Gloominary wrote:At this point I only have three questions for Serendipper.
1. Roughly what % of the population needs to work to take care of everyone's needs (food, clothing, shelter, furniture, appliances, medication, phones, some transportation, etcetera).
2. How did you arrive at this figure?
3. How do we get from the system we have, to a system where so long as a few people volunteer, everyone's needs are met?
Gloominary wrote:@Karpel
There's no doubt in my mind the elite are steeped in conspiracy and the occult.
There's no doubt in my mind paranormal phenomena are occurring on planet earth.
I don't claim to know exactly what these phenomena represent, but we can't expect mainstream academia and media to do anything but discourage us from acknowledging and investigating them, as they're heavily controlled.
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.Serendipper wrote:Gloominary wrote:@Karpel
There's no doubt in my mind the elite are steeped in conspiracy and the occult.
There's no doubt in my mind paranormal phenomena are occurring on planet earth.
I don't claim to know exactly what these phenomena represent, but we can't expect mainstream academia and media to do anything but discourage us from acknowledging and investigating them, as they're heavily controlled.
Nah, science will get bored and seek new puzzles.
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.Gloominary wrote:@Karpel
There's no doubt in my mind the elite are steeped in conspiracy and the occult.
There's no doubt in my mind paranormal phenomena are occurring on planet earth.
I don't claim to know exactly what these phenomena represent, but we can't expect mainstream academia and media to do anything but discourage us from acknowledging and investigating them, as they're heavily controlled by the conspirators themselves.
We've established that you're under the delusion that Hitler pretended to be christian when he wrote his book, gave his speeches, mandated prayer and all oaths to be taken in the name of god. As I said, you may as well claim the pope is an atheist too.
Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic.[1] In light of evidence such as his fierce criticism and vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity,[2] numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition,[1] and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity.[1] Historian Laurence Rees found no evidence that "Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church".[3] Ernst Hanfstaengl, a friend from his early days in politics, says Hitler "was to all intents and purposes an atheist by the time I got to know him". However, historians such as Richard Weikart and Alan Bullock doubt the assessment that he was a true atheist, suggesting that despite his dislike of Christianity he still clung to a form of spiritual belief. [4]
Hitler was born to a practising Catholic mother, and was baptised in the Roman Catholic Church. From a young age, he expressed disbelief and hostility to Christianity.[5] But in 1904, acquiescing to his mother's wish, he was confirmed at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Linz, Austria, where the family lived.[6] According to John Willard Toland, witnesses indicate that Hitler's confirmation sponsor had to "drag the words out of him ... almost as though the whole confirmation was repugnant to him".[7] Rissmann notes that, according to several witnesses who lived with Hitler in a men's home in Vienna, Hitler never again attended Mass or received the sacraments after leaving home.[8] Several eyewitnesses who lived with Hitler while he was in his late teens and early-to-mid 20s in Vienna state that he never attended church after leaving home at 18.[8]
In Hitler's early political statements, he attempted to express himself to the German public as a Christian.[9] In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches prior to and in the early years of his rule, he described himself as a Christian.[10][11] Hitler and the Nazi party promoted "Positive Christianity",[12] a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament.[13][14] In one widely quoted remark, he described Jesus as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against "the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees"[15] and Jewish materialism.[16]
While a small minority of historians accept these publicly stated views as genuine expressions of his spirituality,[9] the vast majority believe that Hitler was skeptical of religion and anti-Christian, but recognized that he could only be elected and preserve his political power if he feigned a commitment to and belief in Christianity, which the overwhelming majority of Germans believed in.[17] Privately, Hitler repeatedly deprecated Christianity, and told confidants that his reluctance to make public attacks on the Church was not a matter of principle, but a pragmatic political move.[18] In his private diaries, Goebbels wrote in April 1941 that though Hitler was "a fierce opponent" of the Vatican and Christianity, "he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons."[19] Hitler's remarks to confidants, as described in the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer, and transcripts of Hitler's private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann in Hitler's Table Talk, are further evidence of his irreligious and anti-Christian beliefs;[1] these sources record a number of private remarks in which Hitler ridicules Christian doctrine as absurd, contrary to scientific advancement, and socially destructive.[1][20]
Once in office, Hitler and his regime sought to reduce the influence of Christianity on society.[21] From the mid-1930s, his government was increasingly dominated by militant anti-church proponents like Goebbels, Bormann, Himmler, Rosenberg and Heydrich whom Hitler appointed to key posts.[22] These anti-church radicals were generally permitted or encouraged to perpetrate the Nazi persecutions of the churches.[23] The regime launched an effort toward coordination of German Protestants under a unified Protestant Reich Church (but this was resisted by the Confessing Church), and moved early to eliminate political Catholicism.[24] Hitler agreed to the Reich concordat with the Vatican, but then routinely ignored it, and permitted persecutions of the Catholic Church.[25] Smaller religious minorities faced harsher repression, with the Jews of Germany expelled for extermination on the grounds of Nazi racial ideology. Jehovah's Witnesses were ruthlessly persecuted for refusing both military service and allegiance to Hitler's movement. Hitler said he anticipated a coming collapse of Christianity in the wake of scientific advances, and that Nazism and religion could not co-exist long term.[1] Although he was prepared to delay conflicts for political reasons, historians conclude that he ultimately intended the destruction of Christianity in Germany, or at least its distortion or subjugation to a Nazi outlook.[26]
You're struggling, grasping and groping to find anything to save your position. Why? Why is it so important to you that Hitler be an atheist that you're willing to be dishonest in painting it so? Quite the crusade you've undertaken.
Why's it so difficult for the left to believe in conspiracy?
Lack of the necessary brain damage?
I live in a town with nothing but christians, yet I've never met a christian. It's an impossible religion.
And Watts said nobody really believes in god because if they did, they'd be screaming in the streets. The Jehovah's Witnesses is the closest we have to a group like that. So in that light, sure, there are only atheists, but to the extent that people consider themselves christian and profess to be such, that's how I'm defining them and Hitler falls into the same category as the pope.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Who was the first to throw jews into ovens? ^^^
And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. (p. 174 Mein Kampf)
Parents are the worst thing that could happen to a child.
Well, you'll never usher in another final solution so you may as well forget it and move on.
Yes but my point was that no one bred humans to be white or smart or anything else. No one guided the process and therefore no one gets the credit.
People can swap labels all they want, but it's a conservative/rightwing thing to divide people into groups.
You have to stop paying attention to labels. That's rightwing and not progressivism.
Well the atheists wouldn't.
No, they would welcome it with open arms! Hillbillies relish good ole fashioned authoritarianism. Being told what to do, telling people want to do, and having an authority to worship is right up their alley... just so long as you don't expect them to think.
They think the pope is the antichrist; that's about the only difference.
Is there evidence that Merkel is a liberal? She advocates rightwing taxation.
Oh my, another nazi LOL!
Yeah but they've still made a religion from it and some buddhists believe in souls, reincarnation, heaven, hell, etc. Just like christians are not anything like christ, buddhists are nothing like the buddha.
Atheists are quite different: they don't do anything religiously, they don't go to temples, they aren't concerned with afterlives, and they can't believe in objective truth.
Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī, a companion of Muhammad, is credited by some scholars, like Muhammad Sharqawi and Sami Ayad Hanna, as a principal antecedent of Islamic socialism.[1][2][3][4][5] He protested against the accumulation of wealth by the ruling class during Uthman's caliphate and urged the equitable redistribution of wealth. The first Muslim Caliph Abu Bakr introduced a guaranteed minimum standard of income, granting each man, woman and child ten dirhams annually—this was later increased to twenty dirhams.
Jacque Fresco, Alan Watts and others insisted it was technically possible to eliminate servitude in the 70s, so there is absolutely no way anyone should be compelled into the workforce in 2019!
The job of the machine is to make drudgery unnecessary.
Not true. Unemployment is determined by measuring the number of people looking for work. People not looking for work are not considered unemployed. Unemployment would be 50% right now if we didn't measure it that way.
That can only come by providing welfare (or rich parents) so that workers do not have to take the peanuts offered which will force companies to offer higher wages to motivate people to work.
You're trying to force communism through authoritarian dictation.
Communism arises of its own accord.
If you eliminate welfare, wages will plummet, prices will plummet from lack of demand, and very few will have jobs.
You'll have to force companies to hire (at gunpoint),
you'll have to set prices and wages,
and you'll be simply repeating what all other communist dictators tried to do.
In 1930s a farmer could feed 4 people
In 1970s a farmer could feed 73 people
Today a farmer can feed 155 people.
http://kxrb.com/how-many-people-does-one-farmer-feed/
Anyway, 330,000,000/155 = 2,129,032 farmers. 2,129,032/330,000,000 = 0.65% of the population are farmers. That's not counting exports or what we destroy to maintain high prices, but a rough estimate just to show how ridiculously small the required number of workers is.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: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.Serendipper wrote:Gloominary wrote:@Karpel
There's no doubt in my mind the elite are steeped in conspiracy and the occult.
There's no doubt in my mind paranormal phenomena are occurring on planet earth.
I don't claim to know exactly what these phenomena represent, but we can't expect mainstream academia and media to do anything but discourage us from acknowledging and investigating them, as they're heavily controlled.
Nah, science will get bored and seek new puzzles.
Gloominary wrote: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.
You're struggling, grasping and groping to find anything to save your position. Why? Why is it so important to you that Hitler be an atheist that you're willing to be dishonest in painting it so? Quite the crusade you've undertaken.
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.
Why's it so difficult for the left to believe in conspiracy?Lack of the necessary brain damage?
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.
I live in a town with nothing but christians, yet I've never met a christian. It's an impossible religion.
And Watts said nobody really believes in god because if they did, they'd be screaming in the streets. The Jehovah's Witnesses is the closest we have to a group like that. So in that light, sure, there are only atheists, but to the extent that people consider themselves christian and profess to be such, that's how I'm defining them and Hitler falls into the same category as the pope.
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.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Who was the first to throw jews into ovens? ^^^
And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. (p. 174 Mein Kampf)
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.
Parents are the worst thing that could happen to a child.
No foster care and the state is.
Gloominary wrote: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.
Gloominary wrote:@SerendipperWell, you'll never usher in another final solution so you may as well forget it and move on.
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.
Yes but my point was that no one bred humans to be white or smart or anything else. No one guided the process and therefore no one gets the credit.
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.
People can swap labels all they want, but it's a conservative/rightwing thing to divide people into groups.
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.
Gloominary wrote:@SerendipperJacque Fresco, Alan Watts and others insisted it was technically possible to eliminate servitude in the 70s, so there is absolutely no way anyone should be compelled into the workforce in 2019!
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.
The job of the machine is to make drudgery unnecessary.
Agreed.
Not true. Unemployment is determined by measuring the number of people looking for work. People not looking for work are not considered unemployed. Unemployment would be 50% right now if we didn't measure it that way.
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.
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.
Communism arises of its own accord.
If that were true, the rich would voluntarily share most of their riches with the poor.
If you eliminate welfare, wages will plummet, prices will plummet from lack of demand, and very few will have jobs.
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.
You'll have to force companies to hire (at gunpoint),
Nonsense.
you'll have to set prices and wages,
We set wages now.
and you'll be simply repeating what all other communist dictators tried to do.
No, I'm a proponent of national democratic socialism, not communist dictatorship.
Gloominary wrote:@SerendipperIn 1930s a farmer could feed 4 people
In 1970s a farmer could feed 73 people
Today a farmer can feed 155 people.
http://kxrb.com/how-many-people-does-one-farmer-feed/
Anyway, 330,000,000/155 = 2,129,032 farmers. 2,129,032/330,000,000 = 0.65% of the population are farmers. That's not counting exports or what we destroy to maintain high prices, but a rough estimate just to show how ridiculously small the required number of workers is.
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.
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?
the wide consensus of historians consider him [Hitler] to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic.[1]
Richard Overy; The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia; Allen Lane/Penguin; 2004, pp. 287: "During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, ‘National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."
Richard Overy: The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia; Allen Lane/Penguin; 2004, p. 281: "Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing'. The reason for the crisis was science."
Richard J. Evans; The Third Reich at War; Penguin Press; New York 2009, p. 547: wrote that Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition". Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs', 'abortions in black cassocks'".
Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, Fontana Press 1993, p. 412.: Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity"
Hitler's Table Talk: Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."
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?
Rightwing / Leftwing
Religion / nonreligion
Authoritarianism / Democracy
Claims of knowing absolute truth (objectivism) / Relativism
Consolidations of power and wealth / Dispersal of power and wealth.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The job of the machine is to make drudgery unnecessary.
Agreed.
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.
Gloominary wrote:@SerendipperSo 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.
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.
How do you know that? Did you take an exhaustive poll?the wide consensus of historians consider him [Hitler] to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic.[1]Richard Overy; The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia; Allen Lane/Penguin; 2004, pp. 287: "During the War [Hitler] reflected that in the long run, ‘National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. Both Stalin and Hitler wanted a neutered religion, subservient to the state, while the slow programme of scientific revelation destroyed the foundation of religious myth."
Richard Overy: The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia; Allen Lane/Penguin; 2004, p. 281: "Hitler believed that all religions were now 'decadent'; in Europe it was the 'collapse of Christianity that we are now experiencing'. The reason for the crisis was science."
Richard J. Evans; The Third Reich at War; Penguin Press; New York 2009, p. 547: wrote that Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition". Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs', 'abortions in black cassocks'".
Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, Fontana Press 1993, p. 412.: Bullock notes Hitler's use of rhetoric of "Providence" but concludes that Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon all shared the same materialist outlook "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity"
Hitler's Table Talk: Hitler is reported as saying: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#cite_note-Bundle1-1
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?
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.
Rightwing / Leftwing
Religion / nonreligion
Authoritarianism / Democracy
Claims of knowing absolute truth (objectivism) / Relativism
Consolidations of power and wealth / Dispersal of power and wealth.
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.
Dispersal of wealth isn't good, if it helps the harmful at the expense of the helpful.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Growth is measured by the extent to which one has outgrown their childhood indoctrination.
Averagely speaking, parents care far more about their children's life, liberty (physical and psychic) and happiness than the state does.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users