Boycott Google

Because blacks, Hispanics and Muslims love liberal democracy, that’s why Africa, southcentral America and the middle east are shining beacons of liberal democracy.

Keep dreaming.

According to google, 2% of the total population, or 4% of the employed population, since only 50% of the population is employed, is involved in agricultural production, and while the average American could stand to lose 10 pounds and eat at home more, that doesn’t even include food distribution and prep.
So close to 5% produce, distribute and prep our food, that’s 1 out of 20 working people.
Do you really think the remaining 19 are digging ditches with spoons?
Sure, many of them are, but certainly not all of them.
Many of them are manufacturing and distributing our clothes, houses, computers, phones, furniture, appliances, vehicles and so on, educating, medicating and protecting us, electricians, mechanics and plumbers, and while we could certainly cut back on some of these things and most of the banking, bureaucracy and service industries, it’s not as if the vast majority of jobs are meaningless, luxuries or stuff no one benefits from.
I think we produce and consume way too much, but it’s absurd to think only 0.1, or 1% of the population has to work.
And as long as there’s some work to be done, it should be divvied up in some way.

What does it matter if the average wage pays 1 10th of 1 penny an hour, if the average meal costs 1 10th of 1 penny?
Just introduce new units when needed e.g. a jenny is worth 1 10th of a penny.
A kenny is worth 1 100th, a lenny 1 1000th…

Stalin and Mao managed. Pol Pot. If you want to say that many fo those the rallied were not atheists, the rallying and the ralliers did not use any appeal related to God. And the elites would not hesitate to cull for secular reasons.

It’s an argument from ignorance: because I can’t think of a way to rally atheists together to commit atrocities. All conditions for atrocities are antipodal to atheist attributes. It’s also an argument from ignorance that elephants can’t fly. Perhaps they can, but characteristics conducive for flying are antipodal to elephant attributes.

Yes but Dear Leader is god in those asian places.

Why would you obey an order to go torture and kill some poor peasants if the guy in charge didn’t have the powers of god and you were acting righteously? All those dictators were to be considered gods and all we’re narcissists having statues unto themselves, banning speech against themselves, and generally punishing those who don’t praise them, just like yahweh does. Authoritarianism is an old model.

Well apparently 10s of millions were following him, so they were the problem and not mao. If I walk off a bridge and you follow me, is it my fault or yours? If I tell you to kill 10 million people, are you going to obey me? Why not think for yourself? Mao was one guy. Everyone could have laughed at him and told him to get bent, but they didn’t because he was their savior.

The first thing religion does is attack other religions. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

And human nature is to create gods.

The religion of the dictator is irrelevant. What’s relevant is the religion of the people. It would be a cinch to get the conservative robots of the religious right to all band together and obey orders, but you couldn’t orchestrate liberals to do anything except show up late and blow off responsibility, among 100 other attributes that interfere with committing atrocities.

You may get mugged in a city, but that’s not an atrocity. The election of Trump was an atrocity to poor wrought by the hands of the religious rurals. City folks would never do that. City folks ended slavery by kicking the inbred southern bumpkins’ asses.

Because he said he was in his own book, hello! And in scores of speeches. It wasn’t until 15-20 years later that he had anything bad to say of religion.

It’s much more likely that he started out christian and lost the faith like I did. It’s less likely that he wrote a book in 1925 with the prescience needed to know that he’d better lie and pretend to be the christian in order to become the fuhrer one day and then continue the facade until 1941 when he finally let the cat out of the bag. He truly believed god saved him in ww1 for a purpose.

Where is the evidence of that?

Then it’s not reasonable for you to have faith in your own statement.

Faith isn’t overestimation, but simply confidence.

That seems reasonable.

I’m not nice to jerks because I have faith in the goodness of man, but because it’s the only way to break the cycle.

FIFY

All is fair in love, war, and laissez faire markets. I still don’t see your complaint. If I were a corp, I wouldn’t want ANY laws impeding my progress of taking 100% of the money on earth. Having ALL the money is winning the game, right?

Dems don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class. That’s republicans who insist that if the rich are taxed, then it’s only fair that everyone else be taxed. Dems compromise with republicans.

If taxes were zero, money would instantly flow to the top and the economy would crash. So, just to maintain equilibrium there needs to be progressive taxation; therefore progressive taxation is actually neutral taxation. And therefore taxation less than neutral is regressive. The republican’s job is easy: just make the progressive taxation less than neutral and money is transferred quietly and surreptitiously to the top with no one being the wiser. Only a handful of people on the planet seem smart enough to see that, and most are nobel laureates.

Macron is a conservative wearing a socialist label (like Hitler was super-ultra-hardcore conservative under the socialist banner).

[i]Macron… later became an investment banker at Rothschild & Cie Banque.

where he pushed through business-friendly reforms.

The budget replaced the wealth tax with one targeting real estate, fulfilling Macron’s campaign pledge to scrap the wealth tax.[/i] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_ … mic_policy

So, he cut taxes on the rich and raised taxes on the poor. That’s a conservative.

Maybe, but republicans are vastly more so.

Merely being educated in something trains people to exercise their brains which should also help them make better political decisions and decisions in general.

Are you for some reason neurologically unable to understand that employment is slavery??? I mean, what’s the impediment? I don’t understand why this is so hard for you to get your head around (once you pull it from the sand).

Here, watch Chomsky make a fool of this guy (read the comments; they get it.)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6QAqU2KpaY[/youtube]

Your argument for wage-slavery was an actual argument proposed by George Fitzhugh in order to defend chattel-slavery. Talk about ironic! The system we have now was considered so terrible that it was an actual argument for the continuation of slavery.

Whether or not wage-slavery is better or worse than chattel-slavery is beside the point of you forcing people into slavery and patting yourself on the back in celebration of your righteousness for the noble deed of helping corps enslave your fellow man for their own profit. Such theistic loyalty and divine devotion you have to your masters that you’d take a whip to the backs of the poor no differently than if you were serving Mao or Stalin. “Get to work you lazy bums!” :teasing-whipyellow:

You see how conservatives and religion go hand in hand?

If you are not distributing money from the rich to the poor, then you are helping the rich to get richer.

Then who will they exploit? If everyone is a boss, who are the workers? Just like trading stocks, not everyone can make money because money flows from one person to another.

You want to make slaves of them by forcing them into positions where slavery is their only choice. I want to free them to pursue whatever they want.

Just make conservativism unconstitutional and that will end it forever. Forbid the rich from serving in government and end campaign contributions.

If you end welfare, there will be millions of extra people competing for jobs. Employers will simply pay under the table, $5/hr and the people will be happy to find any job. Or they will move overseas. Or they will fold their tents and forget it because there is no way you can expect companies to pay $30/hr for $15/hr in productivity. Not only is there no profit, but it’s a huge loss.

Better to hand out welfare with no min wage and then everyone will sit at home until wages rise to the point that they are compelled by money to voluntarily work. Easy peasy. Everyone is happy, sales are robust, profits are high, wages are high, prices are high, interest rates are high (just like from 1930-1980). The only one unhappy is you because you won’t be able to stand it that someone is getting something for nothing.

UBI is coming and you’ll probably live to see it.

So, a retarded girl has a baby and because she’s genetically similar, she knows more than the combined knowledge of everyone on earth about how to raise her child? Most people don’t know much of anything, let alone how to raise a kid.

Yeah just park the kid in front of a video game and go to work for those high wages. Yeah, raising kids is easy as growing weeds; there’s nothing to know.

Yes a dictatorship where the dictator consults the popular opinion of the people. “Hey people, do you think we need a law mandating parents attend compulsory parenting education? Yes or no?” If the people say yes, then I start dictating. Problem?

We force kids to go to school, so why not parents?

I think the US had a lot to do with that. Anytime anyone starts to get a little prosperity, we smack them back down again in order to retain global control.

The only thing america is a model of is the virtues of having two vast oceans on either side.

Condense it to one farm and increase efficiency. Gardening can only be for fun because there is no way to compete on a small scale with the big industrial farmers.

Yep

Those aren’t anything that have to be eliminated, but eliminate what we can and then send people $10k per year. If you can live on that, great, but if you’d prefer a better life, then perhaps become an electrician. We could do this right now, today.

There is no job a robot can’t take. None, zip, nada.

Check it out: willrobotstakemyjob.com/

Offered to volunteers who want to work for extra money.

It doesn’t matter. Price should be in terms of hours-worked. 100 years ago a person had to work 10 hours for 100lbs of sugar. Today it’s only 1 hour. Another 100 years it will be 6 min (assuming linearity).

But how price is determined is not the issue, but the fact that people will be out of work and that is the reason prices will fall: because no one has money to buy anything.

Why does the Federal Reserve aim for 2 percent inflation over time? federalreserve.gov/faqs/economy_14400.htm

The simple answer is if prices are not rising, it means people are broke.

Price is determined by supply and demand. If prices fall, then it either means supply is too high or demand is too low or both. Why would demand be low? People are broke.

Ok, let’s say Pol Pot is the god ruler and you find yourself in a rice patty torturing and killing peasants. Why do you suppose you’d be doing that?

@Serendipper

Really?
I can think of several.

Atheists don’t necessarily have common attributes, they necessarily have a common attribute, they believe God doesn’t exist.
Other than that they’re not necessarily different than theists.
It’s like you’re trying to turn atheists into a different species (homo-atheist).

Belief in a supreme being doesn’t necessitate belief in the superiority of some men over others, in fact, next to a supreme being, all mortals may appear equally insignificant.

I’ve never met this group of lions before, perhaps they won’t bite me, I shan’t be prejudice.

Or a mere mortal who happens to be (one of) the strongest, wisest man (or men) in the country, not necessarily supernaturally so, and in a position of power and authority.

Sometimes atheist Asian peasants rebel against atheist Asian dictators.
They wouldn’t do so if they believed they were anything more than men, unless they believed they were devils, which’s the other side of the theist coin.
If God exists, than so too does the devil, and if God isn’t on the kings side, than the devil is, which means he must be overthrown, whereas atheists may be more lukewarm about such things, as there exists neither supreme good, nor evil for them.

Firstly, do soldiers in the mafia follow the caporegime because they think he’s righteous or doing God’s work?
Do the peasants they’re extorting?

Secondly, the self-righteous atheist army may follow the self-righteous atheist dictator into battle because they believe he’s, well, righteous, and he has sufficiently dehumanized whatever group they mean to vanquish (death to archaic, homo-hillbillius!).

See what I mean about progressive’s faith in man?
They blame the environment, guns or religion instead of man collectively and individually.
Conservatives may be irrational for believing in the divines, but at least they have fewer illusions about man.

Yes, 100s of millions of atheists and apatheistic Buddhists/Daoists.
Some of them believed he was their savior, but others were just terrified of him and his regime, or believed they could gain power over others by submitting to him.

Before atheistic communism: Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism and CFR (Chinese folk religion) lived together in peace and harmony.
I wouldn’t impose my occidental, or modern for that matter conception of religion on the east, or antiquity if I were you.
All religions were welcome in Rome, save Christians, Manicheans and a few others for they were exclusivist.

And as I said earlier, the ancient Greeks and Romans were steeped in religion, yet they practically invented (representative) democracy.
For 5 centuries Romans had a constitution of sorts, elections, liberty, property, welfare and even something like democrats and republicans (known as populares and optimates).
Blood would run in the streets should one or both of Rome’s two consuls (Rome’s equivalent of president and prime minister) declared themselves to be a God.
After the collapse of the republic it took generations of orientalization for Roman emperors to dawn the purple toga (the color of Roman priests), never mind declare themselves to be a God, Julius Caesar didn’t dare!

Yes, it’s human nature to create, and destroy Gods, and humans.

Not American conservatives, they believe in their God given constitution, in life, liberty and property (as they conceive them), it’d be difficult for any would be dictator to get them to forsake their values.

Unless they continue down this path of radicalization and dehumanizing the right that they’re on.

Trump hasn’t committed any atrocities, he’s just another jester in a long line of both republican, and democratic jesters.
Not good, but not especially evil like Hitler or Stalin.

When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, he wasn’t some apolitical philosopher like Schopenhauer or Nietzsche who had the luxury to say whatever he pleased, he was the leader of the Nazi party and in prison for unsuccessfully staging a coup.
He knew he had to hold his tongue, and pen when speaking and writing publicly about certain sensitive topics like his thoughts about Christianity if he wanted to be Fuhrer one day.

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

https://www.historyonthenet.com/hitlers-religion

The swastika itself was an occult pagan symbol.

Look into it, occult paganism and the third Reich.

It’s never, intrinsically reasonable to have faith in anything, faith and reason are antonyms, altho I suppose it can be extrinsically reasonable.
I don’t have faith in my statement, I know it to be the case.

I’m not sure if progressives are more reasonable than conservatives, they’re less superstitious, but more naïve in other ways.
Libertarians are the most reasonable of the three in at least one regard: they’re more apprehensive about resorting to authoritarianism, intimidation and violence to get their point across.
Progressive’s don’t seem to be as aware of the fallibility and corruptibility of government, human nature, psychology, sociology and science.
They always seem to believe technocratic utopia is right around the corner.

Flat and regressive taxes and some laws help big business at the expense of small business and workers.
Real capitalists want to remove such taxes and laws, altho I will concede merely removing them is woefully inadequate, but still no or low flat taxes are better than high flat or regressive taxes.

Spin it any way you like, anything to keep dems from having to take responsibility, we know many or most of them shirk away from it as much as they can.
Meanwhile I’m holding them both accountable.

As I said near the beginning of this thread, the working and middle class shouldn’t be taxed at all, whereas the upperclass should be progressively taxed, the lower upperclass should be taxed 10-50%, and the upper, upper class 50-90%.

There’s different schools of conservative economic thought, ranging from capitalism (no or low flat taxation) to corporatism (high flat or regressive taxation), to a mixed economy with capitalist, corporatist and socialist components (progressive taxation).

If you want real socialism, you’ll have to think and vote outside the republicrat box.

The right kind of education will help.

Insofar as it’s an unnecessary evil, big business should be nationalized and/or syndicated, but insofar as it’s a necessary evil, we should all partake in it, some shouldn’t work a lot more, so others don’t work at all.

Are you neurologically incapable of understanding that money all by itself doesn’t produce a thing and is worthless, that it should be thrown in the furnace to keep warm???
If millions of people quit their job and live off UBI, millions of people will have to be incentivized to work much harder to take care of them, and it’ll be harder to incentivize them because there will be less luxuries for them to consume, to the point where more and more of them may quit, resulting in a chain-reaction/domino-effect culminating in economic collapse and mass starvation, but even if the economy doesn’t collapse, it’s unfair for those who choose to work to be burdened by those who choose not to.

Furthermore, it’s not as if all jobs are wage slavery, there’s also the self-employed and small businesses, and small businesses aren’t really exploitative for they’re normally not making a hell of a lot more than their employees, and they’re heavily involved in working themselves or managing, whereas big business owners are obscenely wealthy and typically far removed from production and management.

There’s more than one way to redistribute money, UBI is not the only one.

For example, I just came up with what I’m calling CBI (conditional basic income).
Government could tax the rich and give an additional 20 grand to every employed and involuntarily unemployed person, but 0 to the voluntarily unemployed.
Or government could double your income, so for e.g. if you make 20 grand a year, government will give you an additional 20 grand, or if you’re making 80 grand a year, government will give you an additional 80 grand.

The market will correct itself.
As people make and invest more, they’ll have to work less, as they work less, stocks will fall, compelling many of them back to work.
It’s best if we all have some stake in the economy, so we all have to work a little, than if some of us have a ton and don’t have to work at all, and some of us have none and have to work a ton.

No you want to trade one group of parasites for another, I want to do away with parasites altogether.

Agreed.

Well I guess we need a license to buy groceries, drink beer, have sex, marry or do just about anything in your world for that matter.
Going to need an awful lot of laws, resources, taxes and micromanagement for all that.
No I just want to improve wages and working conditions, that’s it, and maybe have optional government backed courses for some things if the people want them, but not obligatory.

The vast majority of girls aren’t retarded, and know how to take care of their kids better than the state.
If someone is legally retarded, below 70 iQ and dependent on government, than sure, it will be necessary for the state to intervene, but even then it should be minimal.

No most parents value their kids more than anything.
Moms and even dads will stay home if they can.
It’s low wages that force both of them to work full time and leave their kids with their grandparents or shitty daycare.

If people are that dumb, than we can’t even trust them to know how dumb they are, or elect the right person to educate them, they will just elect a tyrant who will use the pretense of education to enslave them.

Besides wages stagnating while prices soar, people are alright.
Seriously what’s wrong with people?
They just need help fighting mega-banks and corporations, other than that they’re fine, far from perfect, but not in dire straights.
I’m much more apprehensive about the so called experts.
I say let the free market decide how important the experts are to people.
They will have plenty of money to consult them if need be under my plan.

And I’d like to do away with compulsory education.
Parents can teach kids to read, write and arithmetic, and kids can teach themselves about anything else they want to learn via the internet.
education should be free, or dirt cheap, but voluntary.

They followed the atheist for many reasons people follow leaders. The leaders have power. The leaders control the army and police. The leaders control the education system which tells people who deserves to lead - directly or implicitly. IOW there is no need for theism in any of that.

@Serendipper

I don’t want to takeover small businesses, I don’t care how inefficient many of them are, I want more variety and middleclass ownership and management of the economy.

I’d rather have CBI (conditional basic income), where the employed and involuntarily unemployed get an additional 20 grand a year, and the voluntarily unemployed get 0.

Man goes through periods of innovation, followed by periods of stagnation.
For example I think the early 20th century was more innovative than the early 21st.
Other than computers, the internet and phones, what’s starkly changed in the last few decades that we use daily?
We were told in the mid 20th century we’d have flying cars by now.
Not only do we not have them, but cars today aren’t that much different than cars a few decades ago.
Concerning the automobile, we seem to have reached a plateau.
We picked all the low hanging fruit, and it may take us centuries or millennia before we build an intellectual ladder tall enough to reach the higher fruit, if there are any.

Why should beings of rigid metal and plastic be superior to beings of malleable flesh and blood?
There’re reasons why flesh and blood beings evolved on their own naturally, and beings of metal and plastic had to be artificially constructed.
But if they will be superior, than they’re something be apprehensive about.
They may be our unraveling.

Humans may be able to improve themselves by genetic modification, but I’m apprehensive about that too, as we’ll be losing some of what makes us, us, and we made such a mess of the environment, that I shudder to think what mess we’ll make when we start meddling with ourselves.
I am not that optimistic about technology, especially cybernetics, genetic modification and robotics, as we’re recklessly tinkering with the very fabric of life itself.
There are some doors man would be better off keeping closed for now, or forever.

I want to structure the economy around what technology can do today, not what it might be able to do in the unforeseeable future.

So, you’re saying it doesn’t matter.
So what’s your problem?

And wouldn’t you think prices and wages would come to a screeching halt at some point?
That they wouldn’t permanently plummet?
I mean It’s not as if the supply of workers is being permanently expanded.

I’m sure western imperialism had something to do with it, but everything?
Western imperialism couldn’t stop Japan, South Korea and Taiwan from becoming liberal democracies, nor Brunei, Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore, nor some countries in Latin America and other parts of Asia from becoming quasi-liberal democracies.

Are we to believe all the countries that’re authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorships are so solely due to western imperialism?
That race, and even culture have nothing to do with it?
Aside from North America, Europe and Oceania, how come the most successful liberal democracies are all in east Asia, while there’s virtually no democracy to speak of in Subsaharan Africa, save south Africa, which was built by whites, which seems to be rapidly devolving since blacks took over?
Do whites arbitrarily favor east Asians, or is there something different about them that makes them more capable of aping us?
Maybe it has something to do with having larger brains?
even impoverished Mongolians share this trait.
Or with being more civilized?

Why don’t you move to Brazil, Russia, India or China?

Name one.

Whatever it is that makes people reject god also makes people reject absolutes and embrace relativity.

You could potentially organize atheists to exterminate theists, but they’re probably too smart to reduce themselves to the level of their enemy.

[i]Surveying more than 63,000 participants online who indicated whether they were atheists, religious or agnostic, each person had to complete a 30-minute set of 12 cognitive tasks that measured planning, reasoning, attention and memory.

Overall, the research found that atheists performed better overall than the religious participants even when demographic factors like age and education were taken into consideration. Agnostics mostly placed between atheists and believers on all tasks.

While strength of religious conviction correlated with poorer cognitive performance, the data did show that there were only few small differences in working memory compared to tasks that required reasoning.

As such, rather than having poor general intelligence, the researchers say that religious people’s lower IQ test results may be a result of bad performance on tasks only where intuition and logic come into conflict. [/i]

independent.co.uk/life-styl … 83131.html

So, we could say that religious people aren’t religious because they’re stupid, but they’re stupid because they’re religious. When dogma meets reason, dogma prevails. Atheists don’t have that problem.

Atheists will do the reasonable thing.
Theists will do the “right” thing. (Where “right” could be exterminating races or whatever.)

It’s a mindset or worldview one chooses to hold where dogma trumps logic and not the actual belief that god exists, but the belief that god exists tends to correlate to dogmatic people.

You can’t exterminate people unless you believe in good and bad, better and worse, superior and inferior, righteous and unrighteous, etc. Those types tend to be theists.

No. North Korea for instance is a necrocracy.

Kim Jong-un of the Kim dynasty is the current Supreme Leader or Suryeong of North Korea.[110] He heads all major governing structures: he is Chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of North Korea, and Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army.[111][112] His grandfather Kim Il-sung, the founder and leader of North Korea until his death in 1994, is the country’s “Eternal President”,[113] while his father Kim Jong-il who succeeded Kim Il-sung as leader was announced “Eternal General Secretary” after his death in 2011.[111] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Kor … d_politics

Those dead guys are still god, even though they’re dead.

Emperors are gods en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor

The Chinese emperor was considered the Son of Heaven and the autocrat of All under Heaven. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_China

I doubt the peasants were atheist, especially if they were peasants. Poor and primitive people usually look for gods to explain what they can’t explain.

Why does the devil have to exist if god exists?

The mafia is not interesting in exterminating their customers, but only in breaking legs to get their money owed to them.

Why would anyone exterminate a whole village people? What profit can come from that?

Going to battle is one thing, but genocide is another. I may even concede greed-wars fought by atheists, but not righteous wars where the goal is to annihilate the enemy on ideological grounds.

:laughing: That’s funny! I like that… homo-hillbillius! Calling them homo adds further insult lol

Conservatives blame drugs instead of people. They blame government in principle instead of a particular mismanagement of government. Republicans are the prohibition party that bans everything including guns.

I was watching a video on Pol Pot or Mao (I forgot) and he instructed the people to forsake the rice patties and start making steel, so all the people dropped the farm implements and headed to the factory. Then they all starved because no one was growing rice. What would cause masses of people to do such nonsense? If Trump gave a similar order, most people would give him the middle finger. Those people were not coerced, but willingly obeyed who they regarded as god. The people were neurologically wired to take orders from divinities and act collectively.

Peace and harmony? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C … nd_battles

Heck, the christians, muslims, and jews can’t stand each other and they all serve the same god. If they served no god, then they’d get along fine.

Boy, you’ve studied rome more than I have, but what you say seems similar to the founding fathers being theists (or deists) and creating a democratic government with freedom of/from religion. Hitchens describes the US as the closest humanity has come to a secular government, but the people are theistic.

Then explain the war on communism (vietnam, korea) and the war on terror. They were led around like good lil robots. Christians never pass an opportunity for a war.

Maybe, but they’ll still get up late and not show just like they do when it comes time to vote.

He didn’t commit an atrocious atrocity, but chucking people off healthcare and raising taxes on the poor while doing nothing about drugs prices except giving the drug companies a massive tax cut is still an increase wide-spread suffering.

If that’s the case, why did he mention christianity at all? If he had to hold his tongue, then he should have held it, but he chose not to. Your theory is very far-fetched. It’s much more likely he was christian and changed his mind like every other atheist I’ve ever heard of.

Hitler began Mein Kampf while imprisoned for what he considered to be “political crimes” following his failed Putsch in Munich in November 1923.

But in April 1922 he said:

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people. en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Religious … itler#1922

Why say that if he didn’t believe it? Why not just omit it?

Whether he really believed it is beside the point that Hitler found an ally in Jesus:

Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Yeah, people used to say he had a chair made of human bones too. I think a lot of that is just Hitler haters making things up.

How can you know anything? Knowing = 100% confidence.

How do you type that i with 2 dots? My keyboard doesn’t have that symbol.

Chomsky characterized libertarians as the most authoritarian of the bunch and I definitely agree with him. People usually are the opposite of how they say they are. For instance, if a woman says she’s tired of playing games, then she likes playing games; if she’s an open book, then the pages are blank. Or like the governor of OH who criticized his opponent for wanting to raise taxes and after his victory, he immediately proposed raising taxes. statenews.org/post/after-rep … s-tax-hike (Taxes on the poor no less.)

Or like Jefferson who held dear the idea of smaller government, but then used unprecedented overreach to expand the federal government.

I guess it’s not that everyone does the opposite but more that reality isn’t ideal. That and conservatives are lying assholes.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgOa9UkCN-w[/youtube]

“Here libertarian means extreme advocate of total tyranny. That’s what libertarian means here: it means power ought to be given into the hands of private unaccountable tyrannies, even worse than state tyrannies because there the public has some kind of rule.”

Amazing that someone so highly regarded as chomsky would miss something so obvious. I’m sure he could learn a lot from you lol

Yeah I guess so. The gas tax paid by the poor fixes the roads that the corps use to transport goods to make profits on. The privatization of profits and socialization of costs. That’s capitalism!

If they removed the taxes then who’d fix the roads?

It’s not spin. Why on earth would you tax the poor to give welfare to the poor? That makes no sense. The only reason the poor pay any tax is to placate republicans bitching about fairness.

Add a negative tax to the bottom and I’m down with that.

In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman advocated policies such as a volunteer military, freely floating exchange rates, abolition of medical licenses, a negative income tax and school vouchers and opposed the war on drugs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

You know who Friedman is right?

Either money flows from the poor to the rich or the money is recirculated. There isn’t another way of doing it, so however it’s mixed up, the end result determines what system it should be considered.

I’m not sure I want socialism. I think I just want to go back to the 1930-1980 period, but with a negative tax at the bottom. I don’t think I want state ownership of companies or even co-ops. Just put it back how it was and issue negative tax.

Well what defines necessary? Bread and water is all that’s necessary, and sure, I’ll do my .05 microseconds of labor to pitch in. There, I’m all done for the year. Where’s my bread?

But if you want cars and iphones, you’ll need volunteers to pitch in. You can’t force people to make those kinds of things.

The only reason people are forced to work is you don’t want to take the money from the 1% and issue a negative tax. So people are forced to work so that someone else can have a few extra billion dollars. And you call yourself a libertarian. You see chomsky’s point now right? The opulence of 3 guys is more important to you than the freedom of millions to decide for themselves whether to enter the labor force.

I’m incapable or at least ill-equipped to see what you’re meaning by that.

No, it means that wages will have to rise to lure people into work. If you get $10k UBI, are you going to quit your job? I asked everyone I could and only 1 person said she’d quit (because $10k is more than what she’s making and she’d rather stay home with her kids). Most people laughed at the idea of quitting a decent job for a paltry $10k.

Small businesses don’t make enough money to be subject to the tax and if they did, then they aren’t small businesses.

I can’t agree to forcing people to work. I’m a libertarian.

Goodness… you still haven’t understood. Wage-slavery! Hello! Parasites is the name you’re giving to those who protest being slaves. Good grief man, because people choose not to prostitute themselves for the benefit of the rich, you characterize them as parasites. After all our exchanges your continued inability to get your head around this is astounding. I’m at a loss for how to snap you out of this idea that people must be forced to contribute profits to the elites in order to survive.

I can help make Bezos richer or I can help make Buffett richer or I can help make Dimon richer or I can starve. Hmmm… what’s wrong with this picture?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oztdRo9GLLk[/youtube]

If you eliminate all concepts of profit so that no one could profit from the slavery of people, then I might concede that everyone should pitch in, but that’s communism, ya know. Are you a closet communist? :-k

No you’re much worse because not only do you want everyone to contribute to the workforce, but you want the fruits of their labors concentrated into few hands. So it’s the bad parts of communism + the bad parts of capitalism = your system. Force people to work and steal their fruits and give it to the lazy rich who do nothing.

How do you arrive at that? We go from people being ignorant of how to raise a kid to needing licensing to buy groceries?

What substantiation could you possibly offer in support of that assertion?

You said genetic similarity is all that mattered, so therefore iq is irrelevant and a woman can be retarded, but still better at raising kids than the state by virtue of genetics. That is your position. Now if you retract that position and center it around knowledge, then you’ll be up against the combined wisdom of academia. Most girls in my area have a whole litter before 18, so what does a 100 iq trailer park chick know about raising 3 kids before being legally able to drink? Not a damn thing which is why those kids never leave the trailer park, except when they go to prison.

My mom worked 2 jobs: one at the hospital and one at the nursing home. I came home from school and cooked for myself then sat in front of the tv. When I got older, I’d take off on my bicycle looking for trouble. The reason I had to raise myself was so the rich could have money they didn’t need or even use.

Surely they are smart enough to answer a simple direct question. It looks like democracy scares you.

The first thing an authoritarian does is kill the intellectuals.

Watching tatted up floozies who can’t read or do math teaching kids who to read and do math ought to be fun.

You and I may have been able to educate ourselves, but most kids would drift listlessly from game to game. Beside chess, the last game I played was pacman. I won’t go near games because I’m scared I might like them and then my life is over.

Desiring inefficiency is stupid. I’d rather put farmers out of business and then send them the money they would have made if they were farming and that money comes from the increase in efficiency from the consolidation of farms. They can still farm if they choose to, but it wouldn’t be required to live.

I support the liberty of people to do anything they want to do so long as it’s not making slaves of other people.

Of course you would rather that because you relish the suffering of people. I understand completely.

We do have flying cars. We don’t even need a license. For a couple grand you can fly to mcdonalds too:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvQ9DjJNal0[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgeMJ1hX9KI[/youtube]

Wut? Cars are vastly different today.

Well, we still have the elimination of disease and conservatives to tackle.

Idk what you’re going on about there.

I won’t be around to see it.

Today we can make life a right. The only impediment is too many people like you who get their kicks from contemplating the suffering of the “lazy” who won’t indenture themselves for the profit of another.

Are you trying to be frustrating or what? Read it again.

Price is a function of supply and demand. Period. If price does anything at all, it can only be because of supply or demand or both. Essentially price = demand/supply. If demand = 0, then price = 0. If supply = infinity, then price = 0.

Wage is a function of supply of workers and demand for workers. Welfare decreases the supply of workers and therefore wages rise. If demand for workers = 0, then wages = 0. If supply of workers = infinity, then wages = 0.

Easy stuff. Econ 101.

I hope so. When energy is free, supply is infinite and prices are 0. Conservatives want to fight that at all costs because when things are free, how will they make people suffer?

Yes I think so. Without those oceans the US wouldn’t have had the shielding to break loose of Britain in the first place.

They didn’t need to because the hulls are bursting with swag pillaged from the plunder of plenty of people already.

Probably. Chomsky noted that democracy exists in places where the US has least influence. Democracy is essentially a function of the absence of US presence.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31vLrP3F5AM[/youtube]

Maybe, but I’m not sure to what extent.

quora.com/Wouldnt-it-be-a-v … -the-world

Blacks are still the slaves of whites.

They don’t have oceans on either side.

@Serendipper

Xenophobia, Supremacism, Lebensraum.

Firstly, while most theists are probably moral absolutists, some theists are moral rationalists and relativists.

Secondly, while I prefer reason and relativism to absolutism, absolutism can be good if it promotes rational and what I deem to be good values.

Most atheists don’t believe in good and bad, but they believe in my and our good and bad.

Theism is only bad when it’s used to sanction dictatorship, when it’s apolitical or used to sanction democracy it’s tolerable or acceptable.

The urbanites were atheists.

He doesn’t have to, but most monotheist and polytheistic religions have a devil or demons, and most pantheists have ‘negative energy’.

Well, hundreds of millions of atheist and apatheist Chinese did and do.

They blame both, whereas democrats only blame drugs.

I don’t like conservatives because they blame government in principle.

I don’t like liberals because they mismanage government by propping up minorities, the underclass and women at the expense of the majority, the working class and men.

And while I trust our government more than corporations in one way because at least our government is partly democratic, I trust corporations more than our government in another because a corrupt government can do more damage than corrupt corporations.
Corrupt corporations can’t do as much damage without government support, as a corrupt government can do without corrupt corporations support.

While both dems and republicans have gone after guns, dems more so.

Right, “If Trump gave a similar order, most people would give him the middle finger”, including most Christian Americans.

For whatever reasons, cultural, geographical, genetic, the Chinese seem more docile and domesticated than, not only most Europeans, but most Africans, east Indians, Latin and Native Americans for that matter.

Until recently, the Chinese were as or more prosperous than Europeans, yet they never had democracy there, whereas Europeans, and east Indians for that matter had it at various times.

But the vast majority of these wars weren’t fought over one religion trying to supplant another, but for predominantly secular reasons.

Buddhists, Confucianists and Daoists didn’t declare war on other religions or the irreligious like Christians, Jews and Muslims did.

But Christians get along with each other real well, lol, well so long as they belong to the same sect!

Jews and Christians have by and large been demilitarized and deradicalized now, it’s only Muslims we have to worry about, and progressive’s coddle them, shelter them from necessary criticisms, consequently preventing them from undertaking necessary reforms, meanwhile they exaggerate the threat Christians pose.

My point was you paint religion with too broad a brush, most pagans and modern monotheists get along with everyone.

Secular progressives are almost as bad as religious conservatives when it comes to war.

And Secular progressives are worse when it comes to defending our borders, and they make excuses for minorities who commit crimes.

But the Muslims they’re letting in get up bright and early.

The Russians and the Chicoms got up bright and early.

Harder times could further militarize and radicalize the left.

As far as I know, Hitler never spoke of a Jesus dying-rising for the sins of mankind, he spoke of a 1 dimensional, predominantly despiritualized Jesus who hated Jews.
He deliberately distorted Jesus to persuade Christian Germans to genocide the Jews.
And then in the last several years of his life, but probably much, much earlier, he discussed plans with his inner circle to ultimately annihilate Christianity after the war.

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

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

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

Your boy Hitchens had no bloody clue what he was talking about.

either that or he was deliberately spreading malicious misinformation and lies.

Well I think it to be the case (less than 100% confidence but more than 50%).

My computer autocorrected the word.

Yea, every ideology looks different on paper than in practice, this is true of both conservatives, libertarians and progressives.

Right, no need to critically think for yourself, just find the most highly regarded thinker of your day, and imitate what they say without comprehending a thing, or being able to prove it to yourself or anyone.

Libertarians just want taxes for infrastructure, the military and police.
They want to keep our taxes flat and low.
I think it’s a terrible idea, but it’s better than having them flat or regressive and high.

Once in office, overwhelmingly republicrats don’t give two shits about fairness.
They’re not really conservative, libertarian or progressive, they’re conmen, and they will warp any and every ideology to suit their special interests.

I’m not conservative or progressive, I’m populist, I define that as wealth, resources and power flowing to the working class, not to the elite, nor to minorities, the underclass and women at the expense of the majority, the working class and men.

Unless dems radically change for the better somehow, you’ll either get more of what you have now: low-mid flat-progressive taxes, or what Nordic countries have: mid-high flat-progressive taxes.
If you want no taxes for the poor and high taxes for the rich, you’ll have to vote 3rd party, independent or form your own party.
The republicrats are 100% bought and paid for by the ruling class.

Again, I know several people on disability for anxiety and depression.
They all confessed to me they were able to work full time, altho it would be difficult.
They all live unhealthily hedonistic lifestyles.
Moreover they have the option to work and make an additional 1000 dollars a month on top of the 1000 dollars a month of disability they receive, which would help them eat and live better, but they won’t even work single day per week, they refuse to.
Never mind what people say, “you will know them by their fruits”.

If we end the war on drugs, the war on terror, cut taxes for the working and middle class down to 0, tax the upperclass @50-90%, and give it all back to the working and middle class in the form of free education, free healthcare, improved working conditions and doubling, tripling, quadrupling (as much as the 50-90% taxes can pay) everyone’s salary (so again, if you make 20, or 120 grand at your job, government will give you an additional 20, or 120 grand), work will no longer be that exploitative, as the majority of profits will go to the working and middle class.
We’ll all have more and work less instead of some of us working more and others less.
More co-ops and small businesses will form and rise, more big businesses will fall, and finally we’ll have sociopolitical and economic equilibrium, where everyone will be richer except the 1 10th of 1%, but also at the same time, more independent.
We’ll have both the best of both conservative, and progressive worlds, and that is what I meant by a brand new syncretic sociopolitical and economic system.

Well, people are somewhat ignorant about nutrition, drugs, relationships, pregnancy and STIs too, so I guess we need compulsory courses for every aspect of life.

What could you possibly offer against it?
I don’t hear mothers complaining: we have no bloody idea how to raise our kids, we demand compulsory parental courses!

I didn’t say it’s all that mattered, they both matter, I just emphasized genetic similarity.
I think most mothers will agree with me when I say: their children should fundamentally be in their care, that the state should only intervene in extreme cases of mental deficiency and neglect.

It doesn’t, I’m confident the vast majority of people will side with me on this, but if they don’t, I guess I’ll have to move to another country, I don’t want government telling me how to run my life.

Only the ones he disagrees with, the ones he agrees with he gives a monopoly to.

Kids just need to know the basics: English and math.
If parents aren’t equipped to teach them to their kids, they can voluntarily send them to school, but the vast majority of parents are equipped and realize the importance of them, the only trouble is they don’t have enough time to homeschool.
History, science and so on you have to be inspired to learn anyway, and unfortunately most aren’t.
Most just need to figure out how to do what job they want to do, and they can go to school or self-educate if they’re inspired to.

Italy and Greece didn’t have a single ocean, yet that’s where democracy got started.
Switzerland didn’t even have a sea, yet that’s where democracy got rediscovered.

Funny how the strongest non-white democracies are all in one place.

The US didn’t have a great influence in Germany, Italy, South Korea and Japan?
The UK didn’t have a great influence in Pakistan, India, Macau and Hong Kong?

Why aren’t Asians?

Why were the Americans able to extend themselves to the other side of the continent, but the Brazilians weren’t?
Why weren’t the Mexicans able to hold ‘Aztlan’, and expand?
While technically India doesn’t have oceans on either side, it’s surrounded by an ocean, which was named after it, because it’s in a central position in that ocean between three continents, yet it didn’t colonize, nor trade with them as extensively as whites.
Why didn’t the Chinese colonize the Americas when they had the chance?
If you think race, or at least culture has nothing to do with this, you’ve got the blinders on.

Of course race and culture do, and scientists like Richard Lynn and Philippe Rushton will tell you that, in contradistinction to Chomsky and Diamond.
The only question is, to what degree?

Desiring to make everything efficient is itself inefficient and stupid.
Our problem is too much concentration of wealth and power in too few hands, not inefficiency.
If you don’t like small-scale agriculture, don’t support it with your buck.
Some people prefer food made the old fashioned way: kinder to animals, the environment, healthier, more wholesome, but if there’s no profit in it, it won’t be as available.
You’re going to need an awful lot of taxes, resources and regulations, and you’re going to get into conflict with an awful lot of people trying to control every aspect of our lives because you think it indirectly, infinitesimally affects you.

I want a varied, organic, individualistic and creative market, you can keep your efficient, sterile, totalitarian uniformity, where a handful of monstrous megacorporations are given a total monopoly.

No, I don’t want to masochistically work harder to support someone who can, but won’t work.

That’s your fetish, leave me out of it.

Speaking of (fuel) inefficiency.

I didn’t say we relatively lack new techs, I said we relatively lack new practical techs.

If anything, we’re getting unhealthier, see Weston Price.

Because of people like you, mankind won’t make it.

No, most people will have money to buy everything, only a few people won’t.

We’re not infinitely increasing the supply of workers, we’re increasingly the supply of workers a little, by cutting the voluntarily unemployed off welfare, so wages would only fall a little, but, if prices proportionally fall, that’s inconsequential.

To have a theory you need correlation and mechanism, but you have neither unless you can cite one instance when atheists allied themselves for the racially pure cause. Once you complete that task, then you can propose a mechanism that explains the correlation.

On the other hand, I have an abundance of correlation associating theists rallying together for the morally absolute cause of racial purity. And my mechanism to explain the correlation is the mindset one chooses to view the world which stems from acknowledgement of absolute truth requisite to theism.

That’s a contradiction in terms. Theists are by definition absolutists. I posted a video (on this thread I think) where two bright guys discuss every possible angle for knowing absolute truth: one says absolute truth cannot be known without god and the other says absolute truth cannot be known. The only reason to be a theist is to substantiate absolutism.

Absolute = made up. If the yardstick for determining “good values” is the absolute truth you made up, then how can the values be said to be good?

An atheist might say a good way to get from A to B is a straight line, or they might say a good way is to take the scenic route. Good and bad are relative to attainment of a goal, so whatever the goal is determines what is considered good.

Theism and democracy are antipodal. Watts noted the dichotomy of the america people who claim to be citizens of a republic but worshiping a monarchical king. If people think the best model for the universe is a monarchy, why would they think the best form of government is a democracy? Indeed, those same people insist a small group of people control the masses lest mob rule prevail. The atheists, residing on the Left, think democracy is the best form of government and reject the monarchical model of the universe.

In service of their emperor god, sure.

Then why only conservatives ban drugs? Clearly they blame the drug.

I’m with you on feminism.

Stop catering to rich people and neither are a threat. The rich cannot serve in government or it’s the fox guarding the henhouse.

Republicans ban everything. Dems only guns.

Shit!

Obedient robots.

They are like ants.

There are only greed wars and righteous wars. How many were greed wars?

Where is evidence that progressives coddle muslims? I haven’t researched it specifically, but last time I looked up Merkel, I found she was conservative. Is there someone who is not really a conservative under a socialist banner coddling muslims?

Sure, exceptions apply.

I thought progressives didn’t want a border. They also want to reduce the military.

We haven’t established that progressives are at fault yet.

I haven’t seen anything he distorted. Afterall, Hitler lamented jesus was a weenie.

.
Conjecture.

I don’t see the significance of this.

That is the assumption I reject on the basis of what I said before. You may as well claim I pretended to be christian in case I run for president one day.

Lots of time passed between 1937 and 1922. What evidence do you have that Hitler was not a christian in 1922? I call bullshit on this whole theory: replacing the bible with Mein Kampf is a silly notion and I can’t believe anyone in the Nazi party would have envisioned so. Either germans are much dumber than I thought or historians are dreaming.

I posted that on here myself a couple weeks ago. What’s your point? In the whole nazi party, two guys were paganists. And that’s theism.

Talk about dreaming! You’re struggling to defend a far-fetched and nonsensical theory in effort find some redemption for christianity, and the extents to which you’re going on this crusade are totally transparent. You have incentive to lie and are appealing to others who have incentive to lie in order to paint Hitler as a liar in his own book.

Find some hard evidence that Hitler himself said in 1922 that he was not a christian and was bullshitting the people, not some historian’s opinion nor the opinion of some random nazi member.

Until you do that, the only evidence on the table was in 1941 with Hitler’s table talk. And the most plausible explanation is that he was once christian and changed his mind, like 99% of all other atheists.

And I’m still not convinced he was ever an atheist:

[i]In his summary Langer outlined eight possible scenarios for Hitler’s course of action in the face of defeat. The most likely scenario, he suggested in a prescient moment, was that Hitler’s belief in divine protection would compel him to fight to the bitter end, “drag[ging] a world with us—a world in flames,” and that ultimately he would take his own life.

Langer based his assessment not only on Hitler’s repeated references to “divine providence,” both in speeches and in private conversations, but also on reports from some of Hitler’s most intimate associates that Hitler truly believed he was “predestined” for greatness and inspired by “divine powers.” After the war Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, one of Hitler’s chief military advisers, seemed to confirm the Langer thesis. “Looking back,” he said, “I am inclined to think he was literally obsessed with the idea of some miraculous salvation, that he clung to it like a drowning man to a straw.”[/i] theatlantic.com/magazine/ar … ry/302727/

  1. Hitler was born catholic.
  2. At some point he lost faith in christianity.
  3. But never lost faith in god.

All this is moot anyway since what’s at issue is whether the people were theists and whether Hitler needed to leverage that theism in order to commit atrocities.

So, suspect is a better word. “I don’t have faith confidence in my statement, I know suspect it to be the case.” That isn’t reasonable lol

Cheater lol

If you didn’t do that, then how would you pass his class? I tell my friend that he could never get a degree because he’d have to tell his professors they are wrong. Plus, history is subjective and it’s difficult to really prove anything.

The thing about Chomsky and Watts and Hitchens is they devour books, which is something I can’t do, certainly not to the extent they can, then they rehash in a way normal people can absorb. Watts hardly had a novel notion and just about everything he said was plagiarized from someone else.

Me, on the other hand, most of my theories are novel and original. I developed the redistributive taxation model myself without outside influence, then found Watts agreed with me; then found Wolff agreed with me; then found Chomsky agreed with me. I developed Jared Diamond’s theory before I knew who Diamond was. I posted it online and some guy said “That looks a lot like Diamond’s Gun, Germs, and Steel”. I said, “What’s that?” He suggested I read his book, but I said I don’t read books. Then, after making fun of me, he sent me the youtube link to the movie. I watched the movie and thought it was an hour of time to say 5-min-worth of stuff. Glad I didn’t read the book.

Anyway, Hitler is someone else’s idea, but most of my work is my own and I use highly regarded intellectuals for confirmation. But still, critical thinking aside, it’s not likely Chomsky is going to be wrong. It’s more likely that you are going to be wrong.

Yes and they want the poor to pay for it.

Republicrats aren’t seeing the money, so why do they care? No, it’s about fairness to their dimwitted minds: they think if the rich have to pay a tax that’s it’s only fair that the poor also pay the tax. That’s the rationale behind the gas tax: let the ones who use the roads pay for the roads. But the corps get far more use from the roads than regular people.

There are only two ways: either the economy is circular or unidirectional: either the wealth recirculates or moves up.

Bernie threw his hat in the candidacy.

So what? They have the right not to work if they don’t want to. You want to force them to work for the profit of another. You can’t stand it that someone is not prostituting themselves like you are. Well, you can either quit working and join them or else continue working and continue having more money. What’s your problem?

Conservatism = the haunting fear that someone somewhere might be having fun.

How are you going to increase everyone’s salary when the only possible way (outside of dictating wages) is to give people money for free? Read carefully: The only way to cause wages to rise is to give people the option not to work. Once people have the option to opt-out of the workforce, corps will have to raise wages to entice them back in. Alternatively, you could be dictator and decree wages higher or you could socialize all of industry such that every industry is under the management of the government and then everyone will be a government worker, then you could set wages how you like. But as long as private industry exists, then wages will be based on people’s options, and if people do not have the option to work, then wages will always be low. The only way to hurt the poor is to hurt yourself.

Having properly reared kids is imperative to society. People’s knowledge about those other things doesn’t matter so much.

I don’t remember what it was.

Put it to a vote. People said it should be illegal to smoke around kids, so I’m betting they would be onboard with compulsory parenting education.

Kids should be in the parent’s care, but the parents should be educated how to care.

FIFY

Because you force them to work.

The US doesn’t have democracy, and yet the US is still the most powerful. That is my point: in spite of a feudal system, the US prevailed BECAUSE of the oceans. Greece and whatever reinforce my point.

What’s funny is the most socialist countries are at the top of the economic prosperity list while the most capitalistic are at the bottom, except the US, which prospered because of the oceans and in spite of capitalism. Race, apparently, has nothing to do with anything.

According to a list of private consumption I found online (and haven’t verified yet, but I will), Brunei is the the most socialist country, publicly spending a whopping 80% of GDP. ceicdata.com/en/indicator/v … ominal-gdp

Economic growth during the 1990s and 2000s, with the GDP increasing 56% from 1999 to 2008, transformed Brunei into an industrialised country. It has developed wealth from extensive petroleum and natural gas fields. Brunei has the second-highest Human Development Index among the Southeast Asian nations, after Singapore, and is classified as a “developed country”.[13] According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Brunei is ranked fifth in the world by gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity. The IMF estimated in 2011 that Brunei was one of two countries (the other being Libya) with a public debt at 0% of the national GDP. Forbes also ranks Brunei as the fifth-richest nation out of 182, based on its petroleum and natural gas fields.[14] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunei

According to that list, these countries spend more than 50% of GDP publicly:

Brunei
Macau SAR
Qatar
Luxembourg
Ireland
United Arab Emirates
Singapore
Oman
China
Saudi Arabia
Algeria
Norway
Kuwait
Sweden
Netherlands
Bahrain
Thailand
Malta
Iran
Denmark
Botswana
Czech Republic
Slovenia

I’m going to start a thread on this when I finish collecting data.

Did the US send arms to rebels in germany to overthrow the government like in south american countries?

As the US closed bases in germany and began to leave, democracy increased. The more the US gets out of the way, the more democracy takes hold. The only reason the US exists in other countries is to prevent democracy for its own profit.

I have no idea.

They are. So are mexicans. And Indians. And anyone else.

Europeans were technologically advanced by virtue of horses, domesticated animals, grains, good soil. We’ve been over that.

Ditto

When did they have the chance?

If you think race, or at least culture has anything to do with this, you’ve got the blinders on.

1 scientist out of every 100 might tell me that. Unless the two you mentioned are the only two.

How do you figure that? It’s stupid to want an engine to make more power with less fuel?

Wealth concentration is inefficient.

I don’t usually, but it’s because it’s expensive and inconvenient and not really a protest.

We are talking in the context of taking a scientific approach to society, so profit is not a main driving force. Welfare of animals and nutrition would be variables taken into account once we change the focus from profit to efficiency.

Well that’s what I’ve been trying to say: the only reason we can’t engineer an efficient society is those who are against it are still sucking air. The faster they crash their harleys, the sooner we can get on with it.

No one is taking that away, but I don’t want 1000000000000000000000000000000000 farms charging outrageous prices for hype.

Then don’t work.

No let’s put this in perspective.

Me: I want to take money from bezos and give it to people who don’t work.
You: You’re going to take from someone who is not me and give it to someone who is not me? Oh the horror! I can’t stand it! This doesn’t affect me, but drives me insane because I cannot bear the thought that someone somewhere might get something for nothing!
Me: Bezos gets astronomical amounts of somethings for nothing. Amazon never made a single dime of profit in 16 years, yet bezos was worth over $50 billion. Why aren’t you having a cow?
You: It only bothers me when poor people get something for nothing. They should be forced at gunpoint to work for bezos so he can have more money for nothing, then we can tax bezos and use the proceeds to magically raise my wages.
Me: So bezos is just a proxy to funnel the fruits of the forced-labor camp back to you. I see.
You: No! Everyone’s wages go up!
Me: Yes, but most-especially yours. At the end of the day, it’s a scheme to force people to work to increase your own wages.
You: No! Umm… er… ah… No! It’s not!
Me: What it boils down to is you can’t tolerate someone getting something for nothing. You think everyone should suffer to survive.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQirNLiVL9w[/youtube]

just
26:02
because of a psychological hang-up, and
26:04
that hang-up is that money is real and
26:06
that people ought to suffer in order to
26:11
get it but the whole point of the
26:14
machine is to relieve you of that
26:15
suffering. It is an ingenuity you see. We
26:18
are psychologically back in the 17th
26:22
century and technically in the 20th.

Love Weston Price.

Mankind won’t make it anyway. The universe won’t last forever.

If you cut people off welfare, then people are forced to work to survive. Because people are forced to work, wages will plummet. Why pay high wages if people are forced to take whatever you offer? “I offer you 25 cents per day. You can take it or go starve. I have a line of applicants a mile long after you.”

The only things holding wages up as high as they are now is welfare, min wage, government jobs, and parents.