(12-18-2015 03:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is why giving women the right to vote is beyond retarded. At best, only married mothers of 2 or more children (a number to be decided upon by the men) should be allowed to vote on SOME issues. The reason being, of course, that married mothers already have children by men of the state and therefore have a vested interest in the continuation of the state, so their votes should in theory have some value to them.

For example, married mothers of the state could vote on stuff like how schools are run, community churches, town fairs, and welfare for single-mothers. Practical stuff that a woman's mind is naturally suited for.

I believe originally before women received full suffrage that in some states they were allowed to vote on certain issues.

(12-13-2015 10:28 PM)Neo Wrote:  

(12-12-2015 01:49 PM)scotian Wrote:  Interesting video of a US government bureaucrat (deputy assistant secretary for screening coordination, office of policy of homeland security) getting grilled on her lack of knowledge regarding the number of Syrians coming into the country, I don't understand how people like her get into these positions.

This woman is a disgrace, you can tell she's an idiot within a few seconds. I see this in the corporate environment too thanks to 'equality' hiring policies. Hire low IQ women to fill some type of quota, what a joke.

On the other hand my read on the guy asking the questions was 'Conservative, tough, mid western guy' had no idea who he was so I looked him up.

"While at Graham, he was a four-time state wrestling champion with a career record of 150–1. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1986, obtaining his bachelor's degree in economics. Jordan was a two-time NCAA Division I wrestling champion."

Funny how you can tell so much from a person so quickly, just through observation and their political affiliation.

Earlier today I saw a guy in a car with a 'Bernie 2016' bumper sticker. Decided to drive past him and in my mind I said 'He's either overweight or grossly underweight'...yup. Guy looked tall and rail thin.

Same with comments on social media, all the liberals posting garbage seem to be fat chicks or lazy guys.

The guy posting often and openly about banning refugees is a tough as nails BJJ black belt I have as a FB friend who doesn't give a fuck. Anyone in the community knows who he is.

It can't always be the case, but I'm definitely noticing the tough guy = conservative and weak guy = liberal more often than not.

This so fucking much. I've had the same thing happen a few times now (live in MA, liberal heartland) and every time (I'm not exaggerating) its the weakling "intellectual/creative" faggoty type who couldn't beat a chinese 6th grader at an armwrestling match, always driving a japanese 4 banger or hybrid.

Essentially this.



Fuck these people, they vote the way they do, and think the way they think, because big government shields them from reality, giving them a false sense of empowerment and a feeling of invincibility. Without said govt., they become men or they are purged. Men like this don't survive in reality.

(12-18-2015 03:40 PM)MdWanderer Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 03:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  This is why giving women the right to vote is beyond retarded. At best, only married mothers of 2 or more children (a number to be decided upon by the men) should be allowed to vote on SOME issues. The reason being, of course, that married mothers already have children by men of the state and therefore have a vested interest in the continuation of the state, so their votes should in theory have some value to them.

For example, married mothers of the state could vote on stuff like how schools are run, community churches, town fairs, and welfare for single-mothers. Practical stuff that a woman's mind is naturally suited for.

I believe originally before women received full suffrage that in some states they were allowed to vote on certain issues.

This is true, in some parts of the US they were allowed to vote on matters regarding education, like the boards of school districts and libraries. Back then the most important civic duty of a woman was to prepare children to be good citizens through an education emphasizing republican virtues and morality.

(12-17-2015 05:32 PM)n0000 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 12:21 PM)Wutang Wrote:  Posted on Roosh's twitter, a guy who appears to be a Polish Catholic priest gives a speech at a rally calling for defending the spirit of his nation and for his church against leftism and the migrant invasion accompanying it





I'm not Polish (or even white) nor Catholic but I'm getting chills from this.

That is one of the most moving videos I have ever seen. I am seriously considering learning the language and moving there.

Bit of an ironic response to an anti immigration rally

I admire this man for his reason and courage to speak out for freedom.

(12-18-2015 08:35 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:24 AM)sixsix Wrote:  I just figured we needed a secular narrative. But that's not going to convince the masses. And the fear of God and the reward of an afterlife are such strong motivators that any secular reasons are just not going to cut it. If one side wants to fight for the death and the other does not, you know which side has the edge.

The view I've come to is that a secular narrative will never suffice, as it is at its core, a fundamental belief in nothing.

Atheism is a purely negative doctrine. Before all you Dawkinists reading this get butt-hurt over that sentence I want to clarify that when I say negative I don't mean "bad" but rather that atheism is merely a negation and has no actual content on it's own. I've seen many religion debates over the years and a common thread that always gets brought up is the people who are defending religion will bring up Stalin, Mao, and other modern age dictators as an example of atheists just being as capable of mass terror and destruction while the people who are against religion will bring up that none of these dictators did what they did in the name of atheism. I would agree with that. I would also say that people in general aren't going to do ANYTHING in the name of atheism - whether for good or bad since as I said before it is a negative doctrine that doesn't stand for anything except not believing in any sort of gods. It posits nothing and stands for nothing and hence can't motivate anyone to do anything based on it. In that video I posted of the rally in Poland you saw the crowd shouting "Great Catholic Poland" and other slogans. Can you imagine anyone instead shouting for "Great Atheist Albania/China/USSR" or anything like that?

I don't think it's any coincidence that it's the most atheist societies like Sweden that are taking the most damage from the migrant crisis and are the most vulnerable to leftists causes. Remove any sort of transcendental dimension (I'm not just merely referring to the afterlife when I say "transcendental I want to note) to the meaning of life and what do you get? A bunch of YOLOers who thinks the most pressing moral issues in the world are Caitlyn Jenner and patting the head of the pet minority group at the moment and at the moment looks like the pet minority group are Muslims. These are people who rely on Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson and similar thinkers for their pseudo-metaphysical/spiritual views - and indeed I think the reason these two men are so influential with the secular "educated" class today outside of their personal charm and magnetism is because they have managed to cast their scientism-based world view in a quasi-religious light and are providing for the spiritual needs of these people, the needs which still remain despite their degeneration of spiritual matters.

The great irony is these people who confine their focus solely on the temporal physical world and look at any notion of a further world with disdain are losing the temporal physical world to those who believe that there are worlds besides this one. The Muslims seem to have more of a will to survive and spread their culture across this physical world and are inheriting it from their secular hosts who are glad to give it up to them.

   

(12-19-2015 11:53 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:35 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 08:24 AM)sixsix Wrote:  I just figured we needed a secular narrative. But that's not going to convince the masses. And the fear of God and the reward of an afterlife are such strong motivators that any secular reasons are just not going to cut it. If one side wants to fight for the death and the other does not, you know which side has the edge.

The view I've come to is that a secular narrative will never suffice, as it is at its core, a fundamental belief in nothing.

Atheism is a purely negative doctrine. Before all you Dawkinists reading this get butt-hurt over that sentence I want to clarify that when I say negative I don't mean "bad" but rather that atheism is merely a negation and has no actual content on it's own. I've seen many religion debates over the years and a common thread that always gets brought up is the people who are defending religion will bring up Stalin, Mao, and other modern age dictators as an example of atheists just being as capable of mass terror and destruction while the people who are against religion will bring up that none of these dictators did what they did in the name of atheism. I would agree with that. I would also say that people in general aren't going to do ANYTHING in the name of atheism - whether for good or bad since as I said before it is a negative doctrine that doesn't stand for anything except not believing in any sort of gods. It posits nothing and stands for nothing and hence can't motivate anyone to do anything based on it. In that video I posted of the rally in Poland you saw the crowd shouting "Great Catholic Poland" and other slogans. Can you imagine anyone instead shouting for "Great Atheist Albania/China/USSR" or anything like that?

I don't think it's any coincidence that it's the most atheist societies like Sweden that are taking the most damage from the migrant crisis and are the most vulnerable to leftists causes. Remove any sort of transcendental dimension (I'm not just merely referring to the afterlife when I say "transcendental I want to note) to the meaning of life and what do you get? A bunch of YOLOers who thinks the most pressing moral issues in the world are Caitlyn Jenner and patting the head of the pet minority group at the moment and at the moment looks like the pet minority group are Muslims. These are people who rely on Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson and similar thinkers for their pseudo-metaphysical/spiritual views - and indeed I think the reason these two men are so influential with the secular "educated" class today outside of their personal charm and magnetism is because they have managed to cast their scientism-based world view in a quasi-religious light and are providing for the spiritual needs of these people, the needs which still remain despite their degeneration of spiritual matters.

The great irony is these people who confine their focus solely on the temporal physical world and look at any notion of a further world with disdain are losing the temporal physical world to those who believe that there are worlds besides this one. The Muslims seem to have more of a will to survive and spread their culture across this physical world and are inheriting it from their secular hosts who are glad to give it up to them.

I think the answer to this is very simple yet most people hate the Truth.

The modern world we live in today, including the modern White race, is a product of Christianity. It has served as the bedrock of society and virtually all of our history has been carried down through the Churches to the modern day.

If suddenly this bedrock is taken away, then why is it a surprise that the civilization once supported by this bedrock crumbles?

I see a lot of guys who insist there is a better way than Christianity, and yet these same men:

- Know nothing or very little about the history of Christian peoples
- Could never refute arguments in favor of Christ
- Have no real solution to inventing a new faith to unite the masses

In short, the men who support the dismantling of Christianity yet claim to support Western civilization are either:

- Ignorant
- Disingenuous
- Unpractical

Usually a combination of the three.

I have read many intelligent Atheists; a great deal of them still went to Church and fully admitted that in spite of not believing they still had tremendous respect and value for the stability Christianity provides for a culture through its family, legal, and economic values.

It really wasn't until Jews started joining Western universities post-Napaleon's emancipation of Talmudic Jews did they read up on these Enlightenment Atheists, such as Rousseau, and say,

"Well if Jesus is bullshit then what do we need any of these stupid religions and churches for anyways? We obviously can do it on our own we are smart enough now!"

At first, no one gave a shit what the Talmuds believed, but post WW2 and the Holocaust guilt was enough for many more Atheist intellectuals within the university to be sympathetic to Talmudic arguments against Christianity, which has since led us into the spiritual death of Europe and it's subsequent invasion.

Honest atheists (and agonistics), for most of Western Civilization, have never been anti-Christianity because the vast majority of atheists have been able to appreciate what the religion gave to their culture. Especially in regards to women. Alexis de Tocqueville, an agnostic himself (I believe), wrote huge praise for American women and their Christian virtues back in the 1830's. My how the times have changed.

The current day atheists and agnostics who are anti-Christian like to believe they are edgy and intelligent, but in reality they are just puppets of Talmudic Jewish arguments against Christ (who themselves hold the same grudge against Christ as they did when they freed Barbaras).

I believe the supposed "intelligent" community of atheists and agnostics needs to clean their act up and get their arguments in order. Anyone who claims to support Western Civ yet hates Christianity is a fool at best, and traitor at worst.

The claim that the decline of religion is related to the so-called cultural decline is - due to the vast changes which independently - at best tenuous.

Samseau, why do you consider this more reasonable than, say, Kaczynski's arguments?

To answer your question^^

Because Utah's doing great.

(12-19-2015 09:26 PM)storm Wrote:  The claim that the decline of religion is related to the so-called cultural decline is - due to the vast changes which independently - at best tenuous.

Samseau, why do you consider this more reasonable than, say, Kaczynski's arguments?

Only self described atheists critique these arguments so harshly. "Tenuous". Just admit he made a good point. No one is shoving your face into the Bible.

(12-13-2015 10:28 PM)Neo Wrote:  It can't always be the case, but I'm definitely noticing the tough guy = conservative and weak guy = liberal more often than not.

I remember Roosh touching on this: http://www.rooshv.com/appearance-is-ideology

Proud atheist here. Ain't no zombie or invisible man in the sky gonna hold me back!

Can we get back on topic?

(12-20-2015 03:37 AM)Gmac Wrote:  Proud atheist here. Ain't no zombie or invisible man in the sky gonna hold me back!

Can we get back on topic?

We're very much on topic here.

Atheism as a whole leads to spiritual death which causes once strong societies to give up. Spiritually defeated people stop having children. Muslims are out breeding the secular people.

You're a solid poster Gmac, but your beliefs are apart of the problem.

What Europe list is it's pride and tradition. Europe had to open up for globalisation. Now you have to be flexible and liberal. Traditions have a bad taste and sound old. So they put in all this individualistic freedom that people don't want to contribute anything deeper any more because it limit their individual freedom. You see it that societies struggle to get new member, people leave the church. People are lost in their souls.
The people leave the church for a reason because the church talks about old stuff. They also could not adapt to the modern needs of the lost soul. When I see what the church contribute to the modern life of people its little. No surprise that the people leave an organisation who's biggest media is priest that have sex with kids or a pope that is against condoms in africa.

When I talk with young people they want tradition, a family, they feel the change in the world. That you are connected, that you have to be available all the time. Everything goes so fast but who can give a solution to that? An answer to the modern lost soul? Those total freedom of the individual with no moral society background is very new. Like little kids that can play in the backyard for the first time. But then when nobody watch them they act crazy. All this total freedom without moral values is against our deeper nature.
So while the majority of people is lost in this freedom the ones that hated the old system the most. The losers of old are the SJW of today. They have the loudest voice with their twisted minds. They start a Twitter agenda or push their blogs and make it seem like they are the voice of the people. Also this kind of people, driven by anger and fear pushed in the 70s into the organisations of the state. The schools, politics. Now their ideology is everywhere.

Fuck tradition, fuck values, bring in the cultural enrichment to equalize all people. Those people behind that agenda are weak and want to erase their weakness by destroy their own culture wich they feel inferior with.

(12-18-2015 05:45 PM)serpico Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 05:32 PM)n0000 Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 12:21 PM)Wutang Wrote:  Posted on Roosh's twitter, a guy who appears to be a Polish Catholic priest gives a speech at a rally calling for defending the spirit of his nation and for his church against leftism and the migrant invasion accompanying it





I'm not Polish (or even white) nor Catholic but I'm getting chills from this.

That is one of the most moving videos I have ever seen. I am seriously considering learning the language and moving there.

Bit of an ironic response to an anti immigration rally

Yes, there is an element of irony to people opposing the spread of one religion by being religiously zealous themselves, but I feel that the ironic perspective of it misses the point of it.

It's survival and recognition of traditions that have served a society well. It's many positive things to me.

I also feel that Father Miedlar is part of a valuable European millieu, that in the UK is represented by Tommy Robinson, Geert Wilders in Holland, PEGIDA in Germany, et al.. And many more brave people who are standing up to an agenda from 'the powers that be' to alter the socio-demographic landscape of Europe for the benefit of their globalist overlords.


Alex Jones manages to tone down his annoying tendencies in this informative interview with Tommy Robinson from a few days ago:




Migrants being placed in a remote Scottish town that suffers from poverty and high unemployment. Scottish politician Humza Yousaf(Scottish? !) claimed it to be a "proud day" upon their arrival:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...enjoy.html

"Ain't no zombie or invisible man in the sky gonna hold me back!"

Straw man use and very dogmatic by the way. This is the problem. You need to admit that your personal perception can fall victim to the same perils as any other metaphysical perspective. As Wutang had said of atheism being a negative doctrine, your rebuttal demonstrated that trait as well. You invoked the notorious sky daddy language instead of addressing the cons of the belief. I'd like to posit that simply the way atheism is gone about can change for the better it will work, but as another man said, "It posits nothing and stands for nothing and hence can't motivate anyone to do anything based on it." so there's really no fix for the established philosophy to manifest in a different form on the popular level.

Interjecting on behalf of atheism whenever it's brought up doesn't provide useful commentary. How about providing an innovative solution if it is possible after all instead of projecting back on Christianity ad infinitum.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This is scientific fact, the First Law of Thermodynamics.

So, Gmac, why are we here? Who created this?


If you are an atheist I don't see how science provides an answer to this. Because if energy can't be created, then that disproves our existence, yet, here we are...


A Sky Daddy Spaghetti Monster that created everything and then left is more logical and consistent with science than Atheism.

Also, if you don't think Atheism is correlated with societal death...

Ask ten cat ladies if they believe in God, and you'll find ten Atheists.

Also, if you don't think Atheism is correlated with societal death...

Ask ten cat ladies if they believe in God, and you'll find ten Atheists.

When you translate sky daddy = god = energy it make a lot more sense. I have some irregular talks with a muslim girl that study theology. She even know about pastafari. Religion offer some deeper values about life. You have to get rid of the greed of the church or other institutions that just want to gain power and money. That we are all connected and be one with the universe is the core. Also to bring back what we lost trough education and social norm. That we feel the connection with everything again.

So its not a daddy in the sky nor is it the rules of an organization. Its about deeper teaching for mankind.

I've been reading this from the beginning. I think it's too soon to declare the EU doomed. The EU has lots of power, infrastructure, and military to handle this.

Regarding society in the western world (and the "modernized" world): It ceases to exist. The modern capitalist system would like it if we don't have families and marriage. Family means stability, savings, non-mobility, traditional... Being single means being able to spend around 100% of your income on these nice shiny little things that big corps are trying to sell us.

If you want to understand this better, look no further than Hongkong or New York. Fast paced cities, people spending around 100% of their income, then getting another side-job and trying to make more income only to spend it on more shiny things.

The capitalists like this. They like fast-paced lifestyles as it helps run the economy on a fast scale and make their numbers even bigger. Personal freedom and small houses that has a family inside with a strong religion and strong family ties are much harder to break through. A single dude (whatever his age) on his own living on a two-square feet apartment and have absolutely no savings is much easier to manipulate and control.

The world will be controlled by mega-exa-corps. Apple market cap is larger than austria GDP. Apple/Google/Facebook have much cultural influence over Austrians than the gov, church or anything in austria itself.

Big corps probably worry more about governments blocking them (look at how France is restricting Amazon doing business on its soil) than ISIS killing some people. So they'll prefer if these governments were to become weaker and easier to manipulate.

Here are some startups/companies to watch for:

- Facebook/Twitter: Killing your national TV and providing alternative news.

- Google/MS/Apple: Transmitting these news for you. Controlling your data. Reading your mind.

- Airbnb: Killing Hotels that pay taxes. Moving people around easily.

- Uber: We'll see how big this will get. It already is VERY big.

- Tesla: Killing to Oil industry (for cars). Too soon to celebrate victory though.

Here are some very new and potential ideas on the work.

- Self-driving cars: For taxis and transportation. Get rid of the driver once and for all.

- Crypto-currencies: Defy other countries economic policies by giving their citizen the ability to bypass their country financial and fiscal system.

- Strong crypto everywhere: Govs will no longer be able to track their citizens and potentially crimes, tax evasions...

Something to add @thisisright

Look of google or apple run, or in general big companies. They control every aspect of your life. In the past you went to work but your private life was private. Your boss did not know much about it. But today they want that you feel comfortable. Life inside the company environment and lose all our boundaries. In the past people did organize their social life, their private activities alone like adults. Now companies give you a bubble where you life in.
Google even allow women to stock their eggs. We become like drones for them.

You do no have to believe in God to accept the importance of religion.

I just realized a few month ago that I do not want White Christian culture and traditions to disappear. I do not believe in God but I believe in the role of religion as a social glue and as a good guideline for a productive life.

(12-19-2015 09:26 PM)storm Wrote:  The claim that the decline of religion is related to the so-called cultural decline is - due to the vast changes which independently - at best tenuous.

Samseau, why do you consider this more reasonable than, say, Kaczynski's arguments?

Because there is our entire Civilization's history behind my arguments (2500 years worth of preserved knowledge) and zero years behind Kaczynski's arguments.

Again, instead of believing in the trash your Jew influenced professors taught you in school, why don't you get a mind of your own and read Atheists in the Enlightenment era or before?

At the very least, you Atheists owe it to yourselves to read your predecessors and actually possess 1% of the knowledge they had.

The vast majority of people today do not know this, but, Atheists once upon a time were extremely well-read, intelligent people who usually had a beef with Church or Christian morals yet knew better than to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Many Atheists tried to develop systems for society apart from Christianity. All of them have failed. Read up on Comte's religion if anyone is interested in such an example. Few Atheists believed they could do better than Christ because none of them cared to do so. They were content in believing they were superior with better knowledge, while letting the masses continue to believe in fantasies that served as societal glue.

Of course, the irony lost on all Atheists is if they are so intelligent and wise, why haven't any Atheists come up with anything better than Christianity? The fact is, the arrogance of most Atheists is absolutely pathetic and resembles most losers you see in the MGTOW movements. Atheists have always been in the uncomfortable position of claiming they knew better than to believe in the sky fairy yet not knowing anything better for society than the sky fairy.

These internal contradiction of Atheists has only started to manifest itself recently in Nihilism, since there is no resolving of a contradiction unless you can deny logic and reality itself, which goes to show how "rational" Atheists are.