Animalism, Earthism

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby Silhouette » Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:16 pm

Jakob wrote:The old testament is actually one of the best books ever.

The prodigal capitalist revealed.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3802
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby Gloominary » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:05 am

Serendipper

Well are whites superior or are they not?

Why do you insist I simplify it?
You can prefer something, and identify with it, and have reasons for preferring and identifying with it, without thinking it's objectively superior.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby Serendipper » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:49 am

Gloominary wrote:Serendipper

Well are whites superior or are they not?

Why do you insist I simplify it?
You can prefer something, and identify with it, and have reasons for preferring and identifying with it, without thinking it's objectively superior.

You're right. Good point.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby Pandora » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:27 am

Silhouette wrote:So in criticising Nietzsche as part of your point here, you're actually criticising a proponent of the style of your criticism.
So I guess he wouldn’t have minded, then. But I wonder if, in this regard, he ever questioned himself (or ever made the connection).
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4291
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:22 pm

Silhouette wrote:
Jakob wrote:The old testament is actually one of the best books ever.

The prodigal capitalist revealed.


Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked

— (Ps. 82 (81): 3, 4).[6]


Blessed is the man who fears the Lord, who greatly delights in his commandments!...He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor; his righteousness endures forever; his horn is exalted in honour

— (Ps. 112 (111): 1, 9).[6]


Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood...cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow

— (Isa. 1:15–17).[7]


He who loves gold will not be justified, and he who pursues money will be led astray by it. Many have come to ruin because of gold, and their destruction has met them face to face. It is a stumbling block to those who are devoted to it, and every fool will be taken captive by it

— (Sir. 31: 5–7).[8]



It is God's gift to humankind that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil

— (Ecc. 3: 13).[9]


You shall not oppress your neighbour...but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord

— (Lev 19:13, 18).[4]

He [the Lord your God] executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner therefore; for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt

— (Deut. 10:18–19).[5]
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby promethean75 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:40 pm

I think of Stirner as a bit of a joke. A lot of fascile points. Not a lot of depth there.


understandable. he does have that effect. we take offense at anyone who calls our deepest thoughts and most pressing philosophical concerns, a menagerie of nonsense and spooks. we want to take something seriously, want to believe we can find some cause external to us that might give us meaning so that we can temporarily lose ourselves as the 'creative nothings' that we really are (according to stirner), and escape the nihilism that consumes us.

there probably hasn't ever been a thinker as honest as stirner; that's what's so offensive to the involuntary egoist, who on account of his fear of his own nothingess, cannot live without lying to himself and others. what's so impressive about stirner is that he 'called out' everything philosophical that was to develop south of marx, long before it happened. he was the absolute antithesis of marx's collectivity and morality, a kind of private eye that got a look behind all the individualisms and egoisms that would evolve and parade around as 'moral' systems. especially capitalism; the quintessential farce in this respect. so in a way stirner was like the priest that the capitalist must confess to if he is to come clean. the capitalist has everyone else fooled, but not stirner... not that master psychologist and magistrate of philosophical honesty.

somewhere else i talked about how stirner and marx represent the only two possible wings of political theory. and stirner is incredibly important because he is the shining symbol of conservatism (jakob had it backward in some comment elsewhere), which is nothing more than an anarchy of egoism with no view toward a collective and truly moral state. this being the case, the conservative is the epitome of the involuntary egoist; he covers his immorality up by telling himself he cares for something more than his pocket - humanity, freedom, liberty... spook narratives he occupies his head with, 'causes' he tells himself he is involved in so he can avoid having to face his own transparency.

in the end you might say there are only two types of people. nihilists-truthers, and nihilist-liars. the first type is the creator of morality precisely because he knows there isn't any morality. he has to fill this void, and to do so honestly, properly and completely, he has to shift to the other side of that spectrum and embrace the marxist collectivity. the second type is immersed in a tripartite lie; the first, that there is morality, the second, that his cause (capitalism) is this morality, and the third, that he becomes moral in what he does when he takes up his cause.

so the capitalist is so perfectly nestled in this series of lies that he tells himself that to come out of it would scare him to death... and this is the condition of the involuntary egoist. the first step out is to come clean and get washed. then you can begin doing political philosophy proper. until then, one is a thug at best, or a worm at worst.

this is the wisdom of the grand master max; that deadly philosophical marksman sniper. dostoevsky and nietzsche were great existential soldiers, sure, but they couldn't shoot like max. no sir.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby Artimas » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:40 pm

promethean75 wrote:
I think of Stirner as a bit of a joke. A lot of fascile points. Not a lot of depth there.


understandable. he does have that effect. we take offense at anyone who calls our deepest thoughts and most pressing philosophical concerns, a menagerie of nonsense and spooks. we want to take something seriously, want to believe we can find some cause external to us that might give us meaning so that we can temporarily lose ourselves as the 'creative nothings' that we really are (according to stirner), and escape the nihilism that consumes us.

there probably hasn't ever been a thinker as honest as stirner; that's what's so offensive to the involuntary egoist, who on account of his fear of his own nothingess, cannot live without lying to himself and others. what's so impressive about stirner is that he 'called out' everything philosophical that was to develop south of marx, long before it happened. he was the absolute antithesis of marx's collectivity and morality, a kind of private eye that got a look behind all the individualisms and egoisms that would evolve and parade around as 'moral' systems. especially capitalism; the quintessential farce in this respect. so in a way stirner was like the priest that the capitalist must confess to if he is to come clean. the capitalist has everyone else fooled, but not stirner... not that master psychologist and magistrate of philosophical honesty.

somewhere else i talked about how stirner and marx represent the only two possible wings of political theory. and stirner is incredibly important because he is the shining symbol of conservatism (jakob had it backward in some comment elsewhere), which is nothing more than an anarchy of egoism with no view toward a collective and truly moral state. this being the case, the conservative is the epitome of the involuntary egoist; he covers his immorality up by telling himself he cares for something more than his pocket - humanity, freedom, liberty... spook narratives he occupies his head with, 'causes' he tells himself he is involved in so he can avoid having to face his own transparency.

in the end you might say there are only two types of people. nihilists-truthers, and nihilist-liars. the first type is the creator of morality precisely because he knows there isn't any morality. he has to fill this void, and to do so honestly, properly and completely, he has to shift to the other side of that spectrum and embrace the marxist collectivity. the second type is immersed in a tripartite lie; the first, that there is morality, the second, that his cause (capitalism) is this morality, and the third, that he becomes moral in what he does when he takes up his cause.

so the capitalist is so perfectly nestled in this series of lies that he tells himself that to come out of it would scare him to death... and this is the condition of the involuntary egoist. the first step out is to come clean and get washed. then you can begin doing political philosophy proper. until then, one is a thug at best, or a worm at worst.

this is the wisdom of the grand master max; that deadly philosophical marksman sniper. dostoevsky and nietzsche were great existential soldiers, sure, but they couldn't shoot like max. no sir.



There isn't any morality? Based off of logic there is. Since existence at its root is agony, morality spawns out of such. Objectively and subjectively.

Nihilism? Really? The meaning of life is Life, to evolve and experience, sorry that isn't enough For some, quite sad to be honest. If one actually TRULY believes life has no meaning then what stops them from ending their life which has "no meaning" other than cowardice? They should take a trip back to Valhalla don't you think?

We should have a half socialism system, half of our system focused on necessities and the other half as capitalism for luxuries, the un-needed things that we use as comforts or pleasures. We need to educate people in individual thinking and if they aren't educated we should take their vote away, sorry not sorry. How can you fix an issue if you have a mass of people who don't even understand what the issue is?

First step, diagnosis. Which they obviously don't know how to diagnose, so why do we give them this sense of "false winning" when they're losing and just too ignorant to see such.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3750
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby promethean75 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:39 pm

artimas wrote:There isn't any morality? Based off of logic there is.


what i mean is, there are descriptions for morality, but no prescriptions; there is no moral theory that can get around the naturalistic fallacy without appealing to something transcendent to humans that sanctions concepts like 'right' and 'wrong'. and even if there were, one is still not obliged to follow such rules.

for an all-encompassing prescriptive theory of morality to exist, moral philosophy has to be greatly simplified and narrowed down to a few basic premises. they would be utilitarian in principle, and hedonistic in practice, translating into the axiom: the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest amount of people. this is the only way you'll ever get around all the conflicts generated by moral and cultural relativism. and such an all-encompassing morality needs to be forced on the world... precisely because of man's inherently selfish nature. in the context of my above post, i'm explaining this problem in terms of polarities that are represented by both stirner and marx. one approaches one or the other, absolutely, and there is no 'middle ground' here. anything short of the marxian collectivity will express only a variation of stirnerism, which is what the world should be wanting to avoid if it wishes to establish a solid foundation for morality.

now i'm not saying the world has to do this... only that if it doesn't, it will never turn moral theory into a prescriptively objective subject.

few things are more irritating than watching clumsy philosophers fumble around with moral theories that have no lasting substance, or try to invent new, designer moral theories that are only the residual left-overs of moral theory already demolished by positivism. you might say the age of moral 'philosophy' is over. morality now belongs to the sciences. the philosophers blew their chance.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby promethean75 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:56 pm

Nihilism? Really? The meaning of life is Life, to evolve and experience, sorry that isn't enough For some, quite sad to be honest. If one actually TRULY believes life has no meaning then what stops them from ending their life which has "no meaning" other than cowardice?


to be clear, 'nihilism' isn't actually a philosophy.... but more of an anti-philosophy... as it denies many things philosophy has claimed to establish. it is an attitude of rejection, but certainly not an attitude of meaninglessness and valuelessness. people cannot actually have such attitudes; everyone gives/perceives meaning, and everyone values something. instead, nihilism has become a strawman that angered philosophers direct their nervious energies at when their philosophies are rejected. so anyone who does not subscribe to the philosopher who believes he has formulated a GUT (grand unified theory) of everything, will be deemed a nihilist and will represent an imaginary enemy toward which the philosopher can direct his energies. in sociological terms you could say that the nihilist represents the weberian 'out-group' of the philosophical class.

now i call myself a nihilist because it is the most appropriate designation to have in the environment i find myself in, it seems. i don't deny 'value' or 'meaning', only the incredibly inconsistent, obscure, ambiguous and most often nonsensical material that describes what passes as 'philosophy' in such an environment that i find myself in.

nietzsches defines two types of nihilistic attitude; the active and the passive. the active nihilist is engaged in the assault on such philosophical error, while the passive nihilist simply resigns from it. but neither are meaningless or valueless. remember, these are just narratives philosophers who have been rejected, use to describe those who reject them.

the thing to remember most of all is this; nature is non-teleological, so there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to live, neither for individuals or entire peoples. there are only different ways to live, each producing their own sets of problems and solutions. so there is no grand 'ideal' way to be, which is so often the mistake that philosophers make when assessing civilization. the error usually consists in the indicative mood of the thesis; 'civilization needs to be like x, or it is wrong, or [insert whatever pejorative adjective].' the problem here occurs when the philosopher mistakes his hypothetical imperative for a categorical imperative... and this consists of ignoring the continuum that human evolution is, and prescribing historical imperatives to the entire series rather than only to a specific stage in the series. in other words, because human beings are changing, so too do the imperatives of what is 'progressive' or 'regressive' for them, change.

the ideological philosopher - especially the conservatively minded - gets 'stuck' in this error of reasoning and attributes as necessary, certain historical contingencies which happened to exist for some stage or another, ... and then uses such standards and criteria to assess the health and the progress of the stages that follow... which are generically different and not subject to the same analysis.

take for example homosexuality. at stage x, it was an unheard of abomination in culture. then at stage y, attitudes toward it change. now ask; is it truly dangerous to civilization that this change of attitude occured? if you answer yes, you need to explain how. you'll then set out to produce any number of pseudo-scientifc philosophical narratives that make all kinds of unsubstatiated predictions about the threat of homosexuality to mankind. and what would be driving this effort? certainly not the facts you think you're producing, because there aren't any. it's rather your attitude and the anxiety you experience at this kind of historical, cultural change, that drives your protest. of course, one can certainly disapprove of homosexuality (as i do... felt like i should say that...lol) if that means 'i wouldn't do it', but one could never state as a categorical imperative that not doing it is necessary for the 'progress' of mankind.

see where i'm going here? ideological wars are the expressions of the 'sigh' of an age giving way to a new stage of man. the nihilist's role, as the active type, is to be there to shoot down the philosopher who steps in and declares 'this is wrong'... and the trained nihilist has a whole arsenal of weapons - epistemological, metaphysical, scientific - to do this with. a nihilist proper should be like a ninja from the school of historical materialism, i say, because it is largely the fault of 'philosophy' that history is creeping along so slowly.

for some, evolution is simply to slow, man. i have a higher intellectual metabolism and see farther and faster than many. such a radical being could only be thought of as a nihilist, a completely different species, to the intellectual dionsaurs still dancing the de anza jig, that prevail today.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:07 pm

promethean75 wrote:
I think of Stirner as a bit of a joke. A lot of fascile points. Not a lot of depth there.


understandable. he does have that effect. we take offense at anyone who calls our deepest thoughts and most pressing philosophical concerns, a menagerie of nonsense and spooks. we want to take something seriously, want to believe we can find some cause external to us that might give us meaning so that we can temporarily lose ourselves as the 'creative nothings' that we really are (according to stirner), and escape the nihilism that consumes us.

Birds that fly high look small ;)
Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities ;)
Some people are so far behind they actually think they're winning - Junior Soprano

there probably hasn't ever been a thinker as honest as stirner; that's what's so offensive to the involuntary egoist, who on account of his fear of his own nothingess, cannot live without lying to himself and others. what's so impressive about stirner is that he 'called out' everything philosophical that was to develop south of marx, long before it happened. he was the absolute antithesis of marx's collectivity and morality, a kind of private eye that got a look behind all the individualisms and egoisms that would evolve and parade around as 'moral' systems. especially capitalism; the quintessential farce in this respect. so in a way stirner was like the priest that the capitalist must confess to if he is to come clean. the capitalist has everyone else fooled, but not stirner... not that master psychologist and magistrate of philosophical honesty.

The new “Spirit of the Age: Gain Wealth, forgetting all but Self” — the vile maxim of the masters, which they naturally sought to impose on their subjects as well, knowing that they would be able to gain very little of the available wealth. https://chomsky.info/nothing-for-other- ... ed-states/

somewhere else i talked about how stirner and marx represent the only two possible wings of political theory. and stirner is incredibly important because he is the shining symbol of conservatism (jakob had it backward in some comment elsewhere), which is nothing more than an anarchy of egoism with no view toward a collective and truly moral state. this being the case, the conservative is the epitome of the involuntary egoist; he covers his immorality up by telling himself he cares for something more than his pocket - humanity, freedom, liberty... spook narratives he occupies his head with, 'causes' he tells himself he is involved in so he can avoid having to face his own transparency.

in the end you might say there are only two types of people. nihilists-truthers, and nihilist-liars. the first type is the creator of morality precisely because he knows there isn't any morality. he has to fill this void, and to do so honestly, properly and completely, he has to shift to the other side of that spectrum and embrace the marxist collectivity. the second type is immersed in a tripartite lie; the first, that there is morality, the second, that his cause (capitalism) is this morality, and the third, that he becomes moral in what he does when he takes up his cause.

so the capitalist is so perfectly nestled in this series of lies that he tells himself that to come out of it would scare him to death... and this is the condition of the involuntary egoist. the first step out is to come clean and get washed. then you can begin doing political philosophy proper. until then, one is a thug at best, or a worm at worst.

this is the wisdom of the grand master max; that deadly philosophical marksman sniper. dostoevsky and nietzsche were great existential soldiers, sure, but they couldn't shoot like max. no sir.

I'm learning a lot here, Pro. That Stirner fella thinks a lot like me:

Stirner argues that individuals are impossible to fully comprehend. All mere concepts of the self will always be inadequate to fully describe the nature of our experience. Stirner has been broadly understood as a proponent of both psychological egoism and ethical egoism, although the latter position can be disputed as there is no claim in Stirner's writing in which one ought to pursue one's own interest and further claiming any ought could be seen as a new fixed idea. Stirner may be understood as a rational egoist in the sense that he considered it irrational not to act in one's self-interest. However, how this self-interest is defined is necessarily subjective, allowing both selfish and altruistic normative claims to be included. Individual self-realization rests on each individual's desire to fulfill their egoism. The difference between an unwilling and a willing egoist is that the former will be possessed by an "empty idea" and believe that they are fulfilling a higher cause, but usually being unaware that they are only fulfilling their own desires to be happy or secure; and in contrast the latter will be a person that is able to freely choose its actions, fully aware that they are only fulfilling individual desires as stated by Stirner: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner

So, the moral absolutist vs the sensiblist; the righteous vs the pragmatic.

Guess I don't need to bother reading him; I am him lol. Good to know I have allies.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby Serendipper » Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:28 pm

Artimas wrote:We should have a half socialism system, half of our system focused on necessities and the other half as capitalism for luxuries, the un-needed things that we use as comforts or pleasures.

Man that is concerning that capitalism is juxtoposed with necessity and equated with luxury.

The only possible unique definition of capitalism is exploitation of workers. That's it. Capitalization on X is the exploitation of X. "I capitalized on this situation. I exploited this situation to my benefit."

A worker co-op where workers are co-owners of the means of production can peddle the goods they produce in a 100% free market.

A worker co-op can make a profit and invest those profits with the expectation of making more profit.

The ONLY thing that doesn't exist in a worker co-op is the exploitation (capitalization) of the worker by the capitalistic owner of the means of production.

Therefore, capitalism = exploitation. Period. Full stop.

"But but but...." No buts! Don't believe the propaganda.

What? You thought the most refined propaganda system in the history of the world wanted you believe socialism is good? Why do you think it's such a bad word? How can they remain in control if they can no long exploit people for profit? How can wealth be concentrated in a free society without propaganda demonizing your very salvation? :confusion-shrug:

Champions of capitalism are cows defending the slaughterhouse.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby Jakob » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:25 am

Image
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby Jakob » Sat May 04, 2019 10:25 am

If any of the many millions of apparent Socialist sympathizers really wanted a the sort of equal distribution of profit as advocated by promethean, then they could just go about and do that. Nothing stands in the way of people founding companies that distribute the profits equally among the workers.

We can ask why does this not happen?
I see three reasons immediately
1) once push comes to shove they decide against sharing the profits
2) they're not capable of creating a company which enough people want to buy from
3) they think the only proper socialist way is violently taking ownership of other peoples work
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby barbarianhorde » Wed May 08, 2019 2:17 pm

As always the only problem capitalism ever faces is that of monopoly.

Monopoly always leads to fascistic tendencies, and in the end to the Socialist Hail-State, which always immediately collapses into a criminal oligarchy, from which a kind of Napoleon, Caesar or Putin can emerge. Usually no such figure emerges, and the nation falls into complete decay, until foreign powers take it apart.

Trump is no such figure, mind you. He is American.
America is writing the future, not basing itself on anything that came before it. It wants none of the dank past, maybe it wants a few of its treasures but not enough that it clutter the view on the road.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: parading through the inventory

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby barbarianhorde » Wed May 08, 2019 2:20 pm

Monopoly is what might happened to the Dinosaurs, rather than a meteor.

They had no competition so they could eat too freely, so they at everything and then starved, after first tearing each other apart - the species consumed itself after it had consumed all the rest.

This is btw what islam prohencizes will come as the end of days; a monster that grows by drinking water drinks all of the oceans and then comes ashore and eats everything.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: parading through the inventory

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby barbarianhorde » Wed May 08, 2019 5:35 pm

Capitalism:
Making something that a lot of people want and getting powerful because of it. Using loans or other peoples money to get there is the usual way.

The rest: (crime, and all other isms)
Taking the invention of another and using it to control people.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: parading through the inventory

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby barbarianhorde » Wed May 08, 2019 5:40 pm

Whats gonna happen is a new thing will be invented to make markets on a whole other level.
Its the cornerstone of civilization that still has to be invented.
Xept its been invented.
On paper.

Too costly for its inventor to finance.

Capitalism is right now a caterpillar, treacherous little creeper and yet it harbours the butterfly. Renaissance is the path.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: parading through the inventory

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby Jakob » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:57 pm

I see there are still people here who have the idiotic insensitivity to be against Trump. How is that possible after the past weeks?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6991
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby barbarianhorde » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:47 pm

Is this just propaganda or what?
I hope so.

THE MOST DANGEROUS COUNTRIES IN EUROPE FOR WOMEN HAVE LARGE MUSLIM IMMIGRATION
Statistics link Muslim immigration in Europe to sexual violence.
September 6, 2018 Daniel Greenfield
Share to Facebook5.6KShare to TwitterShare to More422Share to Print
73
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism

Sweden has one of Europe’s highest rates of sexual assaults.

At 120.79 violent sexual assaults per 100,000 people, and 56 rapes per 100,000, the otherwise bleak socialist country ranks as having the second highest rate of sexual violence in Europe.

What makes Sweden so exceptionally dangerous for women? Its militant feminism is embedded in its political culture and its educational system. Sweden has boasted of a “feminist foreign policy”, 61% of Swedes in one survey identified as feminists and hold the strongest views on “gender equality” of any Europeans. Swedes are the most likely to believe that it’s okay for men to cry. Only 11% believe that women should take care of the home and only 10% believe that it’s a man’s job to support his family.

A local branch of the Left Party in Sweden even demanded that men urinate while sitting down.

And then there are the Czechs, just 13% identify as feminists, 77% think that a woman’s place is in the home, yet the sexual assault rate is 7.79 per 100,000, a tiny fraction of feminist Sweden.

If the real issues were feminism and toxic masculinity, if sufficient educational indoctrination about the evils of masculinity is needed to “teach men not to rape”, women should be safest in Sweden.

So what went wrong?

Instead of traveling from Stockholm to Prague, let’s take a closer trip over to neighboring Finland.

Finland has a third of Sweden’s rape rates and a quarter of its sexual assault rates. Its numbers are still far higher than most of Europe, but nowhere near those of Sweden.

What could possibly explain the difference?

Finland is also fairly feminist, but the Muslim proportion of its population is only a third of Sweden. Finland has a third of Sweden’s Muslim population proportion and a third of its rape rate.

Sweden has the second highest non-indigenous Muslim immigration population rate in Europe and the second highest sexual assault rate in Europe. It would be foolish to pretend that this is a coincidence.

Take Ireland and the United Kingdom. The UK tops even Sweden in Europe’s sexual assault and rape statistics. At 130.96 per 100,000 for sexual assaults and 50.68 per 100,000 for rapes, the United Kingdom is the most dangerous place for women in Europe. One analysis claims that 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted and that 3.1% of women were assaulted in just the last year.

But then why do the numbers for nearby Ireland look so strikingly different? Like Finland, Ireland’s numbers are high, but nowhere near as high as those in the United Kingdom.

The UK’s sexual assault and rape rates are roughly four times as high as those of Ireland. And at 6.3% versus 1.4%, the difference in Muslim population percentages is in almost perfect proportion.

London, with its great diversity, has the highest rape rate within the United Kingdom.



Finland was once part of Sweden. Ireland was once part of the United Kingdom. Unlike comparing distant countries where differences can be accounted for by a great variety of factors, Finland and Ireland serve as a kind of control group measuring the impact of immigration on Europe.

Belgium, which hosts the capitals of the European Union and of Islamic terrorism, is in third place. At 65.92 sexual assaults and 25.50 rapes per 100,000, women are unsafe in the capital of the EU. Meanwhile Hungary, the country in the news for its clashes with the EU over admitting Muslim migrants, has a sexual assault rate of 2.45 and a rape rate of 3.82.

Belgium has the third highest Muslim population rate and the third highest sexual violence rate.

Brussels has a thousand programs and regulations pushing feminism. Hungary has a wall. The lesson from Sweden and Brussels is that if you want to stop rape, professional feminism doesn’t work, walls do.

At 0.86, Serbia has one of the lowest sexual assault rates in Europe. And at 8.8, France has one of the highest. Eastern European countries, generally not known for their militant feminism, have low rates while the more “progressive” Western European countries suffer from very high rates.

The Netherlands has the fourth highest sexual assault rate in Europe and the fourth highest non-indigenous Muslim population rate. Germany has the sixth highest assault rate and the sixth highest Muslim population rate. Not all the numbers add up so well, but those that do are quite disturbing.

There are European countries with low Muslim population rates, but high sexual assault rates. Portugal, Finland and Latvia are all examples. But there is no European country that has a high Muslim immigrant population and a low rate of sexual violence. All of the top Muslim immigrant countries are in the red.

The differences are sometimes striking when measuring culturally dissimilar neighbors.

Germany sits next door to Poland. Sexual assaults in Germany clock in at 33.55 while in Poland, they’re at 1.40. Muslims make up 6.1% of Germany and less than 0.1% of Poland.

The statistics suggest that the key factor is not necessarily a high Muslim population, but a high Muslim immigrant population. Bulgaria has a sizable Muslim population that has been living there for a very long time. And its sexual violence rates are quite low. It’s particularly immigrant populations coming from societies with a very different set of Islamic mores that lead to epidemics of sexual violence.

European countries with ancient Muslim populations don’t appear to have large sexual assault rates. It’s the countries that admitted large numbers of Muslim migrants in a matter of decades that are suffering.

Islamic doctrines and Arabic cultural mores that permit, explicitly or implicitly, the sexual assault of non-Muslim women who are not dressed properly or walk unaccompanied by a male relative, are pernicious. And Muslims rapists in Europe and Australia have cited belief and culture in their defense. But mass migration is often inherently disruptive, breaking down values and trust in stable communities.

That trust then has to be rebuilt in ways that the media and the entertainment industry frequently reduce to simplistic moralizing tales about trusting people who are different, but that in practice take generations to restore lost social capital. There can be gains along the way, but any honest accounting must measure the horrifying losses, including these shocking assault rates, against the gains.

Sweden has the second highest non-indigenous Muslim population rate in Europe and the second highest sexual assault rate in Europe. Belgium has the third highest Muslim population rate and the third highest sexual violence rate. The Netherlands has the fourth highest sexual assault rate in Europe and the fourth highest Muslim population rate. Germany has the sixth highest assault rate and the sixth highest Muslim population rate. Are all of these numbers just a random coincidence?

Feminist government policies don’t stop sexual violence. Not when the same feminist governments open the borders to mass migrations from countries where women have no legal or cultural rights.

The more open a European country is to Muslim mass migration, the more dangerous it is to women.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: parading through the inventory

Re: Animalism, Earthism

Postby barbarianhorde » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:49 pm

I like the concept of forbidding peeing while standing up.

They should also forbid it for women though. It doesn't happen much but I saw it once in a fucking public street in Rome. A lady just lifted up her dress and went to work on the cobblestones.
No. I can tell you. No good.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: parading through the inventory

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]