Boycott Google

Hopefully. But this is dependent on serious social and paradigmatic shifts within the science community, the corporate and government organizations that fund research, and people who are not good at dealing wiht the emotions of being out of control and confused dealing with that.

That’s my best guess also. That not only are people brainwashed to dismiss, but also that active steps are taken to suppress by people who know these things are real.

@Serendipper

You’re delusional.

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

Hitler was anti-Christian and at most, a lukewarm theist, if not an atheist.

The vast majority of scholars agree with me, not with you.

The burden of proof is on you.

It’s because I’m even handed and level headed, relative to you, I know there’s wisdom and folly in the left and right, and even more wisdom outside of them, whereas you’re blind to the folly of your side.
You’re deeply polarized, your worldview is overly simplistic, void of any nuance.

No it’s because the left have a childlike belief that human nature doesn’t exist, that we’re born a bank slate, and insofar as it exists, it’s good, and they’re willing to disregard history, evolutionary psychology, and common sense, willing to explain away, excuse and attribute every atrocity man has committed throughout the ages to flawed institutions, misunderstandings and scarcity, in order to maintain this belief (ignorance is bliss).

The left is full of servile, slavish sheep fit for sheering and slaughter, which’s not to say the right is any better, they have their own delusions.

My father, and his friends are genuine Christians.
He’s generous, humble, forgiving, not materialistic and his faith is sincere.
He’s not perfect, but since when did Christianity require its adherents to be as such?
The whole point of the thing is original sin, people are innately flawed, otherwise they
wouldn’t need the free gift of salvation in the first place, they could earn it.
JWs aren’t real Christians, they do everything out of fear, instead of inspiration, they’re religious, not spiritual.

Jesus was referring to religious Jews who were proud, proud like Hitler, who thought they were too good to hang around drunkards, gamblers, prostitutes and thieves.
Jesus was telling them they weren’t any better than those people, worse even because they were hypocrites, whereas the Pharisees and Hitler wanted to marginalize or eradicate those people.

No foster care and the state is.

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.