in comparison with a rifle as the idea is with the rifle you don't kill you injure severely an OpFor and wait for others to rescue the soldier to create more casualties and injuries. And with a pistol in CQC combat you want the deadliness maxed out since CQC = fight to the death.

There are many other factors not gonna deny it. But even still whether for 0.45 or for 9mm both bullets are outdated. Not outdated in worthlessness but in the fact we've advanced the theoretical science but the physical science hasn't catched up.

It's like spirituality. The physical is so slow that whatever happens in the above takes time.

Maybe if the Gods were around our Guns when introduced by them would have been appropriate calibers/mm designs. They'd probably be impressed with some of our ammunition and gun designs. But non-the less they already covered the science of the gun. Like Dr.Stone guns are a weapon of science even the act of shooting a gun and aiming is a science looking at Snipers in particular.

Non-the less I hate the debate of .45 vs 9mm since 9mm is the most popular pick in comparison to other ammunition even the 10x25 Auto is debated a bit vs 9mm. But in the end most people should realize the fear of getting shot or being aimed at by a live gun or the very supersonic snap or subsonic wize or the very impact of being hit by a gun even in a non-important area even being shot in the leg or arm or the bone being struck remember modern Minie-Ball type ammunition i.e. modern arms were meant to impact and strike the bones. Currently ball ammunition like a shotgun or blackpowder ball bullet CAN damage bones not unlike Minie-ball types but through the use of higher range cordite. Still non-the less the very act of aiming a live ammunition at a person is enough to scare people into surrendering.

Like some military personnel and police officers as well as warfare theorycrafting. Sometimes the act of producing fear and scaring your opponent makes them yield and or surrender before a shot was fired. Kinda like for example how Sonderkommandos(Commandos) use their experience and training to create so much noise it sounds like an army is coming. And it's happened many times throughout history like for example Benghazi back in 2011 or 2012 when commandos raided a terrorist bunker outside Benghazi and found Shillary Clinton's email server as well as saved the lives of several Americans of important status.

I think the debates are silly if a bullet works it works. I mean hell some people get killed by .22(SR/LR/SLR) .22x10mm, .22x15mm, or .22x54mm. Just because a .22 LR is tiny doesn't mean coming out of the barrel with some Hi-Velocity 1850fps speed isn't gonna cause injury or death. Even this tiny pathetic round by comparison to other rifles is deadly, in fact .22 killings are quite common it might be a small game bullet but it's deadly non-the less.

Excuse the long message but at the end of the day no matter the bullet. The trained and experience person > bullet type.

If your some learned, trained, and experienced person. Even with a weak bullet you'll still wreck someone. It's like First-Person Shooters as long as you got the good equipment, computer, monitor, lower sensitivity, and appropriate mindset and training with experience. You'll dominate compared to a newer person.

If we emulate life through video games and some emulate video games through life. Those that practice reap the rewards. It's much like being an artist past life and natural talent but learning, studying, experience, practicing and training would reward you with a bigger capacity to create art. Same with bullets you can have a cheap, crappy gun and as long as you understand everything about it and have the capacity to work it. You'll have the confidence to make it work.

 

[Stormblood]

~~~

I wonder when they'll be done with bullets. They're so outdated. There are better things that can be used to greater affect, which would also eliminate the need for carrying magazines around. I'm even scared to think what imprint would have on the soul when someone dies with their body completely obliterated from existence.

 

[Gearshift]

~~~

I wonder when they'll be done with bullets. They're so outdated. There are better things that can be used to greater affect, which would also eliminate the need for carrying magazines around. I'm even scared to think what imprint would have on the soul when someone dies with their body completely obliterated from existence.

I've had some ideas albeit silly logic applies. Like for example infinite magazine like some video games. You install a materializer and just make infinite 100% perfect molecularly and atomic bullets. You can even use metals used by the Gods. Just hold the trigger and never stop firing. The gun is made perfect and it just fires non-stop as long as you hold the trigger.

Plasma weaponry, Laser weapons, Dematerializers, DNA busters(grey goop scenario kinda like nanobots) etc.etc. I'm sure others in sci-fi/sci-fan have created worse or equally bad stuff. Like say a planet buster or an inferometric grating laser or an instant fire laser.

I hate to state go nuts because it delves into silly things. No wonder it becomes pointless to kill physically not that, that doesn't help but spiritual warfare.

Honestly I sometimes hate thinking into the future as someone is always gonna say realistically we'd only be scratching the surface.

I guess when your civilization can blow up planets. Then what happens when some civilization blows up a galaxy.

Even nature has some deadly incidents like supernovas and singularities i.e. planets condensing into a dwarf and producing massive gravitational field, not a blackhole.

If nature already naturally destroys tremendous amounts of space celestial objects seems to reason some civilization takes it into their desire to produce weapons more destructive than nature.

It gets silly after a while very head in the clouds lacking realism. Which is why I avoid sci-fi/sci-fan threads as I have quite the futuristic mindset.

 

[Jrvan]

I'll never understand why they didn't listen to Franklin about banning the jews.

Because the jews were already in America since day one of their arrival in day one 5,776 years ago nearly 6,000 years ago.

Although in the America's they utterly failed and were massacred and bred out of existence. Non the less by the time of (((Columbus))) and the time of America building by the Spanish, French, English, and other European powers. They were already here in quite the numbers. For example many people site Aaron Lopez as one of the most major alcohol/Rum runners of their era as having tremendous influence financial and power in the colonies before the formation of the American Confederacy and American 13 colonies time period. So already by the 1600s this jew was running a lot of things.

The jews have pretty much been running this country to a degree or degrees by and by since whomever was the first jew or series of jews that decided to emigrate to New World. Of course in the Old World the jews were more into machinating wanting more shekels from spices, alcohol, mining, and plundering of civilizations in the end jews were already too powerful and in too great of numbers to do anything about. HAD the founding fathers done something to constitutionally prevent the jews from holding in America it might have created a situation whereby we'd be more war like. More European powers would kvetch on behalf of the jews that this is wrong and America is evil and whatnot. Especially the xtians and other judeo-bolshevik supporters. It might have created more civil protesting and civil reformation and potentially have created an atmosphere of the jews hijacking everything and drowning this country in philo-semitic rhetoric.

In essence it might have created a Weimar republic situation like Hitler encountered studying various newspaper organizations whether it be anti-semtic, philo-semitic, regular newspapers, and xtian newspapers. And it might have cause some sort of issue that could have collapsed America. Remember jews might not be militaristically strong and might use others to do their dirty work but that's exactly the issue it might have caused European powers and maybe even Middle East and Asian powers to attack America sooner rather than later.

It's not good being nice with jews cause they will always machinate evil. But non-the less the Founding Father's weren't stupid and probably realized they need to play the long and slow game for the SNWO to show up.

It was only THE handgun of the US army for like over 70 years. It's the standard go-to image that people use when they think of or want to represent handguns. .45 ACP changed the game, and no 9mm fan can say otherwise. You can fire half a clip from those new fancy police arms, and the dude might still be moving towards you. If you have fired 3-4 rounds from a 1911, and they're STILL breathing then you're doing something wrong.

I read that the kris dagger contributed to the development of the 1911. I don't know if it's true, but it's a neat fact if so. Kris daggers are cool.

I think your exaggerating the greatness of the .45, it's probably the Americana behind it but there are other bullets especially in modern times and modern ammunition that outshine the .45.

For example there was a shootout in Texas back around mid-90s whereby a mad trucker in a big rig starting shooting at cops. First few cops pelt his 18-wheeler with 9x19 ammunition, nothing. Next a trooper with a .45 shows up fires nothing. A little bit later a Sig-Sauer user comes up with the recently released .357 sig(9x22mm) fires 3 shots, silence. They spend a few moments investigating they sneak around the vehicle and are told unload if he is still alive. They opened up the door and from there they noticed the only gun that penetrated was the .357 Sig 3 shots struck and neutralized the target.

From that incident Texas changed all their pistols to .357 Sigs. As a matter of fact with rabid dogs or dogs attacking police. 9mm would require 4-5 shots to even make the dog think twice about attacking. With a single shot from a .357 sig the dog would immediately recoil in horror at being stopped. Not killed just injured to the point of thinking twice.

.45 = 11.43mm
9x19 = 0.354 or as some state 0.355
9x22 = 0.357 hence 357 sig

Despite the fact that both the .45 and 9mm used outdated designs and outdated cordite. Remember there is a number of people that believe that by the 1990s right after the FBI shootout ammunition the cordite and manufacture of bullets improved. Just as China was making it the China plastic meme in the 90s where EVERYTHING was Made in China. For ammo makers many bullets from pistols to rifles were being mass improved and manufactured with more precision, better designs, and better cordite(powder).

It's kind a meme that the ole' 45, ole '45 many wondered why the U.S. left it. Every reason points to the Germans and their WW2 usage of the 9x19. Despite the fact that in WW1 the Germans used the supersonic 9x19 to great effect especially the Stormtruppen with Artillery Lugars and within the last 3-4 months with MP18 SMGs. The Versailles treaty forbade German military from using SMG that's how much casualties and concern caused the allies from the newfound SMG design. But supposedly the Germans may have complained as well cause there is rumors some M1918 Thompson SMG mafia-style were used in the last 3-4 months of the war under beta testing. So the Germans may have dealt with the superior SMG themselves. It's just a rumor and it's believed that only a small number of Thompson's were used.

Still even with WW1 and WW2 with the MP38/MP40 despite SMGs being outdated for WW2 and especially considering the Germans and British used short barreled 2-4inch barrels for their SMGs(Sten/MP38/40) while the Americans and Russians used longer 6-8 inch barrels on their Thompson and PPSH42/43.

The Germans widely used the SMG in WW2 to great effect and it might have altered the decision of the Americans and later NATO as to believing the 9mm to be far superior than the 45. All this post-Vietnam investigation and all this theorycrafting and modernization of Warfare lead them to believe the 9x19 > 45. I think the reason or one of the most proper reasons is the .45 is subsonic great for suppressors but in the long run the supersonic ammunition allowed people to drop rounds further away the 9mm pistol caliber was reasonable despite being about 2mm smaller and it's distance fire is what changed it. Some guns do use the .45 like the UMP and whatnot but now a days both the 9MM and .45 are outdated.

But even for civilians they are to a degree outdated. For example just a few years ago a very powerful pistol caliber was released called the 7.5mm FK or 7.8 mm bullet in other words it's slightly bigger than a 30 caliber(7.62mm) still 30 caliber just slightly bigger. It looks like a 9mm or more precisely looks like a .357 Sig i.e. bottlenecked cartridge with a 27mm cartridge length. This bullet hits VERY hard and is noticeably smaller than the 9mm. Like their marketing slogan states weight of a .45, recoil of a .40 S&W(a snappier recoil like a .357 Sig), and the power of a .44 Magnum.

Like HonestOutlaw stated on youtube flies out of the barrel at 5.56 speeds. It comes out of the barrel at about 2,000 FPS similar to the 5.7x28mm like Garandthumb stated comes out of the barrel at terminal velocity. Both bullets are pretty similar despite the 5.7 being a spitzkern(rifle) bullet and the 7.5 fk looking more traditional like a 9mm.

Now a days in modern times many cops would state they fear smaller, faster high-velocity rounds than a big round. For example the .45 is nice not gonna deny it especially if it's been updated with newer manufacture, design, and cordite. But it's based on an older form of warfare. The 9mm another nice ubiquitous round is outdated. Some people have even done conversion kits on MP5 SMGs to have a .357 Sig version. Despite the .357 Sig being old by our standards since since early-mid 1990s. The problem with 9x19 is it stops at about 0.355 caliber it's max military weight even with military powder is about 127g load. The 9x22 or 0.357 Sig is so radically bigger that, that small increase in size makes some 0.357 bullets weigh in as much as nearing 200g. So the 9x19 tops out at 127g but some companies have pushed the 0.357 to nearly 212g. Plus the cordite having a slightly bigger cartridge the bullet comes out with much more force.

There are other good bullets out there in design or already made that require modernization. Like for example the 9x25 Dillon and other 9mm type designs with bigger cartridges. Again because of lack of modernization many had the thought if the 9mm is so good but does somewhat of a poor job to a degree. Why not just make the cartridge bigger and blast it out at a higher velocity.

I'll give you an example back around 2004-2005. The U.S. military issued a report that stated if Russia ever re-manufactured and re-engineered their 7.62x39mm their AK intermediate bullet. The amount of casualties and injuries of U.S. forces would increase substantially.

Remember many bullets and cartridges invented in the last 100 years since or pretty much since the mid-1800s when people discovered modern ammunition. Is based on older, outdated ideas. Now not outdated in bad but just an older way of thinking. For example the old way for intermediate cartridges modern Assault Rifle ammunition was a large full-sized battle rifle bullet with a intermediate cartridge. Well funny enough other ideas came in like for example a 0.223 or 5.56 or 5.45 i.e. make a smaller bullet but keep the intermediate cartridge. It's still hits hard maybe less hard depending on cordite but the idea is what if we use a smaller bullet that still hits hard but keep it at the assault rifle range. Again that doesn't mean militaries throwaway full-sized battle rifle bullets. The M40 with 7.62x51mm is an example the ole'30 caliber round even IF some proponents have mentioned that a bigger bullet should be used kinda like SOCOM with it's 0.338 Norma Magnum round or the other famous .338 round the Lappua cartridge. I'm personally surprised no one has ever told the Finnish manufacturers to combine the .338 Lappua and .338 Norma Magnum rounds and have a 70mm cartridge as good as the Lappua with the fatness of the Norma and use it for sniper rifles. A nearly 8.6mm bullet bigger than .30 caliber(7.62mm) with a massive cartridge to ensure reach further. I'm sure a lot of Sniper, DMR, and Scout Snipers of the U.S. military would appreciate the bump in performance and power of said bullet.

Anyways to return to the topic. I think various factors swayed America/NATO allies to the 9x19. Even the Russians still stick to their 9x18 Makarov like on the Bizon SMG and other SMGs hell a lot of Russian SMGs still rely on that outdated bullet.

So in reality we have a massive outdated warfare design despite modernization and re-engineering attempts. But because we are so invested in it possessing billions, tens of billions, if not trillions of rounds of ammunition of said outdated designs. We can't just switch, to a new caliber even though everyone agrees that pistol ammunition for a soldier should be deadlier in comparison with a rifle as the idea is with the rifle you don't kill you injure severely an OpFor and wait for others to rescue the soldier to create more casualties and injuries. And with a pistol in CQC combat you want the deadliness maxed out since CQC = fight to the death.

There are many other factors not gonna deny it. But even still whether for 0.45 or for 9mm both bullets are outdated. Not outdated in worthlessness but in the fact we've advanced the theoretical science but the physical science hasn't catched up.

It's like spirituality. The physical is so slow that whatever happens in the above takes time.

Maybe if the Gods were around our Guns when introduced by them would have been appropriate calibers/mm designs. They'd probably be impressed with some of our ammunition and gun designs. But non-the less they already covered the science of the gun. Like Dr.Stone guns are a weapon of science even the act of shooting a gun and aiming is a science looking at Snipers in particular.

Non-the less I hate the debate of .45 vs 9mm since 9mm is the most popular pick in comparison to other ammunition even the 10x25 Auto is debated a bit vs 9mm. But in the end most people should realize the fear of getting shot or being aimed at by a live gun or the very supersonic snap or subsonic wize or the very impact of being hit by a gun even in a non-important area even being shot in the leg or arm or the bone being struck remember modern Minie-Ball type ammunition i.e. modern arms were meant to impact and strike the bones. Currently ball ammunition like a shotgun or blackpowder ball bullet CAN damage bones not unlike Minie-ball types but through the use of higher range cordite. Still non-the less the very act of aiming a live ammunition at a person is enough to scare people into surrendering.

Like some military personnel and police officers as well as warfare theorycrafting. Sometimes the act of producing fear and scaring your opponent makes them yield and or surrender before a shot was fired. Kinda like for example how Sonderkommandos(Commandos) use their experience and training to create so much noise it sounds like an army is coming. And it's happened many times throughout history like for example Benghazi back in 2011 or 2012 when commandos raided a terrorist bunker outside Benghazi and found Shillary Clinton's email server as well as saved the lives of several Americans of important status.

I think the debates are silly if a bullet works it works. I mean hell some people get killed by .22(SR/LR/SLR) .22x10mm, .22x15mm, or .22x54mm. Just because a .22 LR is tiny doesn't mean coming out of the barrel with some Hi-Velocity 1850fps speed isn't gonna cause injury or death. Even this tiny pathetic round by comparison to other rifles is deadly, in fact .22 killings are quite common it might be a small game bullet but it's deadly non-the less.

Excuse the long message but at the end of the day no matter the bullet. The trained and experience person > bullet type.

If your some learned, trained, and experienced person. Even with a weak bullet you'll still wreck someone. It's like First-Person Shooters as long as you got the good equipment, computer, monitor, lower sensitivity, and appropriate mindset and training with experience. You'll dominate compared to a newer person.

If we emulate life through video games and some emulate video games through life. Those that practice reap the rewards. It's much like being an artist past life and natural talent but learning, studying, experience, practicing and training would reward you with a bigger capacity to create art. Same with bullets you can have a cheap, crappy gun and as long as you understand everything about it and have the capacity to work it. You'll have the confidence to make it work.

No, no, no - you MUST pick a side! :lol:

Yeah, weren't the tommys banned in the USA during/after the prohibition era as well? I don't quite remember. Nobody wanted them around it seems.

If we're talking about things that aren't available or easily accessible (financially or otherwise) to civilians then I'd like to get a black market 50 cal and mount it on the roof, maybe some mortar shells, and I want one of those fighter jets too. I'm just playing.
For a standard, budget street fight I would prefer 1911. It's tried and true, and in my mind the aesthetic can't be beat. Until the average thug has the ability to finance all these advanced technologies to wage war against me in civilian zones, I just won't worry about evolution of arms.

Still, you really know your stuff. I'm impressed. Thank you for the history lessons both past and contemporary. It's very riveting and enlightening for my perspective, and the tidbits about military tactics were really interesting.
I'm also glad to have a plausible explanation for the decisions of the Founding Fathers. That really does make a lot of sense.