Five minutes of hate news

Cherico

Well-known member
You know that Left wants to legalize incest?

sweethome.jpg
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
Umm ...

I don't have a problem with that as long as it's consentual and both parties are consenting adults.

I do. First, that is just one more step on the road to ultimate sexual liberation - which includes allowing pedophilia (yes, that is the Left's ultimate goal - 60 year olds raping 9 year olds). Second, human genome is already too damaged - between fast food, radiation, general pollution, and natural DNA damage that accumulates over millions of years. We really do not need one more source of damage.


I really don't get that reference...
 

mrttao

Well-known member
1. I'm an atheist and I do mock religion -- I do think it's all a joke; a bunch of fairy stories and fables albeit with good morals and lessons at their cores (e.g. don't be a dick to your neighbor, don't build a house on shifting sands, et cetera). Don't equate atheism = liberal/Left, as like being a conservative doesn't necessarily mean you're a Christian. It's not binary.
There is a real problem with trying to teach atheism to children who are genetically predisposed towards religion. They find something to believe in with great zealotry.

All those leftists falsely claim to be atheists because they were raised atheist, but they are not. They are extremly zealous religious cultists who have picked up religions like communism, and the woke cult.
 

mrttao

Well-known member
A lot of our problems come from the fact they have already destroyed the family. to the point where people cannot even conceive of a family beyond the nuclear family.

We degraded from clans, to extended families, to multi generational family homes, to "nuclear family", to single mothers.

They want to abolish the nuclear family as "too much family" while conservative defend it... but the truth is that the nuclear family is not enough family.

Rather than a return to nuclear family we should go a step further and return to MGF or even extended families.

A nuclear family is a mom, dad, and 2 kids... living in complete and total isolation from any relatives. with the mom and dad working for a living while the state raises the children... this is an utter disaster and how they destroyed our cultures.

You need grandparents at home to watch the kids and teach them history. You need your neighbors to be your uncles and aunts to have a community.

Nuclear family is just the smallest possible unit of a family, but when it comes to family we shouldn't aim for the smallest possible.
 
Last edited:

Sobek

Disgusting Scalie
There is a real problem with trying to teach atheism to children who are genetically predisposed towards religion. They find something to believe in with great zealotry.

All those leftists falsely claim to be atheists because they were raised atheist, but they are not. They are extremly zealous religious cultists who have picked up religions like communism, and the woke cult.

This so much. Humans need faith. If you try and remove religious faith all that happens is other things replace it, and most of the time the result is worse than church.

Nietzsche spoke about outgrowing religion and his famous "God is dead" quote. Ironically his quote is one of the easiest ways to tell if someone is a zealot atheist: if they use it when justifying their atheism they probably aren't as smart as they pretend to be.

Most people who abandon religion fully replace it with shit like totalitarian utopic politics or rampant hedonism. Very few actually move towards better things.
 

ATP

Well-known member
This so much. Humans need faith. If you try and remove religious faith all that happens is other things replace it, and most of the time the result is worse than church.

Nietzsche spoke about outgrowing religion and his famous "God is dead" quote. Ironically his quote is one of the easiest ways to tell if someone is a zealot atheist: if they use it when justifying their atheism they probably aren't as smart as they pretend to be.

Most people who abandon religion fully replace it with shit like totalitarian utopic politics or rampant hedonism. Very few actually move towards better things.

Best proof is buddhism.Budda preached atheism,and still created religion.Marx did the same later.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Let's just say it implies certain rednecks are inbred. "If your family tree doesn't branch...you might be a redneck"
Or nobility ...

The smartest thing someone can do for thier children's health is picking a partner with ethnicities which don't match theirs. That runs into the issue of social acceptability. Mixed-race kids tend to have it rough because they're not truly "one of us".
 

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
The results of Buddhism are much better
Oh no, buddhists still have their crazies too, especially in East Asia.

For a religion where violence is basically taboo, there are hypocrites out there like in any other religion or way of life that think violently eliminating competitors or "undesirables" is okay.

That is, unfortunately, more part of human nature than anything else showing through.
This so much. Humans need faith. If you try and remove religious faith all that happens is other things replace it, and most of the time the result is worse than church.

Nietzsche spoke about outgrowing religion and his famous "God is dead" quote. Ironically his quote is one of the easiest ways to tell if someone is a zealot atheist: if they use it when justifying their atheism they probably aren't as smart as they pretend to be.

Most people who abandon religion fully replace it with shit like totalitarian utopic politics or rampant hedonism. Very few actually move towards better things.
Not all atheists are like that, but unfortunately a lot of those who are like that are atheists. I'd still take being atheist over believing in a Sky Fairy, though.
A lot of our problems come from the fact they have already destroyed the family. to the point where people cannot even conceive of a family beyond the nuclear family.

We degraded from clans, to extended families, to multi generational family homes, to "nuclear family", to single mothers.

They want to abolish the nuclear family as "too much family" while conservative defend it... but the truth is that the nuclear family is not enough family.

Rather than a return to nuclear family we should go a step further and return to MGF or even extended families.

A nuclear family is a mom, dad, and 2 kids... living in complete and total isolation from any relatives. with the mom and dad working for a living while the state raises the children... this is an utter disaster and how they destroyed our cultures.

You need grandparents at home to watch the kids and teach them history. You need your neighbors to be your uncles and aunts to have a community.

Nuclear family is just the smallest possible unit of a family, but when it comes to family we shouldn't aim for the smallest possible.
A nuclear family like that was the norm for decades before all this... insanity began, but having regular access/visitation to/by extended relatives with boundaries, e.g. aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, was the norm, too -- kind of like a nuclear family plus. It worked.

When the current insanity and decline began, however, it was mostly due to outside factors (legal, social, and cultural biases in things like marriages, divorces, child custodies, alimonies, women treating sex like a handshake, fathers knocking up women who treated sex like a handshake then ghosting, et cetera) causing the breakdown of the nuclear family as a whole.

The nuclear family plus worked just fine until society around it tore it down, not the other way around -- though, I suppose it could be considered more a feedback loop; society tears down nuclear families, and broken families/people contribute to the breakdown of society e.g. kids raised by single mothers, et cetera.
Let's just say it implies certain rednecks are inbred. "If your family tree doesn't branch...you might be a redneck"
There's a commonly-used joke in Harry Potter fanfiction about purebloods' family trees and not branching. Now I know where it came from, haha.
I do. First, that is just one more step on the road to ultimate sexual liberation - which includes allowing pedophilia (yes, that is the Left's ultimate goal - 60 year olds raping 9 year olds). Second, human genome is already too damaged - between fast food, radiation, general pollution, and natural DNA damage that accumulates over millions of years. We really do not need one more source of damage.



I really don't get that reference...
The human genome was pretty much fucked when there was a massive extinction event, and only a few thousand of our ancestors survived worldwide: we're all basically in-bred descendants from those few thousand that multiplied again and spread out globally. A lot of our genetic diseases (including a lot of cancers, IIRC) actually come from that.

But yeah, a lot of things we've down in recent centuries haven't helped things either, I think. But the damage was already done long before civilization really came about.

Actual pedophilia --older people that want to fuck and molest prepubescent children-- acceptance does seem to be a Left end-goal, yeah. It's sick.
Or nobility ...

The smartest thing someone can do for their children's health is picking a partner with ethnicities which don't match theirs. That runs into the issue of social acceptability. Mixed-race kids tend to have it rough because they're not truly "one of us".
Hell no, and that just typically leads to a ton of different problems in itself.

Your having children with your fellow White, Blacks, Asians, or fucking Blue with Green Spots human isn't the problem -- fucking your relatives and having children with them is the problem, no matter if your cousins or other relatives are mixed ethnicities or not.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Most people who abandon religion fully replace it with shit like totalitarian utopic politics or rampant hedonism. Very few actually move towards better things.
From what I've heard of the "high-brow" atheism community, the relevant term is "deconversion". Most atheists simply drifted out of having any overt value system, in a basic extension from the "Christian by default" lot, while the "high-brow" deconversion is the process of arguing out of it yourself.

A split further accentuated by the "Destroyed with FACTS and LOGIC" trend of going after demagogue preachers who had little to no reason attached to their positions, where the old denominations had centuries of building up a coherent system, leaving mainly arguments about the premises themselves and near-forgotten dubious constructions.

The results of Buddhism are much better
Because Buddhism started from a man devising a philosophy from the religions of the world around him, while Communism came from a man devising a philosophy from the perceived problems of Capitalism long before the Gilded Age. The Buddha looked at the world around him and made his own refinements of those already-working ideas, while Marx was trying to devise a successor to a rather new system who's actual problems were yet to occur.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Because Buddhism started from a man devising a philosophy from the religions of the world around him, while Communism came from a man devising a philosophy from the perceived problems of Capitalism long before the Gilded Age. The Buddha looked at the world around him and made his own refinements of those already-working ideas, while Marx was trying to devise a successor to a rather new system who's actual problems were yet to occur.
Actually, a lot of his arguments make more sense (though are no less stupid) when you compare industrial manufacturing to artisan manufacturing. Artisans owned the means to production: simple hand tools, and had better living conditions than early factory workers. However industrialism got over the hump of the flaws of early tech and the quality of life for everyone improved because of the efficiency massed production. He was trying to solve the problems of his present by going technologically backwards rather than persevering through the growing pains. His economic theories go even further backwards when you look at them at the grand scale, he is basically arguing that everyone should return to a palace economy under another name for the same reaosns that the palace economy was adopted in the first place, while ignoring the reasons that it became obsolete.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
Actually, a lot of his arguments make more sense (though are no less stupid) when you compare industrial manufacturing to artisan manufacturing.
Exactly, I like to compare it to Malthusian Economics. Both were making excellent observations from the information they had, but the world dramatically changed before any meaningful use could come about. The time for Marxist Theory to be implemented was a narrow window toward the start of Industrialization, when enormous public buy-in and distribution of the gains would be a legitimate advantage, but the demands and outputs scaled up in volume and complexity far too quickly.

The Soviets almost managed a viable implementation through later technological innovations bringing the workload back into the humanly possible, but the skewed priorities of the quota and bureau system meant the requisite computer science did not go nearly far enough to actually crunch the numbers of Soviet affairs, and it's supremely unlikely they'd allow it to be used for the devolving of central authority no matter the ability to do so, and no matter the advantage in automating away bureaucrats.

Strange how the demands to make Communism work are all Technocratic in nature. It's almost like it's expected for the two to rise hand in hand, and THASF's "Luxury Gay Space Communism" is just a coin-flip from the WEF's "suggestions".
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
The Soviets almost managed a viable implementation through later technological innovations bringing the workload back into the humanly possible, but the skewed priorities of the quota and bureau system meant the requisite computer science did not go nearly far enough to actually crunch the numbers of Soviet affairs, and it's supremely unlikely they'd allow it to be used for the devolving of central authority no matter the ability to do so, and no matter the advantage in automating away bureaucrats.
While I don't know how to prove it, my gut instincts tell me that any such economic algorithm would be equivalent to a universal halting machine. For those not verse in computer science: proving something is equivalent to a universal halting machine is considered one of the standard methods to prove something to be impossible.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
While I don't know how to prove it, my gut instincts tell me that any such economic algorithm would be equivalent to a universal halting machine. For those not verse in computer science: proving something is equivalent to a universal halting machine is considered one of the standard methods to prove something to be impossible.
IIRC, the thing they were working to do was just very basic but VERY large-scale economic modeling, mapping out raw inputs and outputs to get the quotas set properly and checking any Five Year Plans against it to be sure the numbers on realities of industry worked out. The True Communism implementation is breaking up the problem and networking small-scale use-cases, though with the drastic hangup of needing to tackle proof-of-work for physical goods to verify the claimed output of one's commune is genuine.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top