Boycott Google

[Gloominary]

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]

@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.

[Serendipper]

At this point I only have three questions for Serendipper.

I've arrived at the bridge of death lol

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).

If N = amount of work that needs to be done by a human and P = the number of people willing to work, then I'm saying that P will always be greater than N. Of course, by "work" I don't mean uncompensated work. It's not like I'm saying people will work for free for the good of society. If fact they'll probably be paid quite a bit since the poor will be robust consumers instead of economic drags.

2. How did you arrive at this figure?

N is inversely proportional to technology and technology rises exponentially. If P>N was true in 1974, it's true today and will only get exponentially more true as time moves on.

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/

Not to mention we throw lots of food away and build warehouses to store it rather than mark prices down to sell it. We have 1.4 billion pounds of cheese https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... us-cheese/

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.

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?

Put the tax structure back like it was in the 50 year span when america was great and then https://basicincome.org/

If you received $10k UBI, you could sit on your butt all day, maybe talking on ILP, or you could get a job and have that income plus the $10k. And the minimum wage would increase on its own since an increase would be required to motivate people to work, so the job you decided to take would likely pay much more than the options you currently have. The point is: you are not forced to work. You are incentivized, but not forced. This is the only way to be libertarian. And the rich guy giving up some of his pirated loot doesn't count as a loss of liberty. And yes "pirated" is the right word to describe what's taken without permission.

If I offered you $10/hr, you might say "Sounds good from my perspective!", but I don't tell you I'm making $50/hr on your labor, then it's not a fair and informed agreement from which to garner permission to capitalize on your labor. How can you agree how to split a pie when you don't know how big it is? Does that make sense? I know it makes sense because that used to be the case, and once my workers discovered such then threatened to go on strike because of it. I knew what I was doing was wrong, which is why I had to hide it. I justified it with the capitalist narrative of doing a service by providing jobs, but the jobs were means to rip people off. And that's the case with most jobs: the point is to put you to work like an animal and capitalize on your labor. Some jobs are opposite and the worker is overcompensated, but most are not a deal that an employee would agree to if they were made aware of the profit that their labor generated.

And the other part of the narrative is that "they were free to do it too!" I told myself that, but no, I was dependent upon having people who didn't have much expectation out of life because otherwise they would never have agreed to profitable terms. Most of them could only be described as neurological degenerates victim of being born on the wrong side of town. They are the seeds that fell in stony places. There's probably no fixing them, but we can help the next generation not suffer similar fate.

[Serendipper]

@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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

@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.

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

@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.

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]

@Serendipper

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.

You're delusional.

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]

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.

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.
JWs aren't real Christians, they do everything out of fear, instead of inspiration, they're religious, not spiritual.

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]

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]

@Serendipper

Well, 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]

@Serendipper

You have to stop paying attention to labels. That's rightwing and not progressivism.

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.

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

Well the atheists wouldn't.

Just like theists, most atheists submit to the soft tyranny in the 1st world and hard tyranny in the 3rd.

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.

Both Hillbillies and Hippies are too libertarian (in the contemporary Anglo-American sense of the word) to accept hard tyranny, for now.

They think the pope is the antichrist; that's about the only difference.

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.

Is there evidence that Merkel is a liberal? She advocates rightwing taxation.

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.

Oh my, another nazi LOL!

Nazi = national socialist.

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.

It's degrees, not black/white like you think.

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.

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.

[Gloominary]

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.

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.

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.

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

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!

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.

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.

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)?

You're trying to force communism through authoritarian dictation.

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]

@Serendipper

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.

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.

[Gloominary]

@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.

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.

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.

[Serendipper]

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

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.

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

How do you know that? Did you take an exhaustive poll?

The burden of proof is on you.

And the burden of admitting you're wrong 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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

He's generous, humble, forgiving, not materialistic and his faith is sincere.

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

He's not perfect, but since when did Christianity require its adherents to be as such?

Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect.

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.

Right, it's the idea that you are a defect. The church institutionalized guilt.

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.

No he damned them to hell and they crucified him for it.



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.

Parents are the worst thing that could happen to a child.

No foster care and the state is.

Growth is measured by the extent to which one has outgrown their childhood indoctrination.

[Serendipper]

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.

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.

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

Well, 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.

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.

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.

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.

As for freewill, I have mixed thoughts about that, my thinking strongly leans determinism, but there may be room for freewill.

I don't think one can exist without the other.

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.

The only reason whites are being oppressed is that they're uneducated and proud of it.

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

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!

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 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?

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.

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%.

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.

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.

Communism arises of its own accord.

If that were true, the rich would voluntarily share most of their riches with the poor.

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).

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?

Wages will plummet because people are willing to work for less because they're starving because you cutoff their welfare.

And if wages and prices drop equally, than what's the problem?

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.

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?

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.

And again, we can always reduce the workweek so prices and wages remain about the same, and everyone works.

They'll just pay less for the shorter week.

You'll have to force companies to hire (at gunpoint),

Nonsense.

How else do you expect companies to hire people to make stuff that no one has the money to buy?

you'll have to set prices and wages,

We set wages now.

The minimum? That's $7.25. I don't call that "setting wages". A bump up to $15, I would.

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.

Well, setting prices, wages, forcing companies to hire, and generally micromanaging the economy is essentially what the communist dictators tried to do.

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

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.

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.

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.

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Gloominary]

Religion is something practiced. Ideology is something discovered by reason and held until a reason changes it.

An ideology can be arrived at by way of reason, or emotion, fashion, tradition, or all of the above, you name 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.

Communists, socialists, syndicalists, democrats, liberals, progressives, anarchists, antifa, BLM, feminists, vegans and so on groupthink.

[Gloominary]

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.

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.

But you need to punish the lazy.

Yes, how diabolical of me.

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.

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.

The only reason whites are being oppressed is that they're uneducated and proud of it.

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:

[Gloominary]

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.

Servitude can't be eliminated, either it can be equal, fair, unequal or unfair.

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?

The job of the machine is to reduce drudgery as much as possible, but in 2019 and the foreseeable future, drudgery is still necessary.

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.

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.

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).

Agreed.

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.

Okay.

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.

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'll just pay less for the shorter week.

They can't really, because we've increased the minimum wage, and we'll continually adjust for inflation.

How else do you expect companies to hire people to make stuff that no one has the money to buy?

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.

The minimum? That's $7.25. I don't call that "setting wages". A bump up to $15, I would.

I just want to increase the minimum, not set every wage, altho perhaps we should lower the minimum wage small businesses have to pay.

Well, setting prices, wages,

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.

forcing companies to hire, and generally micromanaging the economy is essentially what the communist dictators tried to do.

I don't see why my plan has to entail that.

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

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.

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.

Every dictator who wanted to eliminate Christianity always wanted to plug something else into the hole.

It's no trouble to distort christianity as people do it daily and have been for centuries. I can make the bible say anything you want. Remember Jonestown? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

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

He said those latter things near his death. Most of his life, like me, was spent as a christian. How come he never stopped paying the church tax? Why didn't he stop going to confession? I've only been out of Christianity maybe a year or two. Maybe historians will argue whether or not I was a Christian. If they do, then they're both right.

He wrote a book before he rose to power, without knowing that he would rise to power, and in that book he said he was a Christian. I wrote a post in the past saying I was a Christian and at the time I was. Same with Hitler.

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.

I'm aspiring to a solid 100% negative

Religion can be like alcohol, one often doesn't relinquish it so much as replace it with another substance/faith.

Yes, true, we must be on guard about that.

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.

What's the difference?

Reminds me of the question: Do you have more faith in god or science. I thought the question should be: Do you have more faith in faith or science? Faith has two meanings. I have more confidence in science than faith.

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.

No, authoritarianism is controlling the population based on the opinion of the elites. P is controlled by E.
Democracy elects representatives to control the population based on the opinions of the population. P is controlled by P.

E is the authoritarian. Authoritarianism is top-down. Democracy is bottom-up.

I bitched to dad that hillbilly republicans want to tax tv now. He said NY democrats tax soda. I said there's a difference: the dems tax unhealthy things to discourage their use and fund education; the right taxes innocent things to be fair to corporations. One is noble (though misguided) and the other is malicious. He hasn't responded yet and is probably has his head in a hole.

The right is authoritarian. The left is not. P cannot be authoritarian to itself. Only E can be authoritarian: the church, fascists, communist dictators, corporations, etc.

Dispersal of wealth isn't good, if it helps the harmful at the expense of the helpful.

"Helpful" here having the meaning of assisting the slave system. If you're a good little minion, we'll let you live. If you protest servitude, you're a disease to be eradicated. You're definitely WAY on the right next to Hitler and Stalin.

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.

Any jew who didn't believe he was their king (god) and still clung to the Law of Moses. Hmm.. that sounds familiar.

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.

No it was carefully worded to achieve the goal they wanted.

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.

No, he was more like you who hates the poor and: neutered them, enslaved them, and killed them. The only difference in you two is that he actually did it and you wish you could.

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.

They may care marginally more, but are far less equipped to raise a child.

If we're concerned about an endangered species, the last thing we'd do is leave the species in the hands of the mother, but take total control of the situation with all of academia's knowledge brought to bear.

Leaving kids in the hands of well-intentioned idiots only breeds more idiots (myself the fortunate exception). How many people are able to escape their childhood indoctrinations such that they can truly "choose this day whom ye shall serve"? I probably align closer with Hitler on this who recognized that parents have no clue how to raise a kid. Spreading legs in the back of a camaro does not qualify one to be a mother.