Thanks for the background info. Not sure I can agree with all of that though - Jews have been persecuted for pretty much throughout all of history, so this (on the surface at least) seems little different. Not that I'm disagreeing entirely that Jews haven't managed to do quite well for themselves regardless - it was like that from the beginning.

Speaking of which, this kind of ties into one of the negative aspects of Catholicism - Catholics were not allowed to lend money to others and charge interest, which would have hampered capitalist expansion if not for the Jews (who had no such qualms, and profited quite well from it, despite being forced to live in ghettos throughout the middle ages for example).

I do agree that the Catholic church did contribute a lot to science - it's well known that some of the first ever scholars in the Western world were monks, and later on they often taught others to read if I'm not mistaken. I also believe the first beer was brewed by monks, and possibly also the first wine. So it's definitely not all bad.

One could argue that the Lutheran version of Christianity is "more pure" than the Catholic version, since they kept pretty much everything except the Pope, and did away with most of the taxation/extortion and other excesses the Church was known for. These days there isn't that much difference though, apart from not having a Pope (they have no "infallible" central leaders).

My point with respect to religion though is that there is no religion that can claim to be "pure". Even if looking only at the "teachings", there is some seriously fucked up shit in the bible, to put it bluntly. Which is why these days most of it isn't taken literally by most Christian denominations.

I wasn't claiming to be insightful, intellectual or original - I merely stated that this is what JP thinks. The main thing about JP isn't originality or insight, but rather that he's capable of articulating these so-called "right-wing" ideas in a way that tends to win arguments while doing so in a respectful manner (i.e. without going red in the face and shouting at people with spittle flying everywhere, which seems to be common on both sides lately).

There are plenty of examples of him demolishing his left-wing opponents when it comes to things such as the gender pay gap - a lot of that though is actually the interviewer completely misinterpreting what he's actually said. The left seem very keen to immediately attempt to portray anyone disagreeing with them as either a misogynist or a Nazi or something similar.

It's sad that these "conservative" ideas are considered so terrible that whenever anyone mentions them, they immediately get attacked by rabid leftists. Logic should win out over stupidity at all times, and scientific results and analysis should win out over "feelings".

BTW I don't really care too much about his views with respect to his field as much as I consider him to be one of the few people on the right who can successfully challenge the left without looking like a loon. Previously I would have turned to Christopher Hitchens to be this spokesperson, but unfortunately he's no longer alive. The only other person who could successfully debate for the right is potentially Milo - unfortunately he's too much of a shit-stirrer for most people to take him seriously (and some of his views I definitely don't agree with).

BTW this also doesn't mean I 100% agree with everything JP says - I never blindly agree with someone on everything, as it depends on the issue in question. That should be obvious, since I like both Hitchens and Peterson - yet in some ways Hitchens is the opposite of Peterson (with respect to religion for example).

So, do you think it is all the fault of the so-called "anti-semitism, or it might have something to do with the Jewish behaviour towards the host nations. They have been kicked out over 100 city states, empires, countries, from 4 different continents, starting in BC era, and the latest "prosecution" happened in Guatemalan village 5 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb7248WBxFA

The end-game for them is fulfilling the prophet Isaiah's prophecy. Everything they are doing is going in that direction: French revolution, World War I, World War II, demographic shifts, globalization, race mixing... the final goal: create the state of Israel, and bring all the Jews in it. How do you convince the Jews from Europe, who are living cosy and comfy to go back to the desert? You start world wars, terrorist false flag attacks, use the Jewish right-wing people to wreck neighbour Muslim countries using AIPAC to lobby 'Muricans so Muslims can settle to European countries with the help of the Jewish left-wing organizations, so Jews have to flee to Israel.

Interest rates are capital offence in Muslim countries with Sharia law. In middle ages, Popes forbid it. Jews were the ones who did it. That created this whole financial system fraud and amassed them huge fortune. Interest rates can not be paid back, as they add extra bubble of imaginary money in the circulation which do not have back up in precious metals, thus they do not technically exist, but they still have to be paid off.

I can not agree with that statement regarding the Protestantism as being the “purest form of Christianity”. How many Protestant sects are there? Tens, if not hundreds. Almost every pastor nowadays has his own "special branch of Christianity". Almost all Protestant pastors are pro-Zionist shills brainwashing their flock, and milking their money. The best example is the Scofield Reference Bible. Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=typ2pl2L47k And look at the moral degradation and cultural/ethnical genocide, judeo-liberalism in those countries like Germanistan, Swedistan, Los Estados Unidos De America, Cucknada, Orwelstralia, Engladistan, etc. The only Catholic countries that have the same issues are only France and Italy. Again, you say Catholicism has "dark side", but you only bring arguments about the Catholic church. You do not have any relevant evidence to claim that Catholic teachings, coming from the New Testament have any bad influence on people. The only bad effect of the Catholic teaching might be creating too soft of an individual, and over-compassionate one. But being good does not mean you have to be stupid. It's up to the person's strength of the character, which do not mean it’s the consequence of the Catholic teaching. On the other hand Jewish Talmud says: “God has created us, the Jews, in his own image. And he has created goyim (sub-humans) who look like us, but they are not human, they are animals.” “If a baby can grow up, and be potential threat to Jewish people, it is justified to kill the baby.”

Some bonus videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIfxI2BRLQY
Barbara Spectre ✡https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G45WthPTo24
Ingrid Lomfors ✡https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eajx2iUWlFQ
Translation: https://redice.tv/a/i/n/15/34518Ingrid-Lomfors.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqkOSGJYCd4

And what is the average GDP of most Muslim Nations? The standard of living of most Muslim nations? That's right - way down the bottom, ie shit. Every single country that has Sharia law is shit anyway, because Sharia law is one of the most screwed up ways to live anyway, but still...

If it weren't for the Jews effectively starting the money-lending industry, economic activity everywhere would have stagnated. The lending of money is an essential part of the economic system, since without it growth is severely curtailed. Without growth, there's stagnation. Once the Church got over the idiocy of its anti-money-lending policy, economies were able to grow much faster. It is a fact that the lending of capital is essential to growth.

Well initially there was only one - the one started by Martin Luther. The other offshoots occurred later, and some of those definitely took things in a more extreme direction, that's for sure. I'm not going to defend any offshoot of Christianity since all religions have their issues, and the primary purpose of any religion ever invented was as a method to control people. These days we have legal systems that do that, so religion is no longer necessary (although people may choose to be religious for "spiritual" reasons, this should never interfere with the law and should be entirely separate from the State at all times).

That is not why the Muslim world is not reach. You intentionally ignore all the wars in their courtyard and all the sanctions.

Money loans used to work like this:
Person A needs money. He asks person B for loan. Person B says "Fine, hand me over that piece of land, which is worth more than the amount of the money I will loan you. If you do not return me the money, I will take your land."
Possible outcome:
1.) Person A paid back the money, and did not lose the land. Person B did not make profit, bot got his money back.
2.) Person A failed to pay back the loan, person B took his land, which is worth more than the amount of money loaned.

Here is what Jewish system does:
Imagine we have a community which switched from trading with gold coins, to printing money based on the amount of the gold they possess.

There is 100kg of golden bars. Let's say 1kg of gold is equal to 40€. That means 4000€ can be issued as a method to represent the golden bars in the bank. 4 people take the loans. Each one of them takes 1000€ of loan. Jew says "I will put mortgage on your lands and real estate, also pay me additional 5% interest rate each month of delay."
The first guy starts a business. His business thrives. The other guy does the same, and is a bit less successful, but still doing fine. The third and forth guy try setting business, but they are not as good as the first two guys, so all of their money goes in the hands of the first two guys, because they bough the goods they needed more from the first two guys. Let's say two months have passed since the 4 took the loan. That is 10% extra to pay back, plus the original debt of 1000€. That means each one of them has to pay back the Jew 1100€.

The first guy accumulated 2000€, and paid back the debt after two months. He paid back the debt worth 1100€ and made a profit worth 900€.
The second guy accumulated 1300€. He paid back the debt after two months. He paid back the debt worth 1100€ and made a profit worth 200€.
The thrid and the fourth guy do not have circulating money at their disposal, thus can not pay the debt back, even if they improved their business.
There was the original 4000€ in circulation. The artificial interest rates created additional 800€ out of thin air in the first two months, without physical back-up in precious metals. This earns the Jew money as originally intended, but it also increases the debt over time, putting more pressure on the person who took the loan, and Jew can profit more than originally intended, where he would only take the real-eastate and lands. The other two guys either have to hand over their lands and real estate, or go and find some gold. If they can not find the gold deposit in the nature, they have to kill for gold. There will always be someone at the end of the thin side of the stick using this practice, while the Jewish bankers will accumulate enormous ammounts of wealth (which they already have) out of thin air. An artificial debts wihtout coverage in physical precious metals. This creates constant inflations in society, and artificial economical crysis. It opens up opportunities for enslavement of nations. Rich Rothschild loans money to say, Lybia. Lybia gets close to paying off the debt, and they intend on creating African currency, so they do not have to use the petrol dollar. Rothschild bank orders the destruction of Lybia. Wrecked nation needs more money for post-war reparitions, still remains a debt slave.

Well in most countries, where business loans are concerned, it's possible to write off your business losses in future years (when you make a profit), which in the case of the second two guys, would help them out, assuming they were able to eventually turn a profit.

One cannot expect a business (e.g. a bank) to lend money without making some money on the money it's lending - that would mean it's effectively doing something for free (since the people handling the paperwork etc. still need to be paid).

The additional 800 isn't "out of thin air" - as you said, it comes from the profits of the successful people. Which makes sense, since without this money they wouldn't have been able to expand or possibly even start their business in the first place.

Unless of course the profits of the business owners taking the loan come out of thin air, but that's an altogether different issue...

As for economic cycles and the like, that tends to happen when lots of people all invest in something that they believe will grow and be secure, but it turns out to be anything but secure. Then as soon as people start to realise how dodgy it is, it all comes tumbling down. Sure, the last major worldwide financial crisis was in effect caused by the banks themselves - who then had to be bailed out - and that whole fiasco was dodgy in the extreme, since the worst offenders effectively got away with screwing over everybody. Which is why even a free market requires some regulation to avoid this kind of thing (which is why in Australia we didn't suffer from that crisis - but we probably have too much regulation which is the opposite problem).

The "enslavement of nations" is a separate issue - the powerful have always sought to control the weak, that's the way it has always been. It was like that back when England had colonies and exploited them for its benefit - I don't think Jewish people were involved in that much from what I know - and it's like that now, except the primary countries involved are different.

So what would you suggest? Outlaw making money on loans? Good luck anyone getting a loan then - who in their right mind would lend money for free? And where there are no loans, business will stagnate, since their growth will be limited. More importantly, it will be almost impossible for new players to enter the market, which leaves existing companies completely unchallenged in all fields (as opposed to mostly unchallenged in most fields, which is the current situation).

Just for fun - google "Sasha Vykos"^)

That is not how stuff (specially economics) works, and there is no need to keep the head in the sand, pretending it's ok for (((them))) to abuse the faulty banking system. Also, no one ever gave away loans for free, be it with or without the interest rates. I will abandon this discussion, so, maybe, one day, when we obtain the right for freedom of speech, we could discuss this some more.

Well we can at least agree on that point.

Now, weren't people talking about how this game will inevitably be crap because of SJW crap? I've said this in other places, but I'll say it again just in case I haven't in this thread yet - I don't believe a game will be crap purely because of SJW politics.

A game with excessive and/or badly written SJW politics will of course be terrible - primarily because it's written by shit writers who happen to be SJWs (as opposed to SJW politics magically made the writing bad).


HOWEVER ALL IS NOT LOST: There's a way to make the Ultimate evil SJW protagonist: TZIMISCE TRANNIE!

Think about it - they can SCULPT bodies (including their own) into WHATEVER IMAGE THEY WANT. So there could be a really fucked-up Tzimisce, who instead of creating walking nightmares and making his facial features all freaky, possibly wanted something a bit different. So he sculpted himself a pair of big-ass titties or something!

He also captures Caitiff and Thin Bloods and instead of stitching them together to make those butt-monsters from (like the first game), instead just reverses their gender, just for a laugh, then releases them all confused - effectively forcing his gender-identity issues on others like the attention-seeking git he is. Maybe he makes some gender-neutral ones just for kicks too.

There could be a sub-plot where he captures you, and is planning to "turn" you. He will of course explain this to you in standard villian style, while playing with his big-ass titties. Or taunting you with them if you're male - "Hey thin-blood! Feel my self-sculpted Titties! FEEL THEM! YOU LIKE THAT? Soon your genitals will be mine!"

There could also be a crazy sculpted "boss" creature or two, e.g. a giant walking vagina (think the zombie movie "Braindead"), and/or a giant schlong, or a creature consisting of lots of schlongs glued together or something.

And if they don't do this, it's an idea for a future South Park game that spoofs this game. The South Park guys wouldn't shy away from an evil Transvamp.

Yes, yes, take my money, take it! :)

Sadly, no tzimisci as playable clan...
So game will SUCK! :)

But did they exclude Tzimisci from the game altogether, or just the playable clans? You couldn't be a Tzimisci in the first one either, but they still had one as an enemy (Sabbat).

I doubt they'd let us play as any of the Sabbat clans (happy to be proven wrong though - plus mods will probably be able to add that in later).

I doubt they'd ever cast someone like that as the "bad guy" though. The "bad" vampires will probably be neo-nazis or shock jocks wearing MAGA hats. Actual Nazi vamps (e.g. embraced during WWII) would be alright, although there have already been lots of games lately with undead Nazis, so I doubt they'd go there.

Finally. Some common sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ok-WIKoiWE

Well, I sincerely hope she is right, but - I still have my doubts and will not pre-order until more specific information about gameplay will be available. SJW cancer is everywhere these days.
AFAIK, no Tzimisci is in the initial release version, but they can be in any of DLC (and, knowing Paradox, I'm sure there will a lot of DLC - which is great in this case).

Dang, that's a bit of a shocker, considering that Tzimisce dude was probably the best Sabbat villain in the last game.

I wouldn't be surprised if Paradox releases further clans one DLC at a time (with one clan per DLC) - their strategy has been clear for some time now, and it's pretty evil. Another reason to wait - bug fixes, all DLC finished (a year later maybe?), then finally some kind of ultimate edition bundle with everything in it and working (hopefully for a reasonable price).

I don't pre-order anything any more - it was always a potential risk (no matter the game), and that risk hasn't exactly diminished over the years. And that's before accounting for potential cancerous writing.

The vid above makes some good points, but realistically no one can say anything for sure one way or the other really. The way I see it, if we dump on the game now and expect the worst, this will increase the likelihood that we end up with something that is better than expected. Going the opposite route increases the likelihood of future disappointment - and rage will be much, much worse then.

That's where I disagree. I think it'll be the same "evil" enemy - corporations and their heads like the Ventrue were made to be. I do agree that while distasteful, the innuendos will not destroy the game. There were many of what I consider idiocies in BL1 but I enjoyed the game a lot.

Well I'd definitely expect Ventrue to be portrayed as the power-hungry manipulators that they are, especially from the Anarch POV since they represent the diametric opposite. I'd also expect that any Ventrue that's not explicitly the "enemy" would still be viewed as "evil" by any Anarchs (which doesn't mean that they necessarily need to embody the stereotypical "evil corp head" - but they probably will).

I'd expect anyone in a leadership position in an organisation that's centuries old, where the ones in it are also centuries old, and where advancement via "dead men's boots" is more difficult due to the immortality of those holding the upper echelons of power, to be at least on the spectrum of a sociopath or psychopath. So no matter what the "official" side is, I'd expect lots of backstabbing and scheming.

That still leaves room for other factions, e.g. the Sabbat, who are generally less subtle; however, that doesn't mean they can't scheme, and they also often employ kine for their schemes.

I don't think anyone's worried about innuendos destroying the game (even if they do decide to go cheesier or more extreme) - it's more the fact that innuendos (and other "offensive" stuff) might be curtailed. Ordinarily I would doubt anyone developing a vampire game would care about "offending" anyone, but it seems that these days some idiot gets offended by something new every day - and what's worse, sometimes people actually listen to the offended and make changes because of it (in the past this would only occur under duress or court order or similar). Guess we'll just have to find out...