Boycott Google

Religion is to theism what ideology is to atheism.

If most religions, most of the time promoted or turned a blind eye to tyranny, so have most ideologies, most of the time.

There are some exceptions in both camps.

@Serendipper

I don’t want to eradicate anyone, I just want everyone to put in their fair share.

I don’t want to be a slave to the overclass, nor the underclass, feminazis and outgroups.

The process was half-guided, through sexual and social selection, and genes trying to maintain and replicate themselves, and half-unguided, through natural selection, and genetic mutations.

As for freewill, I have mixed thoughts about that, my thinking strongly leans determinism, but there may be room for freewill.

I don’t see it that way, I think it’s more of a libertarian thing to individuate or atomize people, the left must divide everyone into oppressor and oppressed groups, and if they can’t find enough, they’ll exaggerate or manufacture such groups into existence.

even after whites are extinct or a tiny minority in the Americas, which’s their objective, the left will say the Chinese are oppressing the Hindus, or the Hispanics the blacks, it never ends.

@Serendipper

If by right wing we mean corporatism, than yes, it’s right wing, it’s corporatists masquerading as socialists, but if by right wing you mean capitalism, than no, it’s not.
Most political parties who proclaim to be socialists and capitalists are in fact corporatists.

@Serendipper

Just like theists, most atheists submit to the soft tyranny in the 1st world and hard tyranny in the 3rd.

Both Hillbillies and Hippies are too libertarian (in the contemporary Anglo-American sense of the word) to accept hard tyranny, for now.

Protestantism is a fundamentally irreligious spiritual movement.

It allows for religion, but ultimately God/the bible is suppose to be the only spiritual authority over man, not other men.

Protestantism is to the church what libertarianism is to the state.

That’s why Protestantism has fragmented into dozens of major and thousands of minor branches, yet they all consider each other to be protestant, so long as they agree on a few core tenets of Christianity, whereas there’s only one Catholic and one Orthodox Church, and if you don’t adhere to 100% of its doctrines, you’re damned.

Many of them believe the pope is the anti-Christ because he believes he’s an authority, whereas there is no authority between man and God but Jesus in proper Protestantism.

Angela Merkel is mixed, like all heads of state in the west, you can find bits and pieces of theocracy, secularism, corporatism, capitalism, socialism, conservatism, libertarianism, progressivism, nationalism and globalism in her government.

Nazi = national socialist.

It’s degrees, not black/white like you think.

Most atheists want to disarm the people, pay their taxes and vote for heads of state who’re by and large corporatists like Hillary Clinton and Justin Trudeau, and where they are genuinely socialist, they’re pro-outgroup, underclass and women and anti-ingroup, middle class and men.

They don’t need religion, they’re indoctrinated by public education to not challenge the system, or to challenge it in a superficial way, like by dyeing their hair unnatural colors, body piercings and tattoos, or to challenge it in a divisive way, that pits working class, urban, outgroup women against middle class, suburban, ingroup men.

While it’s true many religions, much of the time, taught their followers to support the powers that be 1. so have many ideologies, after their followers believed they had been established 2. that can be a good thing, if the powers that be aren’t that bad, and the immediate alternatives are worse 3. not all religions, all of the time.

You could say Islam began as a rebellion against established powers, for better or worse, and some of Muhammad’s followers instituted proto-socialist and democratic reforms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_socialism

And spirituality and theism apart from religion is neutral regarding established powers, just as atheism is, and many irreligious spiritualists and theists fought against tyranny.

As I’ve said elsewhere, man (some more than others) has a tendency to worship entities, and if he doesn’t get his fix by worshipping God, he often turns to nation, or mankind.
We see this especially on the left, which tends to be more atheist (altho there’re many libertarian atheists, and some new age leftists), but we see it on the right too.
The left has a kind of faith in the goodness as well as in the technological prowess of humanity most religions lack.
The bible talks over and over again about man’s shortcomings.
Now sometimes it is the environment that is to blame, or some supposed evil has gotten an undeservedly bad rap, but not always or necessarily most of the time.

@Serendipper

And yet here we are, it’s nearly 2020, what has Jacque and his project accomplished in the last 50 years?
Can you show me one environmentally friendly, self-sustaining city, or even village? Where so long as 1 10th of 1% of the population voluntarily labors, 100% of the population eats?
Where there’s no need for government, for there’s no competition, all basic necessities are as accessible as air?
Show me one and I will happily join it, but until you do, I’ll remain skeptical such a dream can ever be realized in our lifetime, if ever.
Man can be such a greedy animal, that even if all valuables were as plentiful as air, I’m not sure it’d be enough to quell his competitive drives, tho it’d probably help.

Agreed.

I knew real unemployment was higher, but is it really that high?

I guess if you include children and retirees in ‘people not looking for work’ it is.

We can just make big business improve working conditions, raise wages (and perhaps reduce prices for essential goods) by externally regulating or nationalizing them, we don’t have to raise taxes to make welfare easier to get/pay more, than threaten to go on welfare if big business doesn’t improve working conditions, raise wages and reduce prices.

And if we make welfare easier to get/pay more, than some essential workers (that is, workers who provide everyone with essential goods) will quit, other essential workers won’t quit, and the ones who don’t quit will have to work harder to provide for everyone, which may prompt more of them to quit, until we all starve, but even if they don’t quit, why should they have to work harder, and longer (you may have to raise the workweek)?

Welfare or UBI is more authoritarian, you have to force some to work harder so others don’t have to work at all, in addition to taxing the rich.

If that were true, the rich would voluntarily share most of their riches with the poor.

Why would businesses reduce wages if it meant people couldn’t afford to consume their goods? And if wages and prices drop equally, than what’s the problem?
People will have less money, but goods will cost less too, so they’ll still be able to afford them. Why would wages drop more than prices?

And again, we can always reduce the workweek so prices and wages remain about the same, and everyone works.

Nonsense.

We set wages now.

No, I’m a proponent of national democratic socialism, not communist dictatorship.

@Serendipper

I remember a socialist once told me that in the middle ages 99% of people had to farm so 100% of people could eat, and that now, thanks to advances in automation and energy production, only 1% of people had to farm so 100% of people could eat.

However, what he overlooked was, people specialize more now than they did then, which’s also contributed to our increased productivity.
Sure, way back then 99% of people had to farm, but 99% of people also had to make their own soap, clothes, etcetera, everyone had to do almost everything for themselves and their families.
So now, only 1% of the population has to farm (not to mention distribute and prepare our food), but that 1% that farms doesn’t make our soap, another 1% has to do that, but that 1% that makes our soap doesn’t make our clothes, another 1% has to do that, and so on.

So while advances in production would have made our lives easier, if it weren’t for capitalists failing to increase wages, I think our productivity has been grossly exaggerated by some radical socialists and communists in order to make it seem like only 1% of the population has to work.
No many, if not most of the people that work now, still have to work, and everyone that can should share in that work.

When necessary, I think the scientific community can often be herded by the deep state in the same way all of us and our institutions are herded: just throw money in the direction you want them to go in.
Give money to the so called ‘debunkers’ and ‘skeptics’ (misnomers, in truth they’re denialists) to publicly reprimand, ridicule, shame and slander dissidents.
Give money to academic admin to cut off their funds or expel them.
If you can’t buy someone, buy someone else who can ruin their life.

So you concede that the atheist hitler went to great lengths to pretend to be christian for the purpose of committing atrocity. Well that’s even worse because it displays just how necessary religion is.

How do you know that? Did you take an exhaustive poll?

And the burden of admitting you’re wrong is on you.

I grew up christian, but I grew out of it just recently. I was indoctrinated conservative capitalist by dad, then was an employer and small business owner myself where I practiced it, then changed my mind thanks to the internet enabling me to research. Now you tell me I’m blind to the folly of my side, I’m polarized, and my worldview is simplistic?

The sheep are on the right.

Rightwing / Leftwing
Religion / nonreligion
Authoritarianism / Democracy
Claims of knowing absolute truth (objectivism) / Relativism
Consolidations of power and wealth / Dispersal of power and wealth.

I’ll concede there are some goofy leftists who disregard evidence to advance a worldview that seems virtuous, but that ethos doesn’t encapsulate the party.

I was christian for at least 20 years and was on my way to becoming a preacher. When I was 20, I filled 2 church pews with my friends.

Me too. The only difference since getting away from the faith is that I no longer try to be good because it’s right, but because it’s sensible. Having integrity just made me hate people who didn’t have it. I went on about that a year ago here viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193887&p=2698622#p2695431

Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Right, it’s the idea that you are a defect. The church institutionalized guilt.

No he damned them to hell and they crucified him for it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X-ZdkW9rt4[/youtube]

Jesus divides people into good and bad, sheep and goats, wheat and tares. The wheat goes into the barn and the tares into the oven. When you start thinking this way, you’re equipped to commit atrocities in the name of good.

Hitler didn’t like the homosexuality and sexual immorality that the jews brought to germany. Germany was a homosexual paradise before Hitler came along.

Keep in mind that Jesus wasn’t even real. His words have been added to. Like the story of the woman caught in adultery where Jesus said “let he who is without sin cast he first stone.” That was added late, which means someone just made it up because it was how they wanted to portray him. And the scribes didn’t give a shit about accuracy; they just wrote whatever, and no one could read anyway, so it didn’t matter.

King James tried to hammer it all together, but that was 1600 years after the facts.

Jesus was just another in a long list of anthropomorphized sun gods.

Growth is measured by the extent to which one has outgrown their childhood indoctrination.

Religion is something practiced. Ideology is something discovered by reason and held until a reason changes it.

For instance I don’t consider myself a relativist, but if it helps convey necessary information quickly, then you can think about me that way. Iow, I’m not allied with relativists, I don’t pledge allegiance to them, I don’t consider them a group, and I don’t really even think about it at all. But when I was a christian, I identified as a christian and I was allied with christians and was ready to pledge allegiance.

Taxing the rich to pay for the poor would likely never affect you, except that it might raise your wages and make society a healthier, smarter, and happier place.

But you need to punish the lazy.

Sexual selection is a natural process. There is no one who determined what primitive humans should consider sexy in order to advance the species in the right direction.

I don’t think one can exist without the other.

The only reason whites are being oppressed is that they’re uneducated and proud of it.

The point isn’t that a utopia can be created, the point is that servitude can be eliminated. It could have been 40 years ago.

How can you agree without suffering cognitive dissonance? If drudgery is unnecessary, then how can anyone be compelled to do it?

There are 150 million tax returns filed and 330,000,000 people, so I don’t know how to divide the numbers, but the rate would be closer to 50% than 5%.

It’s not more authoritarian than taxation now (or ever) and it’s not compelling anyone to work harder or softer or compelling anyone to do anything except pay a % of their profits back into the system. Other than that, they’re free to do what the hell ever: get a job, don’t get a job, get rich, live in mom’s basement, go to school, jump off a bridge, whatever.

Well, if communism ever happens, it will happen of its own volition. Communism can never ever be instituted by force before technology ushers it in naturally. Scarcity and communism cannot coexist. That’s why Marx put communism in the WAY distant future (like star trek).

Wages will plummet because people are willing to work for less because they’re starving because you cutoff their welfare.

Wages drop because of hunger and prices drop because lack of demand. That’s not a good thing. Innovation would also slow to a crawl.

Wages are a function of people’s willingness to work. Prices are a function of people’s willingness to buy. I don’t know which will drop more.

They’ll just pay less for the shorter week.

How else do you expect companies to hire people to make stuff that no one has the money to buy?

The minimum? That’s $7.25. I don’t call that “setting wages”. A bump up to $15, I would.

Well, setting prices, wages, forcing companies to hire, and generally micromanaging the economy is essentially what the communist dictators tried to do.

Sending everyone money would not prevent any work from being done; it would only remove the compulsion to do it. It would also raise wages and, because of that, would also raise prices (since people have more money to spend).

I don’t think you’re that concerned about the economic mechanics and it’s more about punishing people who don’t choose to contribute to the profits of the elites, which for some reason you view as noble.

You know, a few generations ago is was a shame to work for another person because it meant you couldn’t stand on your own and were relegated to prostituting yourself at a fraction of what you’re worth (because you’d be a helper, an apprentice, an underclassman of some sort). Then somewhere in the midst of the industrial revolution it became fashionable to regard your worth by who you work for and we lost the shame of it and the pride of self-reliance. Now it’s about who you serve. People who work at the biggest factory in town are like an aristocracy of sorts who command addition credit for loans and other favors simply because they happen to work for a reputable place. It’s less about who they are and more about who they serve.

@Serendipper

Some religions and ideologies make it easier to commit atrocities, others make it more difficult.
Christianity belongs to the latter, it has to be heavily distorted to help commit atrocities, otherwise if anything it helps prevent them.
That’s why Hitler, like the communists, ultimately wanted to destroy Christianity, so he wouldn’t have to waste time and energy trying to distort its teachings, but the Germans were not yet ready to part with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-Bundle1-1

You did a 180, not a 90, not a 135, a 180.
In all our posts, you’ve had (virtually) nothing positive to say about conservatism and conservatives, it’s been (very nearly) 100% negative.
Religion can be like alcohol, one often doesn’t relinquish it so much as replace it with another substance/faith.

I don’t really see it like that.

If the left has less faith in God, they have more faith in man.

In theory the left want to play at Robin Hood, they want to rob from the rich and give to the poor (or alternatively from the least intersectionalized member of the working class to the most intersectionalized member of the working class), and regardless of how (ig)noble this cause is, it’s still authoritarianism, unless you try to radically redefine liberty and property, which many leftists try to do, but in practice the left often ends up looking more like communist dictatorship or corporatism than democratic socialism.

In ethics, the left is more absolutist about what kinds of ends it considers good, whereas the right (or at least libertarians in the modern Anglo-American sense of the word) is more absolutist about what kinds of means it considers evil.

Dispersal of wealth isn’t good, if it helps the harmful at the expense of the helpful.

Sounds like many on the left took inspiration from him.
Jesus wanted to exterminate the Pharisees (not ordinary Jews), or the conservatives of his day too, for very similar reasons.

While the bible is far from 100% internally consistent, whoever Jesus was, whether he was fictional, or flesh and blood, charity and forgiveness were at the very core of much of what he said and did, not a mere afterthought.

So now we can see why Hitler, who’s MO was to enslave, experiment on and exterminate the weak, thought it necessary to ultimately crucify Jesus a second time psychically and spiritually in Nazi Germany, and replace him with atheism, or some kind of Darwinian-Nietzschean Germanic neopaganism.

Averagely speaking, parents care far more about their children’s life, liberty (physical and psychic) and happiness than the state does.

An ideology can be arrived at by way of reason, or emotion, fashion, tradition, or all of the above, you name it.

Communists, socialists, syndicalists, democrats, liberals, progressives, anarchists, antifa, BLM, feminists, vegans and so on groupthink.

Anyway you slice it, the rest of society will have to, not only pay more tax, but work harder.
I want to make things fairer, not differently unfair.
We shouldn’t tax employees to pay for the voluntarily unemployed, and if employers are paying employees a fair wage, than they shouldn’t be taxed either.
Some shouldn’t have to worker harder to feed, clothe and take care of society because others won’t pull their weight.
I don’t just want a more equal distribution of money, I want a more equal distribution of work.

Yes, how diabolical of me.

Altho genes play a major role in determining us, I’m not a genetic reductionist, our genes are dynamic and help determine our (sub)conscious behavior, and our (sub)conscious behavior, including sexual, is dynamic and helps determine our genes.
Our culture and environment shapes us, but we in turn shape our culture and environment, it’s a two way street.

even liberal whites supposedly have white privilege and are racist, I’m not making this stuff up, believe me I really wish I was, I couldn’t even if I tried:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWoC90bbsdo[/youtube]

Servitude can’t be eliminated, either it can be equal, fair, unequal or unfair.

The job of the machine is to reduce drudgery as much as possible, but in 2019 and the foreseeable future, drudgery is still necessary.

Okay, let’s say we improve working conditions and increase wages to make them fair, whatever we as a society decide fair is, which’s what we should do.

Let’s say 25% of people provide superfluous goods (and services) for everyone, and 25% of people provide necessary goods for everyone.

Now if 12.5% of the people that provide superfluous goods for everyone, and 12.5% of the people that provide necessary goods for everyone, quit, and live off UBI or go on welfare, what does that entail?

That entails either the 12.5% of people that still provide necessary goods for everyone will have to work twice as hard, or the 12.5% of people that still provide superfluous goods for everyone has to quit their current job, so they can replace the 12.5 of people that no longer provide necessary goods for everyone, which means there’ll be no superfluous goods for everyone to consume.

It also means employers, who’re no longer exploiting blue collar workers thanks to the minimum wage increase reducing, but not entirely eliminating disparity, will now be overtaxed to pay for UBI or welfare, de-incentivizing them in the process.

Agreed.

Okay.

So if wages fall less than prices, it’ll be a good thing for workers and consumers, and if wages and prices fall equally, it’ll be a neutral thing.
So it could be a neutral or even a good thing, so why’re you worried?

They can’t really, because we’ve increased the minimum wage, and we’ll continually adjust for inflation.

Or they might not lower wages in the first place, because they know it’ll just mean people won’t be able to buy their goods.

I just want to increase the minimum, not set every wage, altho perhaps we should lower the minimum wage small businesses have to pay.

Prices are secondary, wages are primary, if it gets too complicated, we don’t have to set prices.
And I only wanted to set them for food and housing.
And I wanted to set them higher for big food and housing than small.
We could also nationalize or unionize big food and housing, and run them more in the interests of workers, consumers and residents.
Just an idea, but the main thing is wages.

One more thing about prices, I wanted to have maximum prices for foods and housing, so businesses could charge whatever they want so long as they don’t exceed them.

I don’t see why my plan has to entail that.

Every dictator who wanted to eliminate Christianity always wanted to plug something else into the hole.

It’s no trouble to distort christianity as people do it daily and have been for centuries. I can make the bible say anything you want. Remember Jonestown? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

He said those latter things near his death. Most of his life, like me, was spent as a christian. How come he never stopped paying the church tax? Why didn’t he stop going to confession? I’ve only been out of Christianity maybe a year or two. Maybe historians will argue whether or not I was a Christian. If they do, then they’re both right.

He wrote a book before he rose to power, without knowing that he would rise to power, and in that book he said he was a Christian. I wrote a post in the past saying I was a Christian and at the time I was. Same with Hitler.

I’m aspiring to a solid 100% negative :wink:

Yes, true, we must be on guard about that.

What’s the difference?

Reminds me of the question: Do you have more faith in god or science. I thought the question should be: Do you have more faith in faith or science? Faith has two meanings. I have more confidence in science than faith.

No, authoritarianism is controlling the population based on the opinion of the elites. P is controlled by E.
Democracy elects representatives to control the population based on the opinions of the population. P is controlled by P.

E is the authoritarian. Authoritarianism is top-down. Democracy is bottom-up.

I bitched to dad that hillbilly republicans want to tax tv now. He said NY democrats tax soda. I said there’s a difference: the dems tax unhealthy things to discourage their use and fund education; the right taxes innocent things to be fair to corporations. One is noble (though misguided) and the other is malicious. He hasn’t responded yet and is probably has his head in a hole.

The right is authoritarian. The left is not. P cannot be authoritarian to itself. Only E can be authoritarian: the church, fascists, communist dictators, corporations, etc.

“Helpful” here having the meaning of assisting the slave system. If you’re a good little minion, we’ll let you live. If you protest servitude, you’re a disease to be eradicated. You’re definitely WAY on the right next to Hitler and Stalin.

Any jew who didn’t believe he was their king (god) and still clung to the Law of Moses. Hmm… that sounds familiar.

No it was carefully worded to achieve the goal they wanted.

No, he was more like you who hates the poor and: neutered them, enslaved them, and killed them. The only difference in you two is that he actually did it and you wish you could.

They may care marginally more, but are far less equipped to raise a child.

If we’re concerned about an endangered species, the last thing we’d do is leave the species in the hands of the mother, but take total control of the situation with all of academia’s knowledge brought to bear.

Leaving kids in the hands of well-intentioned idiots only breeds more idiots (myself the fortunate exception). How many people are able to escape their childhood indoctrinations such that they can truly “choose this day whom ye shall serve”? I probably align closer with Hitler on this who recognized that parents have no clue how to raise a kid. Spreading legs in the back of a camaro does not qualify one to be a mother.

Nope. I’ve been through the numbers on this. Raise taxes on the top, cut taxes on the middle, institute negative tax on the bottom. Most people are better off than before.

But the point I really want to highlight here is that even though my plan involves a taxcut for any class you could ever aspire to inhabit, and raise your wages, and increase the health and education of society, you STILL wouldn’t go along with it because the principle has been completely overlooked, which is to make the poor suffer; that’s all you care about and that’s all the Right cares about. Just like the baby video showed that the kid was willing to take less tokens for himself if it meant the other kid gets even less.

You will make your own life harder just to make the poor suffer.

Your definition of fair is who licks the most boots gets the rewards. Ones who refuse to lick boots gets no reward.

“Fair wage” here has the meaning of a wage determined by the most desperate worker underbidding all others.
“Fair wage” here does NOT mean a fair division of the value of the final product. Nor does “fair” mean that the employee agreed to any such divisions, but the terms are “fairly” shoved down his throat.

Yes, get to work licking those boots you feckless maggots! :orcs-whip:

Oh goodie… a corner for everyone to stand on.

Indeed.

Sure, but who shaped the environment to specifically favor white people? Who said, “We need to rally together to shape our environment to favor the white humanoids. This must be teleological because if left to chance, blacks might become smarter and we can’t have that!” Like I said, no one gets any credit.

I can’t imagine that’s prolific.

What has people pissed is the arrogant old white men who think they can, for example, tax tv in order to be fair to corporations. Old white men are being replaced by brown women all across the country because what they lack in brains they more than make up for in having heart and consideration. That’s a trade I’d make any day. It’s a standing offer: I’ll trade 1 redneck for 10 mexicans. All day, every day. Good riddance!

Now, you can shove your head in a hole in refusal to see my point or continue thinking it’s irrational white guilt like the video you posted. It really makes no difference to me since I’m just doing you the favor of cluing you in.

I don’t feel guilty for slavery, but I can’t stand those arrogant codgers thinking everything is common sense. Zero to do with guilt.

What evidence do you have to support the assertion that servitude cannot be eliminated? What? Because machines are making so much more work to do? That by the year 3000 we will be working 24 hrs a day because of such scarcity? Pft.

Friedman visited one of those statist countries back in the 70s and said “Why not replace all those shoveling workers with a machine?” The reply was, “Well, we’re not really trying to accomplish anything but to provide jobs.” Friedman replied, “In that case, why not give them spoons to shovel with?”

The point of jobs is not to provide jobs, but to do a job. Once the job is done, it’s done. Everyone can go home now. We don’t have to work just because you say so because we need some justification for our handouts. 90% of the jobs done are just digging holes and filling them in so that people can suffer for money. That’s what it’s all about.

But each year, less than before. Tick tock the countdown to a scarcity of scarcity. How will you make people suffer when machines have taken every job? There is no job that a machine can’t do. Machines can even do artistic work like writing music, painting.

How are you going to do that? “Let’s say”? That’s dictation. You cannot dictate wages higher. The only way to raise wages is to increase welfare. Give people more options so the corps have to compel them to work.

I’ve asked oodles of people if they would quit their job if the gov sent $10k per year whether they work or not. Only one woman said yes because that’s more than she gets now and would rather stay home with her kids. Everyone else would work and get the UBI.

I know a woman who has to work with the flu (food service no less, spreading it to the customers) because if she doesn’t, she’ll lose her job. But with the UBI, she could tell her employer to suck it since if she loses her job, she doesn’t starve. And since every other employee can also say that, then the employer would have to be more considerate of people. UBI adds to the power of people.

Prices can only fall because people do not have enough money to spend. Well, competition and automation also lowers prices, but this wouldn’t happen in response to elimination of welfare. In response to no welfare, demand would fall off a cliff and prices would follow. Wages would then follow prices down the abyss and who can tell which would be lower.

Then everyone will get the minimum and no raises. Or they’ll move to another country.

Companies usually fire people when sales start to drop. Then their stock shoots up because of the elimination of employees. The insiders sell out before sales drop more and the company files bankruptcy.

I agree.

It seems much easier to regulate the amount of welfare and the minimum wage. Everything else will be in response to that in a free market.

I don’t think price caps work either. I haven’t researched it, but just took it for granted.

I think you’ll be pushed into micromanaging since every meddling will require more fixing.