HAers vs. Mainstream Americans: Core Differences

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 3143
Joined: September 19th, 2013, 11:38 pm

Re: HAers vs. Mainstream Americans: Core Differences

Post by droid »

drealm is confusing "going their own way faking renounciation of women"
"going away to other locations to find better women"

Big difference. the latter obviously has nothing to do with MGTOW
1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?
Junior Poster
Posts: 637
Joined: March 26th, 2014, 5:42 pm

Re: HAers vs. Mainstream Americans: Core Differences

Post by IraqVet2003 »

I think I happen to have far more in common with HAer's than with most Mainstream Americans. I believe this is due to my life experience having grown up in a military environment. I am what sociologists call an adult TCK or Third Culture Kid. Also, I am a Military (Army) "brat" because my father had served in the U.S. Army. While growing up, I have lived in and moved to FIVE Army post; (I was born at the Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii) Schofield Barracks, Hawaii; Fort Campbell, Kentucky/Tennessee; Wildflecken, Germany; Fort Steward, Georgia; and Fort Wainwright, Alaska. During this time, I learned to be open-minded as was exposed to many different people, races, and in the case of Germany, another language and culture. In addition, I become open-mind due to the fact that in this military subculture, you and your friends or peers move every two, three, or four years so it is near impossible to maintain long-term close relationships. Therefore, you cannot be "cliquish" when looking for new friendships in a different place. Later, I myself would serve in the military both in the Air Force (1992-96) and the Army (2001-05). Plus one tour in Iraq in (2003). By the way it is a fact that less than 1% of the American population is currently serving in the armed forces.

The other reason why I think I can relate to most HAer's more than most mainstream Americans is because of my personality. In other words I consider myself to be a DEEP THINKER or an INTELLECTUAL. I'm constantly reading books and magazines on subjects relating to geography, politics, economics, sociology, current events (both on a national and international level), conspiracies, the military, HISTORY, etc. to keep my mind occupied. I later found out I have a high I.Q. of 127 (just many of you HAers do or greater). Also, I am a ARTIST who loves to draw detailed pictures of futuristic cities/buildings, fancy cars, military aircraft, etc. I believe I have a "photographic memory". Over the years I have noticed American culture is NOT an intellectual stimulating one nor does it encourage such things. To do so would be "thinking outside the box". I believe Winston is right in that American society is BUILT FOR DOING BUSINESS, NOT LIVING LIFE. I think these is true because of America's:

1.) LIVE-TO-WORK CULTURE/CAREERISM (no work-life balance in many jobs/barely any holidays off or only 2 weeks per year)
2.) HIGH COST-OF-LIVING (everything from rent, houses, gas, food, utilities, education/tuition, etc.)
3.) How many Americans interact with strangers or foreigners (such as for business purposes only or to ask directions)
5.) Lack of curiosity or knowledge of geography, current events, or world history (many Americans but not all)

Therefore, I think if I had a choice of what area of the world to live in, I would love to be in EUROPE verses America. Even though it too has a high cost of living in many areas. But, I would like to visit E.U. countries such as France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, The Netherlands, Italy, and Switzerland. Europe has a great deal of museums, art galleries, castles, ancient ruins (Greek and Roman Empires), cobble stone streets, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, high-speed trains, public squares,Formula F1 racing, LeManns, and nice beaches (along Southern Europe/Mediterranean). Not to mention the mostly slim, feminine, beautiful, intelligent, more open-minded and approachable women. There are even a good number of them that LOVE BLACK MEN from what I hear!!!

For those of you interested in understanding more about people who grew up in the military or overseas please check out following:

1.) MILITARY BRATS- Legacies of Childhood Inside the Fortress
by: Mary Edwards Wertsch

2.) THIRD CULTURE KIDS- Growing Up Among Worlds
by: David C. Pollock and Ruth E. Van Reken

3.) BRATS- Our Journey Home (Youtube)
by: A Donna Musil Film- The first Documentary About Growing Up Military
Experienced Poster
Posts: 1438
Joined: December 28th, 2013, 10:18 pm

Re: HAers vs. Mainstream Americans: Core Differences

Post by Wolfeye »

IraqVet2003: I know something about what you mean. I wasn't an army brat, but I grew up moving around a lot & a lot of people forged whatever friendships they had when they were in school (and I mean kindergarten or first grade, with some exceptions for middle school or high school). Was always fairly ecclectic when it came to information & was always wanting to continue on a subject only to get stalled. Things never really went beyond the introductory level & asking questions that were other than directly on the exact part of the subject being discussed was considered some kind of mental disorder. If someone (let's say a teacher) said that "this does that," then someone else asks "how?", then they tell that person that it has "this reaction" & then that person asks what "this reaction" is, they'd get pissed.

I also grew up with a lot of people that were army brats (or there was a lot of military in their family)- so the fights were interesting. I think you know what I'm talking about, ha ha! It's amazing to see how much of the military combatives/pankration/HEMA stuff is just street fighting with more accuracy. Isn't it odd how people won't give kids stuff because they figure that they might use it as a weapon & hurt other kids, yet they don't believe that someone would pick something up & use it at that young age? That's part of what was always a huge issue for me: people dictating instead of observing. There was no concept of just saying that something happened because that's what occurred.

Not to rub it in your face, but there was a whole war over shit that didn't exist. Why, then, would someone presume that they wouldn't get locked-up for a completely counterfactual weapons charge while in the country that waged that war? It's not really like accuracy is a big deal here. That causes some concerns & more than a few problems. If the aspects of the situation are not a factor in the assessment of it, then someone is only dealing with what is randomly directed at them & whatever attitude that comes along with it. This applies to more than just legal matters, of course. Here's a few I've been thinking about:

(1) Medical personnel maybe attack someone but don't designate it as such or maybe they just say something is safer or more effective than it actually is. In a climate where things are not called for what they are & situations are not assessed based on what they consist of, iatrogenic attack would be something that's much easier.
(2) Maybe someone's child is swept away somewhere by CPS because of false determinations based on inaccurate assessments at school- anything at all can be seen as a disorder which can be seen as the product of a bad home life or maybe the parent refused to put their child on potentially dangerous medication that may or may not be labeled as such.
(3) Someone loses their job/insurance/benefits because someone else didn't enter some of their information correctly. Maybe it doesn't get straightened-out because of this trait to be inaccurate.
(4) Maybe insurance says they'll pay for something, but doesn't. Maybe they don't get "moved on" like they theoretically would in this case. Hurricane Katrina ring any bells?
(5) Maybe various repair & maintenance projects fall through because somebody or a bunch of somebodies couldn't get their shit straight. Building materials, structural design, declaring something complete when it isn't, etc.... Am I the only one that figures the lights might not come on for quite some time if there's another disaster? Maybe they botch the response to that by acting like a general-purpose enemy?

Sure, bad luck can happen in other countries- I'm just making the point that this condition tends to CAUSE those things that would normally just be bad luck or an occassional screw-up & that if these situations DO happen to present themselves the effort is generally to counteract it, not accommodate it. That general theory of antithetical action ("make things worse to make things better") is of poor utility & it seems to actually be a sign of insanity. What's the idea? That there's going to be some usurpation of reality through intensity of action? Someone is going to do something so intensely that their actions generate the opposite result? Obviously, adding to a problem compounds it instead of reduces it.
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”