The Southern Poverty Law Center—known for its public slandering of allegedly hateful people—now seems to have a worse stain on its methods than any crazy right wing group. On Wednesday, a militant atheist in North Carolina named Craig Hicks murdered three innocent Muslim students at Chapel Hill. He then turned himself into the police and is currently in jail.
He has not spoken yet, and the government has not released an official report. Current speculation is that it was a hate crime. Hicks’s Facebook page is full of atheist and far-left propaganda, and he liked several progressivist pages, including HuffPo and SPLC.
The SPLC has a map of people’s addresses who are considered hateful to facilitate vigilante social justice. One would assume this merely means letter-writing, but I cannot think of any effective means short of bullying that such a map could provide.
The Map
In 2011 an assassin used the map to target a Christian group but failed, murdering a security guard in the process. Now some claim it has happened again with a militant atheist murdering three Muslims, although this seems impossible to know for certain at this time.
The mainstream media has tried to dismiss the man’s religion as incidental, and they’ve outright ignored his far left wing political views, which can be seen on his Facebook page. He clicked like on several far left wing and atheistic groups, including SPLC. But to the media, he is practically a Bible-beating Republican or at least has the same frame of mind.
However, I’m not sure the people murdered were on SPLC’s hate map, since the only Muslims on the map’s North Carolina list are black separatists. Even if they were on it, I doubt Hicks could have used it to find the individuals. They appear to be three random Muslim students at Chapel Hill.
Nevertheless, it could still plausibly be motivated by his ideology. To my knowledge, no red-piller has ever murdered anyone because of ideology. And of course this happened in North Carolina, the freakshow state in the South.
The Narrative Continues
The media is also trying to claim that the man doesn’t represent “real” atheism, because that way it gives their philosophy a pass on doing away with absolutes (the similarities between secular-liberals and the evangelical Christians I grew up with never cease to amaze me). People love individualistic philosophies because it gives them an excuse when the consequences of the belief system manifest in ugly ways.
Good news, though. A candlelight vigil is being scheduled in DC, so I’m sure that makes it all right. I imagine the pope will give a forgettable address about the whole thing that will offend nobody accept his own adherents. Then the Onion will write something to inspire the masses, and it’ll be the same cycle we encounter every month. Leftism is like a woman—it has to get cranky and bleed every 28 days.
Ideologies
How much of a connection there was between the murders and Hicks’s leftism may not ever be known, but more and more right-wing online journals are making the connection. It may be a convenient conjecture, but it may not be a false narrative either.
In addition to leftist and anti-theist likes, his Facebook is full of atheistic quotes and memes. There are no posts explicitly SLPC-driven, although he is very pro-LGBT. He also has a picture of a gun he just bought. You’d think his meme about bringing atheism to the mideast to end religious wars would be contradictory to that.
Information Pending
But at this time there is not a whole lot of information available. Nor was there any blog or forum he’s written on. His Facebook notes were written over a year ago and are inaccessible to non-friends. Perhaps in the near future he’ll give a press statement of some kind.
Meanwhile, the SPLC has yet to make a statement about this. They’re currently distracted by a controversy about adding and then removing potential president candidate Ben Carson from their list of extremists for his comments against gay marriage.
The Ignoble Savage
People have an innate drive to conquer others with violence, and they often use their ideologies to justify it. No amount of pacifism or love will ever curb der wille zur macht. Indeed, it appears that progressivism—whether 2nd century Christian or 21st century secularist—always finds its way back to the base drives. If we didn’t fight over sacred ground or oil possession, then we’d kill each other over the color of the wall.
European philosophy speaks often of the noble savage. This is the belief that aboriginal peoples were free-living hippies devoid of materialism and hatred, like Pocahontas painting with the colors of the wind. But the historical American Indians and many other non-Western peoples were extremely industrious and bloody. The Europeans did a lot to settle them, even if their methods were sometimes unethical.
Hicks’s murder truly shows the futility of leftism. We find the more liberal a person is, the more hateful and miserable he is. Do liberals want equality, tolerance, and peace, or do they want a complete abandonment of unprogressive ideas? The activist can never make up his mind. Stalin understood this dualism, that two contradictory ideologies could not exist in harmony.
Which makes me wonder why one should even bother with activism or ideology. Instead of trying to save the world, wouldn’t the easier thing to do be to find a house in the mountains and just focus on enjoying yourself?
Read More: I Hate Men Dot Org
I thought leftist believe in Torrence and equality! What happen?
Everyone tolerates them so they must find someone to antagonize them. Way too much work to work on themselves.
Atheism is no religion ! Science damn it !
Be careful, a lot of people don’t get irony.
This is a country where women fuck hordes of men for ten years and then wonder why when they lose their looks no man wants to wife them up.
This is a country where if police arrest a suspect of a different color it’s called ‘racism’, but if a man of the other color kills a cop it’s called ‘cultural pressure’.
This is a country where refusing to bake a homosexual cake violates the homo’s civil liberties, but refusing to bake a cake that disagrees with homosexuality is upholding civil liberties.
This is a country where naked musclebound barbarians in video games are ‘normal’, but hot women dressed as women are ‘sexist’.
This is a country where we celebrate altering our education system to alienate the most productive members of society, in the interest of ‘equality’, reward young girls for acting like boys, and drug young boys for acting like boys.
Irony just… doesn’t fly here.
Even if inappropriate, I did laugh.
The damn it part is quite ironic.
It’s not inappropriate. It’s so fucked up that you either laugh or cry. You take it with humor or you grab a rifle and head to the nearest water tower.
Laughter and violence are the natural human responses to pain.
Agreed. The battle against feminism should be at least one part laughter.
What if instead of bringing a rifle to water tower you settle for a grenade at a water cooler? I won’t miss a few corporate drones, will you?
Easier to control the fire zone from a water tower… much likelier chance of taking out a much higher number of ‘public servants’ as well.
Repasted from another discussion:
The nazi party abandoned christianity, and made VERY public statements on that point, in 1920. That was nearly 20 YEARS before the outbreak of world war 2. Hitler did not join a catholic-inspired nazi party.
This actually is more proof of what a political party becomes after they abandon religion, rather than any sort of ‘proof’ that the Nazis were not atheists.
But let’s not talk about the nazi’s… let’s talk instead about the profoundly atheistic governments of the former soviet union and maoist china… which collectively slaughtered over a hundred million people in ‘peacetime’. That number can be included with the war deaths of world war 2, which was essentially an atheistic holy war between Russia and Germany over who’s version of socialism was superior.
Atheistic humanism has been directly responsible for more dead people than any other human force in history… and that is WITHOUT counting the fifty five million abortions since roe v wade or the nearly 200 million recorded abortions worldwide since 1960, abortions which are almost universally approved by ‘humanists’.
Basically ‘ethical atheism’, ‘humanism’, ‘progressivism’, ‘liberalism’, or whatever new label they choose to try and escape from people’s awareness of what they are, is a death cult, Dawkins is their high priest, Crowley their savior, babies are their sacrament, and the goal is to destroy civilization, through the destruction of families, morality, and tradition. That is why it is referred to as the ‘cathedral’… because their name changes every time people realize that they are human lampreys, united only in their ‘faith’ that raw instinct is greater than civilization.
Not to say it’s a conspiracy… it isn’t. Liberals and the like hate each other almost as much as they hate traditionalists. It’s more like a consensus… a plague of takers, human locusts, that move into a successful society and eat it to the bare dirt.
Atheism is a belief system, that seeks to invalidate other belief systems.
tru dat.
No. It isn’t a belief system. It is a lack of belief in a belief system. That’s like saying not believing in the patriarchy is a belief system that seeks to invalidate other belief systems (the patriarchy).
However, many people who don’t believe in god are also extreme leftists who have a crazy belief systems of their own, which is probably what you are trying to emotionally incite against.
It is also very true, that a stable society cannot be made unless the masses believe in some sort of omniscient and omnipotent god-like figure that will punish/reward them.
bullshit. Utter bullshit. It is belief in the non-existence of god. Therefore, a belief system. durr.
We’ve been over this before and I guess you didn’t understand. My patriarchy example is pretty much pure gold as far as a consistent analogy, because the patriarchy, as feminists have created it, is not falsifiable, just like god. This is why feminism is basically a religion (an irrational belief system). If you don’t believe in feminism, does that mean you have an irrational belief system? Let’s call it afeminism… No.
Atheism is simply not believing in any god (ganesh, hanuman, zeus, thor, etc.). Just as you do not believe in the tooth fairy. It is not a belief system to not believe in the tooth fairy….
Something tells me I won’t be able to get this point across to you. So I’ll leave it at that.
Methinks you are conflating atheism and agnosticism.
If this helps: you can only believe in things you know to be true. Otherwise, it is either hope or delusion. Therefore, unless you truly “believe” there is a god (which would be considered hope or delusion since there is no evidence for it), then you are by definition an atheist.
“bullshit. Utter bullshit. It is belief in the non-existence of unicorns. Therefore, a belief system. durr.”
This argument is fallacious.
Dictionary definitions are inadequate to have a meaningful discussion of atheism. One giveaway (and this can apply in many contexts) is when someone – usually a self-proclaimed atheist – says that atheism is “simply” this or that.
.
A macropod, literally, is something with big feet. In use as a technical term it is a kangaroo, which is a particular creature with particular characteristics.
.
If you ask a Buddhist if they are an atheist, they will say “No, I am a Buddhist” despite the fact that they may not believe in a god. Similarly, given that I am largely agnostic, you can’t rope me into being an atheist because that is how you define it.
.
Self-proclaimed atheists are almost exclusively philosophical materialists. That is a belief system. However, it is an incomplete belief system because it has no normative content.
.
Atheism itself can’t tell you right from wrong, good from evil, or give you any sense of meaning or purpose. Those require belief beyond any rational evaluation of evidence. Any atheist who is not a nihilist will have these hopes or delusions, but without reference to several thousand years of religious traditions developed within a living, social context.
Keep in mind that (Marxist) feminists view themselves as the red pills. Nothing says blue pill like “false consciousness”.
Atheists are scientific rationalists. If it can’t be reproduced in a lab they won’t accept it. Which paints them in a corner with things like the big bang, which they can’t reproduce in a lab. So then they fall back on accepting the best educated guess at the moment. Theoretical physics. Note the word theoretical. The universe all falls apart without the assumption of the existence of “dark matter” which they can’t prove, which they literally just pulled out the air to make their equations work. But don’t dare call that a belief system.
And, life came forth from primordial goo.
Life is an accidental occurrence and has no meaning or value. Just animated dust.
Kinda like “a god”, eh?
Actually, that’s a very good statement. I have had unicorns proven to me… start with a goat, do a little foetal surgery, boom! Out comes a creature with one horn.
Try it again.
people experience things every day for which there is no reasonable explanation. They can either believe in some ridiculous levels of ‘chance’ or they can believe in a deity.
If your wife gets killed by a fallen piece of a satellite, the chances are something like 1 in 1,170,000,000. Is it better to believe pure happenstance caused that, or the 1 in 2 chance that a deity caused it for some reason?
Frankly, when faced with the unreasonable, a reasonable person turns towards the reasonable explanation. In many cases of absolutely astonishing luck (which ironically happens to almost everyone) what better explanation is there that some deity, or divine plan, is at work?
And again, what about pascal’s wager? Thousands of ‘deep thinkers’ have tried to protest or disprove the validity of pascal’s wager, and yet every argument seems shallow or merely argumentative… So far, pascal’s wager seems to present the possibility for a real, mathematically-sound system of ethics, but every philosopher has seemed to simply, and shallowly, be more intent on disproving it than utilizing it as a springboard to greater ethical understanding.
unlike deity, patriarchy is a measurable quality… The methods for measuring patriarchy might not exist, or might be too intrusive to use, but patriarchy IS proveable.
Besides which, both sides of the aisle actually AGREE that patriarchy exists… They just have different ideas of what it MEANS. 3L’s think it was an oppressive structure built to keep down women to benefit all men, Red pills know that it was a structure put into place to protect and nourish women and only eventually turned into the current cathedral.
The funny thing is an atheist would never admit how the Soviet Union and Maoist China were both extremely atheist. Case in point:
When the absurdity of atheism is inevitably criticized, if an atheist doesn’t immediately lapse into ad hominem, he generally invokes the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy; Which applies to any plank or view that is not held by the current individual [or group], at that exact moment, in that specific conversation.
That’s one thing I notice. Christians tend to own their own sins… They admit that the inquisition happened, the crusades.. they admit that some christians are prone to excess or fanaticism just like any other group.
While the crusades and inquisitions have been completely and utterly mischaracterized (Most people get their information on the inquisition from Mel Brooks movies) Christians don’t pretend that it never happened. Some popes were insane. Some kings used Christianity as an excuse for invasion.
Brig,
You don’t get it man. Because Christians did those bad things 500 years ago, they can never moralize ever again. Never.
Again with the irony 🙂
Who leads AA meetings? People who have never had a drink?
The problem is that today’s atheists, neo-paganists, Muslim apologists, and self-loathing Christians exaggerate and misrepresent history whether it is the Crusades or the Inquisition or various witch hunts.
Left wing atheists worship the state. Government is their religion. The bureaucrats are their priests and the cubicle is their altar
Christians, in particular, do not “own” their sins at all. They acknowledge them, “feel remorse”, and (via Jesus) consider themselves absolved. This is not “owning” anything, it’s passing the buck, cosmically speaking.
When I die, if there is an “afterlife” I will stand in “judgement” with only my ledger. If there is a “super being” that decides if I was good or bad, then I accept my sins unto myself. I don’t need some quasi-deity to absolve me of them, because I did them. They are a part of me, nothing less than the “good works”, I may have accomplished. I am the one who will have to answer for them, nobody else can remove that from me.
I’m an agnostic. I can’t prove there is a God, or that there isn’t one. I try to live what I consider a good life, and if I’m damned to hell for all eternity, so be it.
That is still owning their sins. It is not blaming someone else, it is accepting the blame, and the punishment.
Or, to quote a character from ‘Oh brother where art thous’: “You may be square with Jesus, but the state of missisippi has different standards.” being absolved of your sins does NOT square you with the law of the land, and accepting your just punishment is an important part of absolution.
Passing the buck cosmically speaking? Absolutely. sometimes one needs to do the wrong thing, even if it’s legal. One of the greatest boons of christianity is to be able to get OVER doing something bad for a good reason, and then move on to do the right thing, without being paralyzed by crippling doubnts and insecurities… It’s fucking amazing therapy.
But theoretically, confession of sins only absolves one of the spiritual culpability and only if one is truly sorry.
If you do something wrong and you get physically hurt, confession may not help that.
The idea of confession is a great one, because God recognizes that mankind does a great job at fucking up and he desires for us to make it into heaven despite our flaws. The idea of confession is for the repentant to not be denied God’s grace and not some ‘get out of jail free’ card or a means for a serial killer to escape capital punishment.
When you think about it, Christianity comes under alot of fire nowadays. It’s okay to be a Muslim,a Jew,an atheist or make up your own religion. But if you say you are Christian, they automatically assume you are some fundie. Can’t we sue for this somewhere?
nope, designated victim laws only work one way.
Try suing a Jew sometime for violating your religious right not to be charged interest… it’s right there in the bible.
And yet, if you own a restaurant, and serve a jew something that may have shared a fryer with a piece of bacon, you can get sued out the yin-yang. Even though THEY bought it, and knew full well your restaurant served pig products.
You’re still passing the buck. That’s the problem with slave religions, absolution. I’d have a great deal more respect for Christianity if they didn’t allow that level of absolution. A damn pedophile screws around, maybe even kills a kid, and is sentenced to death. They find Jesus, feel genuine remorse, and are absolved before execution? That fucker gets into heaven? Piss on that.
You’ve just admitted that Christianity is no more about owning sins than some pagan bullshit. Christianity was hippie (at the time) Judaism. Confess your sins, feel bad, and be saved. Pass the buck to the demigod, because “he” saves you.
I’ll stand on my own thank you. At least I’ll be standing like a man.
You obviously don’t understand how long ‘forever’ is. I honestly cannot imagine any sin, no matter how dark, that could demand torture FOREVER.
You should probably research catholicism a bit. It’s not really unconditional absolution… your sins still stack up, you still get to spend time in purgatory for them, regardless of how ‘absolved’ you are. Purgatory is supposed to be just like hell, only it’s not FOREVER. Even a million years of torture is better than FOREVER.
If you can stand on your own (which I highly doubt… I have yet to meet someone who’s an atheist after a bullet goes ‘wheet’ past his head) more power to you… but most people cannot.
Christianity had nothing on the barbarism of the Islamic Mongols or Arabs. At least the Christians tended to educate the places that they went and were there not to only burn books,destroy art and rape women. If the crusades didn’t happen then the Arabs would have been out of their sand pit in about the 8th Century. Not at one point did Christians ever try and recapture the arabs lands and not at one point did Christians try and expand an Empire into Arab control lands post collapse of pagan roman empire…Did they have different tax and laws towards them. never. the only thing that they ever asked for during the crusades was safe passage to jerusalem something that even the jews feel free to offer. Something the christians extended to the muslims.
thank god. As a cultural christian i’m surprised the religion ever survived at all. apart from tibetan buddhism which seems to enjoy being the victim of genocide there has yet to be a more submissive religion.
Oh, believe me, I totally agree, I have written volumes on the real reasons behind the crusades, and the wars between christianity and pagans.
Laws favor Jews.
Especially American laws.
Of course they do… professional public servants(masters) are in it for power, and money… and who has the money? The Jews. It only makes good sense for career politicians to sell their services to the highest bidder, and jews have always been the highest bidders.
I don’t think that they are the highest bidder,per se, but the do hold significant sway in media and journalism. Some things have not changed since WWII.
So it is more the idea of going along or be maligned by every means that humans take in information. Then get invaded by the US, because they are Israel’s bitch.
the vast majority of money is concentrated in tribal hands. They may not be tha majority among the top 1%, but they ARE the top 1% of the 1%.
That means that no matter what, they can always control the power which springs from controlling money.
Both the soviets and maoists co-opted religion and religious symbolism to install cults of personality. Also, they never killed in the name of atheism, it was always to solidly their own power. Stalin killed more communists than he did Christians.
You don’t have to kill in the name of atheism in order to use the philosophy of atheism to kill people.
Look at Lysenkoism. One of the most Atheist cults in existence, murdered thousands by starvation, hundreds more who called it out and were executed. Faith in the cult of ‘Atheistic scientism’.
Death by atheism is caused the the relaxation of ethical and moral frameworks which religion instills… frameworks without which, civilization is impossible.
Basically, religion is the only means by which fantasist liberal values can be upheld… and thus, the first thing liberals killed was religion.
It’s very very funny if you think about it.
‘no true scotsman’
Soviet Russia was committed to the destruction of religion. They destroyed churches, mosques and temples; Ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders; Flooded the schools and media with atheistic teachings, and generally promoted atheism as the truth that society should accept. Sound familiar?
Moreover, the total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from but it’s false.
My hypothesis is that politics causes far more mischief than religion itself. Faith, absent politics, has brought about art, charity, and even science.
Stalin and Mao put themselves in the place of God, and demanded to be worshiped as gods. That was my point.
Interesting point. However it assumes that atheism equates to amoral. And of course one can have morals without belief in gods, one can have belief on God without morals.
How can one have morals without belief in god?
Carefully studying and building a code of honor based on how each and every action affects other humans around you?
Do you REALLY think that even a strong minority of Atheists have committed themselves to the kind of careful ethical and human studies necessary to create such a codification? I have done so, but it has taken me nearly 40 years to bang it out, the last ten years of which would not have even been possible without the fairly recent research into Paleosociology and Evolutionary Psychology.
What are YOUR ten commandments?
EVERY humanist puts themselves in the place of god. They have replaced god with the worship of humanity… Mao and Stalin are simply the natural, and inevitable, result of that philosophy.
I simply don’t believe in a personal creator deity.
When an atheist says that other atheists didn’t commit murder because they were atheists they are only true in the proximate sense. Atheism is an empty doctrine, completely devoid of morality, meaning or purpose. It doesn’t erase the fact that atheists are the most homicidal in history. However, atheism is an integral part of Maxist Communism and later Maoist Communism. As for George Bush, he didn’t invade Iraq because he was a Christian.
.
Noted atheist Bertrand Russell commented that agnosticism is logically unassailable, but everybody has to believe in something. Nature abhors a vacuum so the void left by atheism needs to be filled. If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.
.
The fact that both Marx and Ayn Rand were atheists sort of proves that point.
Great point. The issue with atheism is how if one’s belief system isn’t already filled, with traditional religious dogma, it becomes filled with a whole slew of culturally subversive -ism. Namely, Egalitarianism, Feminism, Hedonism, Marxism, etc.
This brings up another point. In reality, there are two types of atheists: One who legitimately lacks of belief in gods and yet another with a deeply vested belief that the state is god and simply toe the line.
e.g. A number of “atheists” turned on Sam Harris whose credentials are beyond reproach (IMHO) when he criticized the doctrine of Islam.
It seems that most atheists have some other “-ism” that fills in the blanks such that they use the latter to describe themselves. The self-proclaimed variety become annoying when they cling to the belief that their other beliefs are somehow more logical or scientific rather than subjective and emotion-driven, and don’t really acknowledge the full implications of philosophical materialism.
You’re dead wrong about Hitler abandonning religon.
I should say that I’m not antichristian, but I’m tired of people using Hitler as the most evil man on earth and trying to link it to the side of their opponents by any fallacies possible.
Have you read Mein Kampf ?
He clearly wrote in it that the teachings of Jesus should be taught to germans in schools, and that he is and forever will be a catholic.
“It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in
this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes
with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly,
but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where
parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on
a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother,
than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring
unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world.”
Here’s one of this speeches in Munich :
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord
at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is
anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is
the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty
to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and
work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only
for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning
and see these men standing in their queues and look into their
pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very
devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people
are plundered and exposed.”
Hitler and the Nazis were neo-pagan socialists/progressives who hated Christianity as too pacifist and feminine (Islam, they admired for being properly warlike). What they said before they took power was merely said in order to take power.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-speed-of-progressivism.html
“What was the progressive pose yesterday may be an unacceptably
reactionary position tomorrow. The French Revolution and the Communist Revolution and the Cultural Revolution spent a lot of time purging comrades who had failed to recognize that the new progressive position had been adopted tomorrow and had become reality yesterday and was subject to a loyalty oath today.”
http://www.dpvintageposters.com/cgi-local/detail.cgi?d=5958
That propaganda was created by a California art student in 1943. Nice try.
Well, having jousted with you before, I’m surprised you’re crediting your beloved Nazis to Christianity.
I don’t remember our “jousting”. I’m surprised you would try to use American made propaganda to say that the Nazis were not Christians.
The Nazis absolutely embraced paganism. Where do you think the swastika came from (see: Sæbø sword)?
I disagree. And Hitler got the swastika off of a catholic church he attended as a boy in Austria.
Dude. just look it up, it is famous.
They were aryans, and looked to the ancient religions of the white people around the earth (ie. Atlanteans). In fact, if you research these ancient myths the way the nazis did… as well as other acclaimed researchers who were NOT nazis… you will see that there is, indeed, much indication to a white superior race that descended upon the others to promote their knowledge, which was superior.
This is not a joke – the Peruvians claim it as such, as do other south american religions, as well as the Polynesians, and well, many other religions claim some sort of “white man:” came and gave us this knowledge.
This can be found by researching a concept known as “ur-religion” which means, “The Universal Religion.”
What they mean is, at some point in our past human history, there was a universal morality that was passed on to us that exists in all subsequent religions.
For example, the ten commandments, for the most part, are NOT only practiced by Christians, but by ALL successful civilizazations around the world, and since Anthropologists claim that all civilizations seemed to arise at the same time (ie. Mesopotamia and Indus Valley), there was a “universal religion” that formed successful civilizations during the time – in other words, despite differeing religions, they espoused the same values, like, not killing your young, adhering to marriage and sexual mores, honouring your parents, and so forth. In other words, there is a universal moral code which does not only apply to religions, but also outside of it… but no-one can say who originated it (and it certainly wasn’t atheists, because everything about it goes against evolutionary beliefs – ie. don’t steal and don’t kill).
The Swastika was, and still is, portrayed in India… and it was also produced on the coins of Rome and Greece.
It has nothing to do with Nazism other than fascination with the pagan’s symbolic power of it throughout the ages… much like the Christian Cross was also portrayed as a symbol of power in the likes of the Celtic Cross, long before Christianity even came to the regions that embraced it.
There is no evidence for the cross to represent Christianity… in fact, up until the Council of Nicea in 300 something AD, the symbol for Christianity was the fish – the sign of a fisherman – and also, the sign of the beginning of the age of Pisces – the age of the fish.
The Bible is not bunk, but there are other elements mixed in between it.
Yes…I think nearly all religions have some version of the Golden Rule…
Hitler just used Christianity to justify his actions. The reason why he may be obsessed with ‘blond haired, blue eyed’ people was not really because he was racist but because of some pagan god. Hitler didn’t even have blond hair and blue eyes and is Jewish because his mom was born to a Jewish mom. And in order for someone to be considered Jewish, their mother has to be Jewish.
Good point about the swastika. It is found in different parts of the world. The Buddhist even had a swastika.
Excellent Post.
The catholic church disowned hitler, said he was spouting false teachings. There’s evidence to suggest hitler viewed Christians as useful idiots. Not sure what that has to do with the OP.
Christians are useful idiots. So are betas. They are required for the stability of a civilization.
Is that your belief? You can’t reproduce it in a lab, so it must be part of your belief system. As an atheist you don’t have a belief system, except when you do. Your belief system is showing again, that must tear you up inside with cognitive dissonance.
really you mean hitler who based his beliefs on Mussolini was disowned. Lord. Did they give up the sovereignty of the vatican? it was a pact with Fascist Europe to seem impartial. However Christianity has obviously desired to cohabit the same sphere as Fascism which seems to be far more inclined to allow them to keep their land(largest land owner on earth) and wealth rather than throw it to the people who would no doubt throw it away on a drinking game.As others made mention. Reds were killing men of the cross. 1936 spain told the Church that if they didn’t want to get burnt alive in their church they might want to fight against the reds. However now they are best friends in the world of cultural marxism.
I’m sure most red pill guys are atheists. There’s no evidence for god at all. I don’t want to debate this, but just want to point that the author of this article needs to get this straight. Not believing in something is not an ideology or religion. That’s like saying not believing in the patriarchy makes you part of a religion. With that said, many leftists have religion-like believes. Meaning, many of their beliefs are based on emotion or superstition and not on fact. The problem is not atheism. The problem is believing things based on what you want to be true, which is basically leftism (and religion) in a nutshell. The red pill is all about accepting and understanding reality for what it is. Not projecting our hopes and desires onto reality and acting as if those are true. Therefor, one must jettison all superstition and “belief” until evidence for it exists. If evidence for it existed, it would simply be fact.
Wrong, most red pill guys are agnostic. We don’t know that there is a god… but we also do not know that there is NOT a god. And recognition of what role christianity has played in the creation and maintenance of civilization is very, very red pill.
Atheism is as much a cult as any religion. It requires a belief that god does NOT exist as a foundational philosophy.
With that definition, then you must be agnostic about the tooth fairy and Santa. All atheism is, is not believing in a superstitious god. There are no ideologies attached to it. Once you attach an ideology to it then it becomes something else.
I will however say that it is without a doubt that people need religion “illogical belief” to keep them moral. It is obvious that humans are too stupid to go without some superstitious beliefs in order to live in a stable society. They simply don’t understand or care enough about the ramifications of their actions, so they must fear the hellfire or some other such superstitious punishment. That is how our brains are wired. So with that, I obviously understand the necessity of religion, specifically that of the Christian reward/punishment based dichotomy, in order to create a stable, moral, and law abiding society. It doesn’t mean that there is any objective truth to Christianity. It just means that our human brains are not suitable to live or exist in a society without some form of superstition controlling us. It’s a bigger scale version of ignorance is bliss. It’s a plato’s cave type scenario. Once people realize there is no actual god to punish them, many would actually behave immorally. That doesn’t make religion true. It just means that it is useful and necessary.
actually, the tooth fairy and santa clause CAN be either atheist or agnostic.
Do I believe in the tooth fairy? Of course not… that doesn’t mean that the tooth fairy does not exist… I cannot know everything, and maybe there really is a fairy world where the fairies collect teeth… I cannot know for sure.
But, frankly, true red pill seeks to understand the lies, and know the truth behind them, with the recognition that some lies are absolutely healthy for civilization to exist.
Red pill is knowing which lies help humanity and which lies destroy it.
This is the crux of the matter. There hasn’t been one successful society, in the history of the world, that based the cornerstone of the family and private property or even masculinity upon atheism. End of story. To wit: Religion, for better or for worst, builds civilizations; Atheism tears them to the ground.
Read my previous reply. Acknowledging that religion, especially Christianity, is very successful in building stable societies has nothing to do with it’s truth (meaning truth that Jesus actually was the son of god, and god actually exists). Any simple minded person would realize this. Often, truth is not good for civilization. Many times, living in the shadow of ignorance is actually what you want for a society.
As an example, this is why so many people, especially white Europeans, are so hesitant to accept that there are racial differences between people that effect behavior at a fundamental level. This is a learned behavior of ignorance is bliss, because in many ways, they know that this “truth” may eventually lead to war, tribalism, perhaps genocide, and temporary instability. It is a learned bahaviour as this seems to have been a mechanism that helped Europe be a relatively stable part of the world for so many years
People like us can clearly see that there are fundamental, evolutionary, racial differences between people, but for this to be known amongst the masses would most likely lead to instability. Same goes for realizing that we have been lied to about the existence of god and hellfire.
“Do I believe in the tooth fairy? Of course not…”
If there were a word to describe the lack of belief in the tooth fairy, it would be something like a-fairyism. That would be considered a religion to you based on your logic. I repeat, atheism is simply not believing that a god exists, just like your non-belief in the tooth fairy. It is the exact same. The fact that this is logically over yours and many peoples heads is shocking to me. By its nature the idea of god is not falsifiable, just as the idea of the tooth fairy is not falsifiable. That doesn’t mean we have to go about life assuming they might be true. We simply don’t believe in them until there is acceptable evidence to believe in them. Then it would be considered fact.
Anyways. I go back to my main point. Most humans are too stupid to go about life without believing in some omniscient and omnipotent figure that will punish them if they misbehave. Religion has and will likely always be incredibly paramount in building a stable society. It does not mean that it is objectively true. It just means that it is an effective lie.
“But, frankly, true red pill seeks to understand the lies, and know the truth behind them, with the recognition that some lies are absolutely healthy for civilization to exist.”
exactly agree with you. Except I would go one step further and add that true red pill seeks to understand objective truth. within objective truth is understanding that some lies (like religion) are necessary.
(snort) I am a ag-fae-ic.
Specifically, religions enforce pair bonding, which has been the cornerstone of stable society.
It’s a branch of mathematics called ‘probability theory.’ The likelihood is low but it exists. Of course, this is in reference to the existence of a “God” and no the tooth fairy. Everyone knows that’s your parents.
I read your previous reply but I was more or less going for brevity. The point is that Atheism is anti-societal and one of many ways to perpetuate the new orthodoxy. This is the decisive point at issue.
I’ve already addressed the possibility of a son of god and the latter’s existence above. Further, there’s actually quite a bit of truth to the Abrahamic religions.
e.g. Should we disregard Ephesians 5:22-33 [Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord…] because a god might not exist? Take a look at western society, most atheists already have.
You’re confusing things here. A lot of religions, especially Christianity, have ample amounts of truth in them. Many of these things are true based on objective understandings of the world, and many are true essentially by accident. Meaning, you don’t have to believe in a superstitious god to understand that pair bonding is important in creating a stable society. You don’t have to believe in a superstitious god to understand that promiscuity in women will decay a society and cause instability in many ways. We can find these truths objectively, as we can do now. However, most people, have to evoke a god in order to believe these to be true. In other words, most people are too stupid to understand the complex set of ramifications involved in promiscuity in women leading to decay a society (as an example), and instead, it is far more effective to tell them “Because God says so! And if you do it, you’ll burn in hell!!!”
Atheism inherently is not a moral stance at all. Just as not believing in astrology is not a moral stance. However, it does have moral ramifications to the masses who are too simple minded to understand the complexities of our existence. So we agree that creating an atheist society (that does not have anyone to fear), will lead to chaos. Any wonder why atheistic societies, typically have to be fascist and have mass surveillance to be stable? They are replacing god, who is all knowing and will punish you, with the state, who is all knowing and will punish you.
Moral of the story, people are stupid and must be controlled with fear in order to behave morally.
all fights of liberalism, fascism, socialism, feminism, marxism, totalitarianism, theocracy, democracy, geronocracy… all are simply a fight over who gets to do the controlling.
The only differences are whether they support a growing civilization and expansion, or whether they destroy it.
I think the world is divided into people that take the world around them as is, and people who question whether the world around them is in line with their own individual ideas.
I think many red-pillers fit into the latter camp.
The majority of people however just want to enjoy their lives without questioning things too much. To most people asking questions concerning the status quo seems pointless or even unsettling.
Religion is for these masses of people. It gives them an overarching structure within which they can spend their time having fun, making friends, seeing the latest movies, keeping up with the latest fashions, building families, etc.
In contrast, every religion also has an inner-mystical tradition and this is where I think you find the more individualistic members of society. Since the absoluteness of religion is taken for granted in their society, some men try and get to the bottom of the metaphysical issue through mysticism, philosophy, or science.
My point:
Without religion, the hedonistic masses end up living in their own filth.
Conversely, without some leeway for individualism there is limited innovation or progress.
I think anti-religionists overestimate the degree to which most humans are driven by conscious reasoning. People that live their lives in accordance with a higher-philosophy generated within themselves are few and far between.
Therefore, institutionalizing atheism lays the seeds for a society’s self-destruction through social chaos. It tears society down to the lowest common denominator.
Perfectly stated. Too bad it cannot be compressed into a sound byte.
We’re going in circles here. Of course it’s not necessary for a society to believe in god to understand wisdom. However, decency and morality aren’t exactly characteristic of atheistic societies either. Which is the point: Atheism is anti-societal. Moreover “people are stupid and must be controlled” is an extremely gauche and simplistic way of putting it. @disqus_XZROw7mDfr:disqus sums it up more gracefully:
Clark Kent’s post is extremely well written and does indeed gracefully elaborate my point about people being “too stupid”.
What I was referring to though is that people do need to be controlled in order to act morally. Or more precisely, they need to fear some sort of punishment in order to not act in a way that may be destructive to society. Think of why many fatherless children grow up to be amoral, criminal deviants. They lacked a certain “fear” that the fatherly authority gives in a human development. It gives people structure. It is the way our brains are wired — especially women’s brains. This is certainly why almost all gods are of male presence and also certainly why more women are religious and “god fearing”. They need to be, for the sake of society.
On a strictly mathematical basis, atheism is only 36.8% likely
I couldn’t agree more. I think the problem comes when a populous is controlled by the State in lieu of a “god.”
This is very articulately written.
However, I look at religion in a much more anthropological way in relationship to humanity. It is an evolved behavioral trait that has been important in maintaining the health, stability, and ultimately, longevity of the human species. It is really not much different than the polar bear’s white fur, the chameleon’s camouflaging skin, or any physically evolved trait. These are all genetically derived through natural selection. Our brains have been shaped through natural selection and the “religion” gene has been carried through in most people.
History has shown that religious civilizations have been more stable and more successful. This is why humans have more propensity for religiosity. If we didn’t, chances are that our species would not have made it this far.
The innate quality in most humans to believe in and not to question an all-knowing and all-seeing, invisible entity that will judge and punish you based on your behavior, is what keeps the fabric society, and our species, held together.
People who do not understand this and who are trying to remove religion from society are unknowingly deconstructing one of the most important glues that holds together society.
Unfortunately I, and I’m assuming many red pill men, lack this “religious gene”. The lack of it is what allows us to question many lies and seek truth in an objective way. It has also been shown that men do indeed lack the religious gene much more than women. This is not an accident, as it is evolutionarily beneficial for women to have this religious gene (or more simply, lack the ability to rationalize and question reality).
How many families or relationships do you know where the mother is the most religious and the dad just plays the part because he knows it is important to keep stability in the family? I know many.
If I ever do have a family (unlikely), I will make sure it is established within the framework of a religion (likely christianity), even though I myself do not believe in a god (because I simply can’t).
How did you arrive at that number (if you don’t mind my asking)?
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/what-twins-reveal-about-god-gene
Just Googled this pop-science article. Apparently there is such a thing as a “God gene” as revealed by twin-studies. The likelihood of having faith or spirituality is correlated with the presence of some genes. News to me. Not unbelievable though, psychopathy has a genetic component as well, along with most mental disorders.
I hate these pop-science articles though because there is never a reference list at the bottom of articles. How dumb is that?
“If I ever do have a family (unlikely), I will make sure it is established within the framework of a religion (likely christianity), even though I myself do not believe in a god (because I simply can’t).”
I’ve thought about this as well. I grew up in a Roman Catholic family and rebelled hard as a teenager because I just could not accept at face value what made no fucking sense to me.
In my eyes science and philosophy simply explained way more of what I saw in the world. Religion and superstition to me just appeared as willful ignorance.
So I don’t know… on the one hand forcing religion down a child’s throat might bring them years of confusion (what do you mean Santa Claus is fake?) but on the other it might save their ass and even help maintain the stability of the family…
Perhaps I might want my kids to feel like they have some roots if they choose to embrace them. Whats the alternative? To become an SJW?
If someone propose a god – say Thor – they can’t prove his existence but neither can one disprove his existence. The latter will not believe that Thor exists – and is logical in doing so – but has to concede that there is an infinitesimally small, non-zero chance that Thor does exist. Then you have another person propose another god, and someone else propose another; different pantheons, different metaphysical realities, spiritual constructs and such, ad infinitum. The atheist will reject every specific proposal in favour of believing in nothing (that is, no gods, spirits, ghosts, fairies, reincarnation etc).
.
The thing is, unless the atheist can prove, with absolute certainty, that these do not exist you have an infinite number of infinitely small probabilities which reduce to the equation 1-1/e where e is the natural logarithm of 2.78 etc leaving a 36.8% chance that there is, in fact, nothing rather than something.
Yes the “god gene” (VMAT2) is what I was referring to.
Perhaps a lot of red pill men’s behavior and thought processes (including mine) could probably be explained by the lack of VMAT2 immunoreactivity. Similarly, blue pill guys, are likely the way they are because of genetic inclinations (more VMAT2 among other things). This would explain why no amount of reasoning will make them see the light so to speak. Same with the religious.
In reference to Religion being a necessary lie, this may be blasphemy to say here, but it is likely that aspects of a blue pill mindset may be necessary to have a stable society as well. Think about the whole alpha phucks/beta bucks reality of human nature. This mechanism has allowed for an immense amount of stability in the human species. Alphas ensuring the strength of the human gene, and betas making sure the offspring are cared for. It is sick, but nature is harsh. If everyone were red pill, there would just be a shit load of MGTOW and girls getting gamed when convenient — society would crumble. As much as we hate it, blue pill betas are incredibly necessary for a stable society. I think Heartiste has a few posts about that..
“Perhaps I might want my kids to feel like they have some roots if they choose to embrace them. Whats the alternative? To become an SJW?”
I think this entire red pill experiment is the quest to find that alternative.
Yeah you make a good point there. I think the reason is that the state is limited and cannot be omniscient or omnipotent the way that “god” can. That is why many people will respect a god much more than they would a state. God is not a mere human and is not inherently flawed the way humans are according to the monotheistic religions (which is what makes these religions absolutely genius).
But with that said, I think Chinese people have been evolved to respect and not question a state in lieu of a god. China is a relatively successful/stable secular nation in this regard given its immense population. Would this work on other societies/races? Maybe not. But it does/has seemed to work with the Chinese more recently. Also, note how they worship their leaders (even north korea) similarly to what they would a god. These people are above mere humans to them.
I’m more of an Aristotelian virtue ethics kind of guy. Otherwise I sometimes describe myself as an anarcho-fascist because there are basically two types of people: those who can take care of themselves, respect others, and the government should leave them the hell alone; and those who can’t be trusted with individual responsibility.
how about, for the technological advancement to reach the point of technological singularity, where we create a computer program, a true “philosopher king” without the weaknesses of the human mind, that guides humanity in a way more just and better every human could archive on its own.
Copy and paste the following term “near death experiences” and then paste it in your browser’s search box, choose the search engine of your liking and hit “go”
Obsrac, you are smart and well-written but rather ignorant on what you write about.
The “Gods” of antiquity and the bible were quite obviously Extraterrestrials once you do the research.
Which is something different than being the entity responsible from the creation of the universe, and also something different than the intense spiritual experiences people have while being on the brink of death.
p.s. but yes, you are absolutely right in religion being a better control mechanism than the state.
Agnosticism is really not a stand-alone position. Not sure why people think that. Gnosticism deals with knowledge. Theism deals with belief. Hence we, theists and atheists alike, are all agnostic with regards to the existence of a god; no one really knows. And the believer or nonbeliever that tells you they know (a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist) is delusional. In reality we are either agnostic theists or agnostic atheists. So a person saying they’re agnostic is not revealing anything. That’s the default.
I use “agnosticism” as short hand for my own personal beliefs that are neither theistic nor atheistic (philosophical naturalism).
.
However, there is a difference between knowing there is a god and knowing the nature of god. As far as I know, Christians agree that there is God but God is unknowable because He is so far beyond human comprehension, at least on a rational level.
.
On the other hand you have the gnostics and various practitioners of Eastern religions who know the nature of reality without necessarily believing in a god.
of course it is the default… that’s my point. Atheists act like atheism is the baseline… when in reality their whole position only exists in rebellion to theism.
TRB is about tolerating people’s beliefs or lack thereof within the movement, not ascribing labels
Holy fuck, do you work for the gay lobby or what?
There is no tolerance for anti-civilized beliefs in an ascending society, only in a declining one.
You know, like the belief that killing 50 million unborn babies over the past fifty years wouldn’t come to bite us on the ass… just like how now, we don’t have enough young people to support the elderly’s retirement pensions and dreams of sunsets on the beach in Florida. (Notice that the Bible not only instructs us to honour our parents, but also to be fruitful and multiply – the one cannot exist without the other, as we will soon discover).
Sorry, old folks, you shouldn’t have genocided the younger generations while still believing that dream would come true.
In fact, as a society, we would have been better off following the ways of the Eskimos and setting our parents adrift on ice-flows in old age.
Killing the children that were supposed to support us in old age is like killing your horse in the spring because you were a little hungry and wanted a BBQ, but complaining in the fall that you can’t harvest your crops because you no longer have a friggin’ horse!
Whose fault is that?
Now we’re going to pay – and dearly – for ignoring the wisdom of our ancestors and their cultural wisdom – that which brought us from being sheep-herders to becoming the dominant civilization on earth (which more or less proves they were right all along).
It’s very confusing. No simple answer. It’s a mix.
On one hand, red pill is rationalism. It involves questioning beliefs, such as that women are ideals.
On the other, it tends to align with traditional beliefs, such as the madonna / whore dichotomy.
I’d argue that red pillers don’t necessarily have a religious leaning. Red pill relies on wisdom, knowledge, application and SCIENTIFIC METHOD (you essentially are making social theories and testing them in the real world). Religion relies on wisdom,knowledge application and faith. A supreme being will be no fool to a proving process developed by man. Science will never prove the existence of God. We have to accept that there is something far greater than us. We are by no means an apex creation. With each time there is some towelhead killing innocents in the sandbox because his degenerate god commanded it, God must be upstairs facepalming wondering how long this lunacy can be allowed before he decides to get involved.
Perhaps, but the average person is not red pill. The average person, and society at large, may need faith just like the body needs food, even if the whole thing is imaginary. Without the opiate, they turn to the next set of moral dogma and ideals: Leftism.
Agree 100%.
“There’s no evidence for god at all.”
This statement is only true from a very narrow definition of evidence.
For instance, Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Aristotle, Plato, and Thomas Aquinas all thought that a monotheistic first cause was supremely evidence (though Kant’s reasons for thinking so are distinct from the rest of them).
For instance, Aristotle and Aquinas take the persistence of cause and effect, gradations of perfection, change from potentiality to actuality, and natural tendencies to be evidence that a first cause with the qualities of a mind exists.
Similarly, Plato, Descartes, and Anselm take intuition about the concept of mind and perfection to be evidence that such a perfect mind exists (I find their ontological arguments far from convincing, but they are very intriguing).
Finally, Kant treats God as essentially a necessary postulate of moral science.
I would also add that not believing in God, is not on the same level as not believing in the patriarchy. Not believing in the patriarchy means that you most likely do have a particular ideology (albeit one that is actually reasonable!).
Dissimilarly, not believing in God as a first cause with certain qualities, might mean that you reject certain pieces of evidence or at least the implications of that evidence. For instance, to be an atheist might mean one rejects such premises as the impossibility of infinite causal regresses, the reality of all discrete events having causes, or the intelligibility of nature. At this point, it isn’t about particular religious claims, but rather about the presuppositions of the sciences, the existence of universally applicable logic, the possibility of accurate sensory data, and the fact that everything in nature has a natural (non-condradictory) explanation. So while I respect that one might find the evidence for God’s existence unconvincing, it is not the case that the evidence is not there. Hell, testimonial and experiential evidence are the prime way humans come to their beliefs. Both of those types of evidence exist for the existence of various supernatural entities. You might dispute the quality of the evidence or the probative power of arguments which utilize it, but evidence of that sort exists too.
Peace.
If I’m not being a dumb Kant, I recall that his ethical system was based on pure reason with revelation being unnecessary and God being at least one step removed as the creator of humans as rational beings.
.
As far as evidence is concerned, you have to understand that atheists use circular reasoning.
.
Science presumes a natural explanation to explain all phenomena and then proceeds to look for evidence, confirmation, falsifiability and such on that basis. The atheist takes that presumption one step further and asserts it as fact. At that point, you can’t find evidence of God: you can’t find a natural explanation for the supernatural; you can’t find a material explanation of a spiritual phenomenon.
.
To anyone who is not an atheist, the idea that the material world is not the whole of reality is acceptable. On the other hand, atheists will come out with gems like “if the supernatural was real, it would be natural”. Completely circular and missing the point.
You’re right about Kant’s views of revelation. But here’s the rub (and hilariously most Christians said that revelation comported with reason, but was clearer and went beyond it only in certain details). Kant thought that rationality could give rise to the particulars of morality, but that for the supreme good to exist at all implies a personification of “the good.” I could be misreading him, but in “Religion within the Limits of Reason” and “Metaphysics of Morals” he argues that the existence of morality as a fact of experience is the evidence of the existence of God. He’s not as far from Aquinas as he thought he was.
That’s nonsense.
I am certainly not a bible-banger, but I have enormous respect for religion.
First of all, whether religious beliefs are actually real or not matters very little from an anthropoligical point of view – but the fact that not one civilization on earth has EVER existed without being founded in some sort of religion IS significant. And… I’m sure it’s been tried many times before to create a godless society… which should lead to asking why a society cannot form itself without a religion, but it doesn’t!
One of the biggest things a religion does is it takes large swaths of people and gives them all the same moral values, thus reducing the need for living in a 100% totalitarian environment (and the real reason we have separation of church and state). Think of it this way – driving on the right-hand side of the road or the left-hand side of the road are equally valid, in every single possible way… and yet, somehow, we all have to agree to drive on one side of the road or our entire road-way system would collapse in a matter of minutes. The fact that we all “know” which side of the road to drive on is what makes travel by road possible. Religions do the same thing – they take a mass of people and conform their beliefs into something that “works”.
Even George Washington addressed this concept in his Farewell Address, where he discussed that the USA is NOT free from religion, but rather designed to work in TANDEM with it – in separate but complimentary spheres. As an example, if everyone adheres to the concept of “Thou Shall Not Steal” then there is little need to lock your doors or hire policemen, because both you and your neighbours have morally reigned yourself in without the totalitarianism of the state.
If everyone were allowed to “make his own truth” along the way, how could society possibly function. For example, if you believe in private property while your neighbour believes that all property belongs to the community… there are only three ways to solve this problem:
1): You let your neighbour take your stuff, and you suffer and die out while he thrives.
2): You shoot your neighbour because of his different belief system, and you live while he dies.
or
3). You are forced to run to the government to choose to enforce either option 1 or 2, which is, essentially, totalitarianism.
George Washington argued that the more Americans followed the ways of the Bible, the less excuse there was for the government to enact totalitarianism. (If no-one ever robs your house because of their moral values, you don’t need to hire the police/government to stop people from robbing your house! Thus, following a moral code is the path to liberty from government, because it makes government rule useless).
And, ultimately, when you look at books like the Bible, if all you see is “a spaghetti monster in the sky” rather than the collected wisdom of our ancestors over the millenias, then you are a doofus. To discredit the wisdom of the Bible or Buddha or whatnot other religion based on the belief that only modern humans had the ability to observe human nature is foolish and hubristic. The Bible told us about false rape accustations way back in Genesis 39 (Joseph & Potiphar’s wife)… and it portrayed female behaviour (and male reactions to it) in an incredibly accurate way. In Judges 4:21, we learned that Heber’s wife killed him in his sleep by driving a tent peg through his temple. Gee… does this not reflect the EXACT same female nature we witness when wives kill or maim their husbands today? (ie. Mary Winkley & Lorena Bobbit).
Furthermore, given the scientific anthropological evidence that no significant civilization can exist without a unified moral code (ie Religion), then even – or especially – the athiests like Richard Dawkins, with all of his hundreds of IQ points and scientific degrees, would have to admit that the only scientific way for the world to adopt athiest principles would be to… wait for it… disguise it as a religion!
Read my below posts. I basically already said what you did in your post and I agree with you that religion is absolutely necessary. In many cases it is quite ingenious and accurate at understanding human behavior. Does not refute my initial point though.
Hey… I think for the past several centuries at least (since the 1700’s), The Bible IS the red-pill book. Not even Roosh’s books come close to imbibing upon us “the proper way” to deal with women.
It’s FUCKING tiring of people like you taking cheap pot-shots at religion just to remain politically fucking correct like all the other cheap pink-gonchy boys in the world.
It’s gotten to the point where people like you INSTANTLY piss me off. The stupidity of your argument is taller than the Tower of Babel – which, btw, is a story about human hubris and thinking man is god more than anything else. (As is the legend of Iccarus flying too close to the sun… see how this religion/myth thing works?)
We would be far better off – even in an evolutionary sense – to ask WHY certain religions are successful in building dominant civilizations while other are not.
As JD Unwin pointed out back in his 1930’s studies of civilizations around the world, almost all societies start out heavily misogynist, and then morph into feminism by their decline.
The evidence that the “sky-fairy” people should be punched in the face and told to shut up is fucking overwhelmingly red-pill, while leftist/athiest ideology is overwhelming anti-civilization and blue-pill simply cannot be refuted when examining the facts… and yet, the first thing out of your mouths is this leftist, anti-civilization bullshit.
Fucking tired of you spaghettie monster morons. For christ sakes, pick up a fucking book and start reading.
Calm down and read my below posts (all of them, specifically Clark Kent’s post and then my replies). I basically agree with you in almost every single point you make. You are jumping to conclusions and missing the fundamental arguments being made.
Who cares about your “calm down bullshit.”
What this thread has illustrated is that your claim that “red pill” is atheist is pure fucking bunk.
Why don’t you atheist kunts stop shoving your PC bullshit on us in the first place?
And then YOU start calming the fuck down.
you’re irrational.
You’re a leftist and an atheist. Which are BOTH irrational by any scientific metric applied to them.
Btw, I’m really glad to see the response to your stupid comment. This is one of the first times I’ve seen one of you stupid Sky God assholes in the Manosphere taken behind the shed for the whacking your kind so supremely deserves.
And I don’t give a shit how much you try to back-pedal before your justified whacking. Cunts like you have been fucking with the message for decades now, and getting away with it.
I’m a leftist? First time I’ve heard that before.. Okay man, you’re trolling.
I’m not the one dissing the Red Pill as being anti-truth athiests, and then trying to backpedal out of it in every post since, asshole.
And, btw, Atheism is almost exclusively leftist in its ideology – ie. Man is God (Truth). Therefore, with man’s intervention, we can create heaven on earth for ourselves… and fuck God (Truth).
This is where socialism comes from… or didn’t you notice the only political entities that agree with you are totalitarian communist ones?
Go take five minutes and research Near Death Experiences, then feel free to edit your post.
lol. So, near death experiences are objective evidence for an omniscient and omnipotent god who created the universe, specifically, the Christian one? wow. who knew? That must mean when we trip on acid, it is also “evidence” for this exact same thing. Or how about, when we are dreaming? Or how about when we enjoy something we eat? How about if someone takes a bat to your head and you start seeing things. Man, I never realized, there is just so much evidence for a god that created this universe and judges us when we touch ourselves – specifically the god of the christian bible. Thanks for setting me straight.
Atheists don’t accept near death experiences because if the subject has any brain activity, they automatically attribute the experience to being a hallucination. Then they take healthy people and zap their brains to get something similar. That’s enough to satisfy them that there is a natural explanation so no additional, parallel or alternative explanation is necessary or acceptable.
If the victims had been Christian the media wouldn’t even be covering this news story. It would have been reported on page 3 of the local newspaper in that town in North Carolina and no other media source would have picked up the story and repeated it.
America is very pro-Muslim. For what reason, I would never know. Obama maybe……
American media are mostly libs, who run a narrative that minorities in america are persecuted victims of intolerance. If a minority is killed its front page news, worthy of a national “conversation” and self reflection about how this was “allowed” to happen by society. When a white or christian gets killed its just back page news, like a traffic accident. Its the liberal progressive politically correct agenda to keep SJW and the grievance industry in business.
is libs a synonym for something?
You may be a bit of a troll, but lib is slang for liberal. Like con is slang for conservative. Some people (those with blinders on) seem to think that they can slap a label on something to automatically define it as good or bad.
Example, because I’m an independent thinker who refuses to bow down to a bloodthirsty cult (take your pick of the Abrahamic religions, because all 3 are bloodthirsty) led by effeminate men I must be a liberal.
Then again, I consider feminism bankrupt and refuse to treat women like special snowflakes. I treat them as accountable for their actions, no matter what. This means I must be a conservative.
I just live in the real world where no one is right all the time, including me.
but why? i feel like winston from 1984. i know how, but i dont understand why.
“America is very pro-Muslim”
Just the Zionists (who are Obama’s handlers) inducing confusion and chaos, nothing to see here.
Starting to think this is true actually by just reading the news and all.
Haha. That’s choice.
It’s because it probably is true. Things that were thinly veiled in previous generations are quite overt today in regard to use of power and who actually wields it.
Why are all muslims keep telling us these lies:
1. We are not bad.
2. Our religion is very very very peaceful.
3. All the muslim terrorists are not muslims.
4. Zionists are the evil in this world, not the ones who crash buildings, blow up buses, behead people, kill infidels in the name of Allah etc. No! Zionism is bad! Why? Because it’s bad!
Or let’s blame others for our shit.
The West is pro diversity. the moment that the call to prayer is forced on people at 4.30am they will consider new options
Not surprised if Obama is or had roots. His name suggests it.
Kinda weird how “pro-homo” America is, that is unless he is attacked by a Muslim.
I don’t know about that one. The MSM goes after whatever drama it can drum up in a news story – It’s all about ratings (money, viewers).
I think if the victims would have been Christian, then they would have painted this guy as an”insane” individual (and would ignore anything connecting him to being a far, left liberal).
They (MSM) don’t want it to be too obvious that they lean left but they’re not going to pass up the money (viewers) on the table.
That’s what it’s come to in the U.S., today.
kind of. Like there are other ones that have been swept under the rug. That same liberal media can be very critical espically when it comes to traditional culture with women. That dont always have theri back. Like we dont talk about he white dude that crashed a plane into the irs building. The Trayvon incident wouldnt have happen if that women didnt put it on change.org. There was yemeni women of 4 that was killed in usa when her home was broken into after alleged threats by notes on the door. Or that persian woman that got her face cut up with boxcutter kives after locking up her shop. Or no one cares for Farch noor adams in scotland either.
Who ever raises a shitstorm, then the media will come and blow it outta proportion and senstailise things.
Example: this one story happened 4 yrs ago of a white kid whom told 2 women to stop fighting on the bus and the black guy shanked him
But that filipino bus driver whose it was his first day and took 3 month stress leave of that incident told a different story to the cops,the company and my dad and bro. Apperntly He swore at the black and his wife after his friend smashed a window in the back of the bus, they got into each others faces, he clubbed in with his stick and he shanked him back and he ran south bound……media never told that story. Instead they told how this was an innocent ginger skater kid whod did nothing wrong blah blah, like they did with these 3 slain muslims or any minority or any victim for that matter on how they were patriotic and standup citizens.
I think its only become a fire storm since 2 of the victims wre female 1 of them kinda pretty so liberal media is all up in it.
End of the day it was a leftist that did this and they are scrambling on how to represent it differntly.
we can get offense with whites and not minorties as well, its just about whose gonna scream the most. Like upper class white women claim oppression more then black men, and thats how they better results from affirmitive action then them.http://mmalinker.com/forum/why-are-the-irish-so-sensitive-t128761.html?sid=5feeef59c5dc84bd49672bdec4ebc8cc
Honestly would you want to switch positions with minorities..you wouldnt. A white woman, the world is on your feet.
20 Coptic Christians were beheaded on the Libyan Coast near Tripoli with a butter knife to their throat. Jew gets shot In Copenhagen and everyone is in panic mode. All i can think is maybe the stock price of oil went to low for a stable Libya post Gaddafi. A man who united 300 Berber, Arab, Coptic,African warring tribes. I’m amazed at how easy it is for ISIS to bait all these countries into civil war and leads me to be suspicious of who supplies them with weapons and munitions and even some of the basic necessities to maintain a supply chain that covers a huge geographical space.
What an ignorant article this site is going down the drain. Some articles are good but to bring up the “Noble Savage” which is inherently ignorant in thought process is idiotic. NO ONE is saying that all Native/Aboriginal people were “free-living hippies devoid of materialism and hatred…” that is a gross over-generalization..but then to state with same breath that “the historical American Indians and many other non-Western peoples were extremely industrious and bloody. The Europeans did a lot to settle them, even if their methods were sometimes unethical.” is equally idiotic and painting with a broad brush. Basically you had Europeans who arrived and acted as TRUE SAVAGES and made sweeping allegations like this author just did to JUSTIFY their actions as bringing Civilization to these people. Many native groups were actually more peace loving than warlike and helped the Europeans when they arrived and basically were repaid with treachery and savagery.
In fact your second generalization of saying Natives were bloodthirsty was the ORIGINAL Ignorant statement hundreds of years ago to justify European Barbarism. The author spews this ignorance to “counter” the “supposed” argument of the “noble savage” line which no one with a clue is saying and the true opposition doesn’t believe. First of all that is the European term to mitigate and justify their own barbaric actions .
This ignorant thought process is the same as when Western Nations bring “Democracy” by force to Non-Western Nations and are happy as long as their elected leaders fit comfortably to the Western Agenda to further the extraction of that nation’s resources. Or supporting Democracy (The western Nations preferred Democracy) while supported a bloody Dictator or Right Wing Dictator that supports that Western Nation’s Agenda. This author and this thought process shared by many here on this site I suspect is the same thought process people carry in America in private, and its ignorant and should be openly debated to bring light to the darkness. Media outlets both Left Wing and yes your much beloved Right Winged Media Outlets (which I believe are the most ignorant) should be challenged in open debate by people of substance who can bring up strong counter points. Right Wing media and those who support that media are some of the most ignorant and truly Hateful people I have ever witnessed, to the point that I think they are walking idiots or an ignorant caricature blindly Flag Waving the Red, White, and Blue.
On Hicks the whole crime seems strange given the information we have so far, I will withhold commentary until more information is released. Are there many ignorant people in America? Yes I think most are. Are there ignorant people on both sides politically? Yes. Are there a lot of ignorant Right Winged Conservatives? OH YOU BET THERE ARE!
boo fucking hoo.
Why don’t you salve your conscience by paying some native group your life savings for your ignorant sin of bringing them out of the stone age?
My conscience is clear lol…everyone has sin. I just can look in the mirror resolve things learn from them and move forward. As for historical facts, no one is blaming people for what their ancestors did that is a foolish endeavor….people just get annoyed at the mental gymnastics people perform especially in some cases where certain people have BENEFITED from their ancestor’s manipulation of other people. That is what people do not like.
is it my fault that I may have benefitted from my parent’s ethical inequities?
No. absolutely not. That’s where the whole concept of ‘white privilege’ breaks down.
It is up to you to do the best you can with the resources you have. ‘Real’ equality would involve having very little difference between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’, and in this country, even in this era of disgusting feminism and affirmative action, a motivated poor black boy STILL is far more likely to succeed astonishingly than a lazy rich white boy.
Birth is nearly irrelevant compared to motivation, always has been, always wil be. yes, being born to ‘privilege’ makes things slightly easier… but I can tell you from experience that children born poor but with good training from their parents are fantastically more likely to succeed than children that are born rich without such motivational training.
Anyway, your egalitarian arguments have been dealt with a thousand times. Educate yourself, come back as less of an egalitarian troll.
Of course its not your “fault” no one stated that. All I stated is that you got morons who don’t recognize that fact while at the same time thinking the people who didn’t have an advantage are somehow oppressing them?! Obviously you can see the irony there. OF course you have to work HARD…no one stops anyone from working HARD, but at the same time people can look and realize certain realities and be aware of them!
“Egalitarian Troll” please…
I believe in working HARD and striving for what you want. Those that Work hard and separate themselves from the pack deserve the fruits of their labor. All I am saying is that I am opposed to people getting a shot who don’t deserve it..or situations where certain people are given a massive head start or not given equal opportunities under the law. I don’t see my point being “dealt with” actually most of the time I have just seen a shifting of the themes.
you mean like affirmative action?
If my grandparents, or great grandparents, worked their butts off to give me an advantage, I would be a very poor sort to refuse that advantage. That makes me guilty of nothing, any more than a guy born with mathematical genius has an ‘privilege’ as a coder, or a 6’7″ giant has an ‘massive head start’ in basketball.
However, ‘equalization’, things like affirmative action, ARE an ‘unfair advantage’. of the worst sort, because it encourages the losers to get ahead at the cost of the winners.
LOL moron
Affirmative Action was actually a counter to mitigate the very Real and cold hard factual head start Whites enjoyed, for hundreds of years that is a poor comparison.
Like I simply stated before no one is taking away Hard Work from your ancestors or you. I’m not sure why you state that as it is not anywhere near what I’m discussing. If your parents worked hard to give you a future of course take that opportunity and work hard and improve your lot in life. That is what the American Dream is supposed to be about in Theory. Just as if you are born with a talent make sure you use it and work hard.
Again what I was stating was unfair systematic advantages given to certain groups of people whether by race or class and the unfair advantages given to those specific groups of people generation to generation, and the irony of some of those specific people actually pointing the finger at those who didn’t have the same advantages. Now again that’s not ALL white people, but many of the Nation’s richest families benefited from negative practices and unfair advantages…hell even the poorest whites had advantages over their black counterparts.
That is a poor comparison. Like I simply stated before no one is taking away Hard Work from your ancestors or you. I’m not sure why you state that as it is not anywhere near what I’m discussing. If your parents worked hard to give you a future of course take that opportunity and work hard and improve your lot in life. That is what the American Dream is supposed to be about in Theory. Just as if you are born with a talent make sure you use it and work hard. Again what I was stating was unfair systematic advantages given to certain groups of people whether by race or class.
yes, but by the same token, if it was YOUR relatives that established that system in the first place, worked their asses off to create a system in which you could excel, how is it ‘unfair’ to take advantage of that system?
You mean the head start their forebears fought, bled, and died for?
Look, if african americans hate the ‘head start’ that whites supposedly enjoyed (I am from west virginia… my ‘head start’ involved my family dying of black lung in coal mines for the last 200 years) then they were welcome to return to the countries in which black skin allows them access to the privileges their own ancestors fought and died for.
Surprisingly, few american negroes choose that option… I wonder why?
Many people fought and died for things and never received benefits for it as well..blacks fought and died for the United States and still came home to be treated like second class citizens. Some of the Wealthier American Families made their money indirectly or directly through the Systematic unequal treatment of other groups. While many Anglos were given “welfare” in the stealing or Government swindling of Native Lands.
Obviously not all whites…many also worked hard for what they earned as well. In terms of groups people like Eastern Europeans, the Irish, and Italians have started at the bottom…however still were placed above Black people and they themselves put blacks down on their way to the top. Whites that are in lower communities now are Polish, and Albanians who were the only whites I saw as a child.
I know your story..sorry to hear that. Did you read what I wrote I spoke generally…but also added individual points. No one is mad about general head starts that one group got…people just want a fair shake now. The thing many are angry is when actual individuals who have benefited turn it around somehow like the person who didn’t benefit is at fault.
Again the Black Skin you talk about has been a detriment, like I stated before in GENERAL even the traditionally “lower” whites like Irish and Italians still had it better than Blacks! Affirmative Action like I stated before was a response to hundreds of years of Real systematic subversion to black people. And to be honest blacks don’t really benefit from that blacks truly have to work hard to get where they’re at, and when they do get somewhere through hard-work have the added insult to be denigrated by a moron who uses the Affirmative Action line…which was brought up as a response to real subversion to begin with!! i
Anyone who works hard under a system which is close to ideal in terms of equality as far as a fair start for everyone is justified to earn what they worked hard for. Simple as that, again that’s an ideal.
So again, you are simply stating that providing for your children is evil, as long as anyone else isn’t providing as well for theirs.
Yeah, whatever. Thinly veiled Marxist egalitarianism is still a game of whack-a-mole. No matter how you try to pretty it up, you are still a fucking pie-in-the-sky commie playing whack-a-mole with human potential.
Moronic? Like I said… They are not constrained to exist within a white dominated system. It is their own choice to remain.
If I, as an Irishman, chose to live in Tokyo, I could be expected to be treated differently than the Japanese men around me in a dozen different ways… I will pull more pussy on average, but get treated as a liability for employment. This is absolutely normal.
Affirmative action is criminally irresponsible for two reasons:
#1 it ensures that on occasion, more qualified individuals will be rejected in order to meet AA ‘quotas’
#2 a member of a minority that DOES succeed on their own merits is assumed to only have succeeded due to the aforementioned quotas.
It does not, and CAN not, ever redress ‘inequalities’, because there is no such thing as ‘inequalities’. People are unequal, but that is simply a natural result of human nature. Yes, there can be laws that ‘enforce’ one group or another to be on top, but in general, those laws exist because that group clawed it’s way to the top, and demonstrated it’s own superiority… and guess what? If you are not on top, you are EXPECTED to try to claw the way to the top for your OWN particular group.
In short, If you are a minority, I am not trying to convince you that you should not push laws that place YOUR group at the top. That would be pointless, as your self-interest dictates that you attempt to reach the top. I am only trying to convince my own group to stop throwing away, apologizing, or diluting the power that my forebears earned for that group (and people continue to earn for that group).
Frankly, if you are different group, I have absolutely NO interest in your ‘struggle for equality’. I am intent on putting my group in the lead, and find NO moral qualms with keeping what I have fought for. And i have confidence, based on history and performance, that if my own group would stop throwing away power, we could quickly and easily come to dominate all of your ‘loser’ groups with relative ease… My self-interest and darwinian imperative to continue my biological line demands it.
Basically, what I am saying is, Your demands for equality are stupid and suicidal if you are part of the dominant group, and completely irrelevant if you are not part of that group. ‘privilege’, as you put it, is only for winners, who deserve that privilege for being winners, and are best capable of using it.
yeah, right. Did the blacks free themselves? I have yet to hear of a general black slave rebellion.
some very few blacks fought in the civil war in ‘exchange’ for their freedom… and they got their freedom. Is it my fault that they suddenly decided that they hadn’t gotten fair value in exchange? Ironically enough, for the most part, the civil war returnees were DAMNED happy to receive exactly what they fought for… it was only later generations who felt that they were entitled to more.
Stop trying to excuse laziness with ‘unfairness’. It IS their own goddamned fault. and you know what? Whites are rapidly losing their own ‘privilege’ for the same reason… they are getting fat, lazy, and stupid, and sooner or later the shoe will be on the other foot. Just don’t expect me to hand it to you without a fight.
affirmative action was put in place in order to steal and depower effective and efficient white men and place money and power into the hands of race-baiters. It has never been proven to work, and in fact has shown to have horribly destructive effects on the black culture in America.
Handouts always harm the recipients.
Jesus you bring up “points” that are not part of the discussion Im not excusing “laziness” no matter who it is.
ummm I never stated that…read again more carefully.
It was designed to mitigate the original theft by the power structure in this country…which gave even not so deserving white men money and power. A black who was more qualified than say a white counterpart would not advance. Again no one is saying true hard work in a more level playing feel should not be rewarded it definitely should.
There were many Slave Rebellions they were not successful because they were not unified…Haiti did have a successful slave revolt as well as other areas of the “Americas.” Many areas of Latin America also made slavery illegal decades before the United States.
Again you are SHIFTING the conversation I’m not “Excusing” Laziness…read what I wrote CAREFULLY…this is not Fox News where you can shift the theme of the conversation.
I read carefully enough. You are saying that white settlers in this country, in competition with other races, placed in this country structures that ensured advantage for their own, white children. You state that this is unfair, that somehow this ‘broke the rules’, and i state that they were perfectly within their rights, and it would be ridiculous for us, their great-offspring, to reduce or dilute those advantages in the interests of a species that is not our own.
What theft?
Baloney. The vast Majority of african slaves in America never even tried to revolt… Escape, for a slave, was relatively easy considering the incredibly short distance to the nearest free states and the fact that it was entirely landbased… preventing escaped slaves from escaping north was HARDER than keeping wetbacks out of the US.
Even Harriet Tubman flat out stated that she could have ‘helped a hundred times as many slaves escape if only they knew they was slaves’.
Believe me, the Irish prior to the black slaves knew they were enslaved… and they had no place to go. They freed themselves.
Of course not the majority I never said that…I said there were Slave Rebellions..there were Rebellions going back to within the first years of the Europeans arrival to this hemisphere.
Yes I agree with Harriet Tubman…and that’s why I talk about Whitewashing and the False Historical Narrative White Europeans imposed on people of color all over the world. You still have some of these house Negroes all over the world including Fox News. But you have that in every population that has been put down.
Think about it…you are smart enough to know.
What Im saying is that what many whites talk about in terms of “not having an advantage” and not acknowledging that fact is Hypocritical….now at least you agree with me in terms of whites have had an overall advantage in an unequal society that basically does not reward non whites and mostly blacks (especially at the onset) who work hard. Also many white Settlers were aided when they arrived and didn’t no up from down. We were helpful towards your people and fed you when you were eating your dead. But knowing this in retrospect maybe it was better to meet you with anger and violence before you even reached land.
By stating this
1. You realize that your ancestors “hard work” was not based on a society where there was a sense of equality with all. Thus you started the “race” with a massive head start.
2. Whites who do not acknowledge this are being Hypocritical when criticizing other people, as “Lazy” when in fact they are working just as hard or HARDER than you are.
3 And finally no one is excusing laziness no matter who it is, and in a more equal society you should be rewarded if you work harder than the other..but what we have are people working very hard while others historically didn’t have too.
Bear in mind, that I recognize that there is an advantage, I do not, and will not, consider this ‘privilege’.
‘privilege’ is unearned. Whites worked bloody damned hard to make this country a decent place for them and their children for hundreds of years. and with that work, they also accepted the responsibility of making sure it ran well.
Just like ‘male privilege’. Sure we have the advantage of being men, and being superior in every possible way to women, but hand in hand with that comes the responsibility of keeping this world running, protecting those selfsame inferior cunts from other men, and doing all the hard, dirty, nasty stuff it takes to keep our ‘advantages’ prevalent. But this is not privilege, this is a terrible burden that has a few minor advantages that come with it.
It has nothing to do with smartness, it has to do with perceptions… I have seen nothing that in any way smacks of what i consider ‘theft’. Or are you whining about the stupid monkeys whites had to clear out to make the continent liveable, and whom we pay tribute to every year?
Why on earth do you give a shit about the false historical narrative whites have been telling africans? africans have their own country… they are perfectly capable of reading or telling their own histories, free of any influence or taint of the people who are trying to teach them how to wash their hands after they shit into them.
‘Whitewashing’ is an enormous, and entirely unproven fiction, and one that is largely irrelevant. If anything, any ‘whitewashing’ that has been done is to attempt to lay the blame for negro animalism on innocent whites that were only trying to help. Such as the myths about ‘American slavers’ in africa.
You know who enslaved Africans? Other Africans, and muslims… why are blacks so eager to convert to islam when, in all likelihood, one of their own ancestors was enslaved by muslim slaveraiders? Are they THAT eager to return to the era of peaceful and productive african usefulness by reestablishing slavery? I cannot say I would blame them if they did… they have, to date, been complete and utter failures at regulating their own population. Apartheid was the greatest thing to happen to blacks since they first moved south from eastern europe.
also, to be completely factual, the new england colony WAS based on ‘equality’… it lasted for two years, two years of starvation as they attempted to create a socialist society and learned the greatest pitfall of socialism… when everyone is equal, nop one can get ahead… and when no one gets ahead, there’s no reason for anyone to work.
“Thanksgiving’ was not a celebration of the indians giving us a hand (That’s REAL whitewashing) it’s a celebration of our victory over the socialists…. after socialism was discarded, the new england colony had their first real harvest where half the colony wasn’t goign to starve over the winter.
No, the indians didn’t give us a hand… their ‘contribution’ was to show us a couple of local crops that weren’t poisonous, and to point out how stupid the original colonist’s delusions of equality and fraternity were.
priv·i·lege
ˈpriv(ə)lij/
noun
noun: privilege; plural noun: privileges
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
Privilege is the sociological concept that some groups of people have advantages relative to other groups. The term is commonly used in the context of social inequality, particularly with regards to race, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability and social class
Lets say for example I have a race with you and I beat you in that race…yet I don’t get a reward. However you still get a reward.
Lets say for example I am more likely to face harsher penalties for the same crime you commit. This is also a class issue.
Male and female there are clear Biological differences. However if a woman is better mathematically than you she deserves recognition for that advantage.
However hypothetically a white man who I am better at a task, who gets the promotion over me…we have privilege there.
Its simple theft when you take something that doesn’t belong to you and break the laws of another society…especially when that society is welcoming towards you in the first place. The continent was livable thousands upon thousands of years prior. Another thing I don’t “whine” I use clear speech with conviction. Maybe I can go to your home and raid your refrigerator and clear out your home and build it to my standards while clearing out the “stupid monkeys.” But you don’t think that’s ‘theft’ anyway.
Why Not “give a shit”?! Keep on believing its “Fiction.” That’s fine with me.
Socialism is a great ideal, however I believe in incentives…but this form of “Capitalism” is definitely not the way neither. When certain people get rewarded hundreds and thousands of time more than the average person….while the average person struggles daily it also cause revolutions and friction in society.
what makes you think socialism is a great ideal? It’s like the rooster that falls into the horse stable and yells “Gentlemen! We must all hold completely still so that we do not crush any of us!”
Socialism is, to put it frankly, a doctrine that even at it’s best appeals only to LOSERS. Those who cannot make it on their own. The weak, the inept… and of course, that’s why it so appeals to women.
Anything that reinforces losers only creates more losers.
*snort* more ‘noble savage’ bullshit.
Actually the ‘noble savage’ is bullshit in its origination yes invented and coined by Europeans with different meanings. However now it is a little bullshit term to excuse European brutality, by stating that people like me paint all natives as peace loving hippies who slept all day…which is also bullshit cause I never stated that in the first place. This goes back to why originally posted a response to Naso’s article in the first place. People who use this little term are usually hypocrites in that they make the European conquest layered and complex…then go on to do exactly what they criticize the noble savage idea because then they pain all natives as being blood thirsty people with no law and always warring against each other also a false generalization.
Socialism sounds great to many people in theory not in practice. Its good because people take care of each other…social safety nets for the old and sickly. And people creating things for the community at large. It doesn’t work in actuality because the people in power always seem to want more and there’s is always an element that seeks to take advantage of the system.
I don’t think Socialism is for “losers” I think most societies contain a level of ‘Socialism’ its a social contract between members in a society for the overall improvement of the society in general. There are varying degrees of Socialism.
I believe a certain level of Socialism is beneficial while cutting out those who abuse the system…and also I believe their should be incentive like the capitalist system but not to the degree where one person makes hundreds of thousands times more than the average worker. Also leaving those average workers to barely survive is not a good idea. Corporate Greed and Trust/Monopoly building is also not a good thing. In a way its also appealing to conservative elements in terms of strengthening the family units and the work and responsibility required by each. Its all a balancing act.
Now you see why I approve of religion for the social contracts and autocracy for the government… social supports and social controls should NEVER be the domain of ‘written law’. That includes charity. It does not matter how ‘good’ charity is… if it is involuntary, it is theft.
Robin hood should have been drawn and quartered and his merry men impaled.
warring against each other constantly is a false generalization? Really? Need I call to your attention the apache, Mohawk, mojave, peyute, and blackfoot indians, as well as the savagely evil civilizations of south american indians? Long, bloody wars…in the case of blackfoot wars lasting almost a thousand years, were the norm among native americans.. I am not talking about that ‘counting coup’ nonsense (a minor tradition that was expanded to all tribes in order to try and paint them as noble savages) I am talking about ongoing raiding, war, and encampment extermination.
Yes, what the New England puritans did was an atrocity… and puritans, even today, are as atrocious a society as the worst sort of muslims (and being calvinists, no, they do not even remotely fit the definition of christian) but it was no more an atrocity than what tribes were doing to each other less than a hundred miles away… In fact, it fit right in with the common fates of tribes, including the tradition of enslaving the tribal survivors. The Puritans ‘picked up their habits’ from the locals.
Me? I am a decendent of bloodthirsty barbarians. and My bloodthirsty forebears were more bloodthirsty than others, because they won. YOU are a descendent of bloodthirsty invaders as well, as is every surviving person on earth. Peaceful societies are overwhelmed eventually, it has been going on longer than recorded history. talking about how one ethnic group should feel guilty for stamping out another ethnic group is retarded… because, simply by virtue of the fact that they exist, that ‘exterminated’ ethnic group had to have exterminated countless others previously.
That last part I will agree with. EVERYTHING in moderation. Including Moderation. The universe is not a constant, it is constantly changing, therefore reverse feedback must be constantly applied. Thus, no hard rule can truly last forever or be true in every situation.
Unbridled capitalism is a wonderful thing… to a point, but it must be restrained from monopoly or it creates the most monstrous state of existence for the people it claims as property imaginable.
Social control, another wonderful thing, but it must be restrained from power over anything but ethics or else it feeds on those ethics, destroying them in the process, and becoming an unimaginable horror.
Democracy, a wonderful thing… but it must not be used for anything save the competing self-interest of two minor groups or it mutates into a monstrous popularity contest and eventually into totalitarianism of the worst sort.
Feminism.. a wonderful thing, but it must stop at the ‘feminine’ or else it seeks to take over everything, and reshape the world as a fantasy land where strength is weakness, lies are truth, and freedom is slavery. Feminism should have been curtailed long before it even became about ‘votes for women’.
It’s all about moderation… and I don’t mean the modern. corrupted, and debased form of ‘moderate’. Moderation means recognizing when one has extracted the maximum benefit out of a thing, and then discarding that thing when it is no longer useful.
Yes it is a generalization…its a generalization to excuse European Brutality…it is an old mental gymnastic perpetrated by the Europeans to excuse and justify their savagery its as simple as that. A part of my ancestry is actually descendant from peaceful people who welcomed the European invaders only to be tricked and backstabbed and were then stolen from for centuries after.
Again I didn’t say there were warring tribes its that certain whites state that ALL TRIBES WERE WARRING AND BLOODTHIRSTY which is patently a False Generalization. Do you understand now?
Yes I agree moderation is good.
Yes I believe in separation as well. Robin Hood was celebrated because although he stole…the people saw the real thievery perpetrated by the Crown in a much grander scale….I guess some things never change…
I understood right from the very beginning, I simply am pointing out that virtually every human being is descended from savagery, and native american tribes are no exception. There was nothing ‘superior’ about their culture, as proven by the fact that they LOST.
Okay, it sucks that some of your ancestors got fucked over. Guess what? It never happened to YOU. You are just as capable of ‘making it’ today on your own as any other human being on the planet. And it is fucking STUPID to demand that the descendants of whatever deed doers somehow have a claim or guilt for the rewards of those deeds.
In other words, be a man. Get the fuck over it. It in no way harms you now, and if you claim it does, I am calling you out as a liar.
Yes I understand it didn’t happen to me what I’m pointing out is that its ironic seeing articles such as these and their biased history. Also certain benefits passed down several generations and its even more ignorant when those same people try to say that the ones who didn’t benefit are the ones with the advantage…and that’s my point. It doesn’t take away from my hard work and day to day achievement of goals.
What Brigadon said. The butthurt is strong with this one.
Not really butthurt just laughing at the idiotic article, and the people who carry these mental gymnastic thoughts in their cranium. In fact if Mental Gymnastic were an Olympic Sport we would have some repeat Gold medal winners some on this site and many on the internet.
Uh, it’s butthurt.
uhhh its a stupid article
lol ok
lol
It’s sad watching the media try to paint this as a hate crime. The only thing they have is that a white dude shot three Muslims, and I should find that suspicious because it’s so implausible that someone would commit triple murder over a parking dispute. But why is murdering someone over a parking dispute any more irrational than murdering them over their religious beliefs, or a fucking cartoon? These people are not normal, they are irrational, that’s why they commit murder. It doesn’t make this a hate crime. And even if it did, the concept of hate crimes is idiotic.
If leftism had existed since the days of antiquity, it’s track record would be billions of people long. Leftists by far have the greatest amount of virulent contempt for people who don’t agree with them and even hatred for those who don’t understand. Of course when you talk about Craig Hicks and Huff Po and SPLC the leftists will ignore this entirely, just as they did when Elliot Rodger subscribed to leftist news outlets like the Young Turks. Leftists must ignore vast swaths of death and murder by using the same tired arguments. Namely deflection is their number one go-to tactic, well millions died under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, The Kim Jongs, Cuba, and elsewhere but what about those Native Americans or Slavery. Typical deflection bullshit to try and take away from their track record of absolute bloodshed and intolerance. I’ll explain the difference too.
The difference is everyone understands now that slavery was wrong or that pushing people off their land was wrong, it’s like obviously, no one is pushing for that. But these leftists ARE pushing for regimes CURRENTLY that would lead to the death of millions globally. That’s the difference. Oh yea and one more thing, peace-loving multi-cultural leftists may tolerate muslims but look at the track record under Mao, Stalin, and other Soviet leaders of how they treat their Muslim minorities. They hate them pure and simple. Why? Well at the end of the day the Muslim is going to be less willing to give into leftist dogma, be more traditional-minded, and have at least some semblance of morality. That is ultimately why hardcore Communists and hardcore leftists like Craig Hicks despise Islam, it’s the exact same reason they despise Christianity.
Right Wingers in America also pushed for regimes that have led to death and destruction around the world as well. People like Ronald Reagan the hero on many of the Right was responsible for Regime Changes including in Chile with the removal of the Democratically elected Allende and the installation of a RIGHT WINGED DICTATOR AUGUSTO PINOCHET! Who killed thousands upon thousands of people and children but supported Big American Businesses. The OPEN support of Big Business, Corporations, and Wall Street by the Right WING has also led to massive Job loss because opposing the Right Wing believe that Corporations are “people” is misguided and ignorant because Corporations only care about the bottom line, their PROFITS they don’t care about GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS for the people in America, they don’t care about Poor Whites and they don’t care about American Unemployment levels, they surely are not Patriotic, for the most part.
Personally I am against Extremist Islamic people, Extremist Christians, Extremist Jews, etc. However with an understanding of Nation Building, Religious inter-Sect aggression, Politics by first Western/European Nations and artificial border construction you can almost predict the blow-back that will occur. People think actions that happened 50 years ago has no relevance until you see the positive or negative impacts of those past actions in your backyard, or on the 6 o’clock News.
the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that a dictator admits he is responsible for the murders. Democracies spread the blame around.
That’s interesting!
I feel that America is becoming more economically unequal…and the ones with the blame are successfully spreading the blame to the people who share the least of the blame, while getting the ones who stand least to benefit to ironically vote for their cause.
welcome to the corporate state.
Yes I think we both agree on this!
The real worry should come when those “democracies” – no matter the party in power – use the excuse of protection to gain (and exercise) more power plus eliminate individual rights.
This is a slow and subtle process but we’ve been seeing it for some time. Use fear against the people to “protect” them.
My real worry comes with the institution of ‘democracy’ in the first place… The assumption that 51% of people have the right to enslave 49% of the people is ludicrous.
Indeed, the amount of people calling for “Democracy” is disturbing.
Especially since, in America, democracy was NEVER intended as we have it today.
But, to note, today, America – the country that NEVER signed on to Demcracy (but rather the rule of law by a Republic), is starting wars around the world to bring Democracy to the people, as if it were a gift rather than a curse.
If this doesn’t show how the complete transference of the USA into a globalist communist state has been accomplished, what would?
I am talking not about a state with corporations, I am talking about a state that IS a corporation.
the UN?
Yes I know what you meant. lol
never let merchants rule. A lesson that is as old as time, but gets lost as often as merchants can arrange it.
Yes I agree there is a certain danger in Money and Politics.
almost as much danger as monkeys in politics.
most of them are “monkeys”
Yes, Augusto Pinochet, with a whopping 3,000 confirmed deaths. Wow. Let’s compare this to the first 15 years of communism. Pick any nation in the world. I know I don’t want to make this a pissing contest, I’m not defending the far right extremists, they’ve caused a lot of damage as well.
“Corporations only care about the bottom line”- Typical leftist moron speak who doesn’t know the first thing about business other than something he might read on alternet or the Huffington Post.
“The OPEN support of Big Business, Corporations, and Wall Street by the Right WING has also led to massive Job loss because opposing the Right Wing”- Well it was going to happen anyway I mean unless you make extremely rigid tariffs and massive protectionism there’s no real way to prevent this. Sad but true. And yet even after there have been many times where unemployment was low, so….
“their PROFITS they don’t care about GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS for the people in America, they don’t care about Poor Whites” – The illusion is that government programs help the people, nothing could be further from the truth in the long run. They don’t care about poor whites? I don’t care about them either. They’re probably white trash low iq thug garbage, what’s your point?
“they surely are not Patriotic” – Hypocrisy. Leftists despise patriotism and loving your country, at least in the Western world. So why would I be patriotic? You think because I was born on some plot of land in x-country that means I’ll be supremely loyal and want to give everything to it, guess again.
“People think actions that happened 50 years ago has no relevance until you see the positive or negative impacts of those past actions in your backyard, or on the 6 o’clock News.” – No one says these events have no relevance, we just don’t care. Hand to God I swear. You think I have time to care about all of these issues around the world? Hell no. And we’re made to believe that the people around the world are smart and capable, good, then they can handle their shit.
Well of course you don’t defend Far Right Extremism like I obviously do not support its counterpoint. Obviously I don’t have to state the numerous examples.
-Corporations DO only care about the bottom line….Im not sure I have to read “Huffpo” to understand that…I think anyone with an ounce of intelligence can figure that out lol. However I don’t listen to Fox News neither.
-My point is that many poor whites are manipulated to vote for Republicans who exploit their xenophobia, just as many here would state that minorities are exploited by the left wing…its just a different angle of looking at things.
-I think you are in no position to state what is “Patriotic” and what is not, especially by stating all Leftist “despise” Patriotism…what many actually “dislike” are ignorant Flag Wavers.
-Well we don’t care about what goes on around the world until we are hurt.
“what many actually “dislike” are ignorant Flag Wavers.”
Are there informed flag waivers, or are all the flag waivers ignorant?
I think there are both.
I’m flying the flag outside right now. If many dislike me, I can handle it.
The true Irony, the absolutely hilarious Irony, is that without God, Atheism, humanism, and leftism cannot exist.
Let’s put it this way… Science is cold, and brutal. Raw scientific reality demands that the strong dominate or kill the weak, that utter selfishness is the greatest method of survival, that the individual is supreme, and that cooperation beyond the basics simply encourages your own, individual DNA to die off.
Religion… faith… trust in something greater than yourself, belief in the (unproven) goodness and decency of potential of man, is the great lie that allows humans to cooperate EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT IN THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST.
It requires FAITH to believe all people have the same potential. FAITH to believe that there are ‘human rights’. FAITH to believe that cooperation is better than killing people and taking their stuff. FAITH that humanity has a greater destiny than simply living long enough to see your genes spread around. These are all the great lies, and all of them are supported, originated, and solely expanded by religion.
And liberals, humanists, communists, atheists, socialists, marxists, all those who have utter faith in all of the tenets of humanism that have been created and encouraged by religion, who have a true belief in the ‘great lie’ of deism, what is nearly their very first action?
To destroy religion. To invalidate faith… the very product without which, they cannot exist.
It is a lovely paradox, because if ever they were to truly succeed, they would destroy themselves in the process. It is, in short, absolutely hilarious.
I think there are many layers to this…you can be “liberal” and still have faith or belief system. Many people in the faith have been and are “liberal” or activists in their respective Nations. The extreme notion of Communists and “Religion is poison” line is not necessarily true for all “left” minded people. It all depends on your perspective….perhaps Jesus, if you believe he existed, would be viewed as a nasty hippie liberal today by the same Right Wing Conservatives who use his name in ignorance today.
my goodness, you certainly have faith that being rightist is evil, don’t you?
I never stated that…I’m sharing a different point of view. I’m not one to make blanket statement…however I think there is a subset of the rightest element that have a certain specific type of ignorance yes.
In fact the comments by some here and the author of this article make it easier to claim that they definitely believe leftism in general is flawed.
Raw scientific reality doesn’t “demand” any such thing. The atheist philosopher David Hume blew up that kind of reasoning 250 years ago.
Hume’s philosophy does not bear any relationship to reality. Nice attempt at ‘proof by authority’ though. Make your own arguments… it’s okay if they are informed by hume, but I am not going to waste my time refuting a 300 page book written 250 years ago.
There are various evolutionary theories that allow for altruism.
The fundamental problem is that it is a leap of faith to think that an evolutionary imperative drives everything. Along with morality there are all sorts of issues about free will, teleology, meaning and such.
– To destroy religion. To invalidate faith… the very product without which, they cannot exist. –
There was Polytheism and then Christianity which limits to 3 Gods maximum – if you don’t believe me then please feel free to ask any Muslim whether they consider the Christians to be Monotheists. Islam came and culled the 3 Gods into just 1 God but Atheism perfected Islam by culling that 1 God into 0 God.
Muslims say “There is no God but Allah” , Atheists agree with the first 4 words “There is no God”.
In short, Atheism is a faith just like Christianity and Islam but it worships 0 God.
Bear in mind that the ‘trinity’ is still hotly debated among christian groups. Mormons, for example, do not believe that the holy ghost bears any stature compared to christ, and god is in an entirely different league from christ.
If the attacker was non-White and the victims White, this wouldn’t have been in the news at all . Just like before…
On conservative News Yes! However you have to understand that certain criminal dynamics are very specific in the history of this nation. Although yes all crime is bad.
I truly believe that liberalism got those 2 killed. First, way wan’t the male armed? TN has permissive gun laws and is filled with those ape demons. There was no excuse not to be armed. Secondly, I believe that their liberal conditioning made it un- PC to acknowledge the age old maxim ‘Never relax around blacks’.
I wonder if that skinny little shit believed in racial equality as those farm animals raped and tortured him and his girlfriend over the course of days before murdering them both.
I’d have shot the chimp the second it put its paw on my car door.
Europeans ( Neanderthals) were never made to live or coexist with CroMagnon. Check these guy out man http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/texas_arcane_insights_apothegms_and_speculations_the_neanderthals
First of all, Turn to Conservative Media they will show you what you want to see, and perpetuate the false comparison as you just did. I will explain as SIMPLY as possible for the 1,000th time.
I’m tired of seeing this apples to oranges comparison. Those criminals are garbage I agree. And I am against all criminality however a few simple questions hurts your false comparison.
1. Will those criminals face the full weight of Justice yes or no?
2. Have white criminals gotten away with lesser penalties or have literally gotten away with murder of Black Victims, Yes or No?
3. Have Police officers not even been indicted (gone to trial) even in the most heinous of killings of Blacks…and yes even whites?
If you are honest with yourself then answers to the questions I posed would clearly be a resounding YES to all the questions.
The protests were largely due to the fact of INEQUALITY under the law it is a RACIAL and CLASS issue even today! It is NOT about excusing real criminality no matter the race of the individual perpetrator. I argued this with some people here and they create loops. This is essentially the heart of the issues. This has garnered a certain level of attention by some media outlets when there is a specific dynamic of a criminal situation due to the very specific nature of that dynamic I just described.
Do you notice if a Black man actually commits a heinous crime against a white person he is not supported by most sensible Black people? Do you notice that the protests were largely inequality under the law? I have an Irish coworker who admits that he got away from many crimes because his White Racist friends sat on the Prosecutors office or wore the Judge’s Robes, whose friends in the police would beat up Black people with no fear of repercussions…and these are Irish and Italians who themselves have been put down but the Anglo Saxon Elite.
Blacks are fucked over in America the same way Whites are fucked over in South Africa. I just think the whole mixing up of the 21th century is just going to create a whole new host of problems. Lets not forget the new enslavement of Africa by Mr Chu and Mr Han. Fuck if Africans thought whitey was bad wait till they meet Mr Chu. A brotha be earning that dolla under Mr Chu.
Yeah that is right! I agree. The case of South Africa is a different case however…The Whites went to colonize first of all a land that was not theirs in the first place! That’s what gets me!..and then inflicted severe punishment on blacks under Apartheid for many decades with the help of Pseudo Science and Scientific Racism. Even the poor whites/Afrikaners did not want to compete with Blacks for labors and were above blacks like the English whites. After all that time finally they took down Apartheid. The prized lands and residential areas all went to whites. They were also heavily disenfranchised.
Now this sets up what you are talking about in South Africa now only a couple of decades old…and the ruling blacks have been much nicer to the whites now! And Mandela made it a priority to treat whites well despite the way they treated him and his people in the first place.
And somehow legislators will deduce the answer to lessen slayings of these kind would be harsher gun laws, as if these hoodrats are acquiring firearms legally.
This is why we should elect people from our own planet to argue on our behalf on Mount Olympus
That’s why I consider Truth Revolt to be a good source of news.
Religion of Peace, meet the Rationality of Atheism.
(roflmao!)
Seriously, there it is… my ass is on the ground, I almost shat myself.
I want that on a t-shirt!
Karl Marx wins the award for most deaths atributable to one man!
Atheism wins hands down – every time.
Hitler and Stalin had facial hair. Therefore, people with facial hair are responsible for the most deaths in the world! Ban facial hair!
How ridiculous of an argument.
Did they both have arguments that placed them in ultimate power over previous systems? Yes!
Did they both use terror to control the population? Yes.
Did they both murder millions of people, even outside of war? Yes.
Don’t be fucking stupid, you moron.
Let me guess, you are a result of the modern education system and think you are somehow “smart” for giving a glib reply like a stunned teenager trying to make the girls laugh.
GFY and get a grip on reality, moron.
No wonder our culture and future are fucked.
I was mocking your ridiculous argument. Oh, and nice Ad hominem troll. The reason our culture is fucked is because people like yourself can’t construct a rational argument to save your life.
We’ve already stepped onto the threshold of the “Jesus who?” age, whether today’s Christian Anachronists want to acknowledge that or not. (As I tell christians who believe in the “end times,” hey, I believe in the rapture too: I can see that christians have already started to disappear.) The Enlightenment broke the continuity of the christian tradition, and today’s christians, who have to reconstruct “authentic christianity” from books, basically engage in an exercise like those pagan revivalists in Iceland who opened a temple to the Norse gods the other day. You can recreate some of the forms of the old faith, but you can’t recreate its substance because too many of the original pieces have disappeared over the centuries.
Well, protestantism is a sect that defines itself by rejection. Catholicism subtly does too with their “development of doctrine.” So neither of them are really interested in what was done in olden times.
Ideology of all types, all belief systems are false and dangerous, I don’t care if you put them on some sort of left to right spectrum or what. As both Voltaire and Nietszche have written, ideologies are all wrong, all of them, by their very nature of calling them -isms. Why does no one can themselves a Pythagorean mathematician? Or a Newtonian physicist? On an Archimedean engineer? Because their truths are indisputable.
Ideology forces one into a small predefined box of ideas, and everything outside that box, and everyone is impure. Thus, revolutionaries always become what they fought against once they gain power. Mr. Naso should take care not to fall into this trap.
lack of a belief system is even more dangerous to humans.
When has a war ever been launched do to a party’s “lack of a belief system”
World War 1, world war 2, the french revolution, the american civil war, Bonaparte’s war, the 30 year war, the mongol invasion, the Hun invasion, The Conquests of Alexander…
Cut your way through history. you will find many, many wars launched that had nothing to do with religion than you will find Jihads… Jihads tend to be very, very small scale and limited.
Even the crusades were more about slapping down muslim raiders than christianity.
The wars that you listed were started to gain and/or maintain power. They were not started because of anyone’s ‘lack of a belief system’.
question, if a war is started because someone lacks a belief in the evils of war, is that not a war that is started due to a lack of a belief system?
Anyway, I am done fucking arguing semantics with you. It’s the first refuge of the incompetent.
It’s not a question of semantics. I stated that no war has ever been started by a party due to their lack of belief. You failed to refute my statement.
– Cut your way through history. you will find many, many wars launched that had nothing to do with religion than you will find Jihads… Jihads tend to be very, very small scale and limited. –
Jihad wars are only small if you only count in the Taliban, Boko Haram and ISIS but count out the whole nine yards spanning 1400 years conducted by Muhammad himself, his companions, the Rashiduns, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids, the Almohads, the Ottomans, Tamerlane, the Mamluks, the Mughals, etc etc.
– question, if a war is started because someone lacks a belief in the evils of war, is that not a war that is started due to a lack of a belief system? –
So are you saying those who instigated Jihad wars including Muhammad himself lack the belief in the evils of war?
What about Roosevelt with his “Day of infamy” or Pope Urban II with his “Deus Vult” or Charles Martel or William Wallace ? Why can’t those dudes just roll over and accept being killed or enslaved instead of rallying their countrymen to fight back the way they did? Ah yes how could I forgot, they lack the belief in the evils of war.
But I admit that it takes 2 to tango, I guess we can’t really blame Adolf for the holocaust – if the Jews had agreed to commit mass suicide then it would be absolutely no need for Adolf to do what he did, right?
oi vey, you have no fucking clue about the real reasons behind both world war 2 and the holocaust, do you?
I strongly suggest you read a bit more red pill sites.. not the tinfoil hat stuff, but the actual neoreaction sites.
Let’s just say that the Jews had it coming, expected it, NEEDED it, and worked very hard to make it come about. And then exaggerated the fuck out of it afterwards to push their plans to ultimate fruition.
Dude, thou are preaching to the choir, I know the Jews are devilishly eeeeeeeevil, eeeeeeevil I tell ya!
It all started when that super cool but cunning Jew dude named Jesus conspired with the Romans to nail himself onto the cross so that the less cool Jews will be blamed for it in order for the later Jews to claim victim status and steal the land from the Arabs err I mean Palestinians.
actually, it started with 1600 years of constant separatism, financial abuse, and the wreck of every culture that had the foul luck to be benevolent towards this group of perrenial con artists, eventually kicking them out for their crimes and adding to their cultural litany of evil outsiders.
Sorry, I got your icon confused with third eye’s above… both are circular, colorful, and my eyesight is crap.
He’s clearly an NWA entitlement ape… I thought you were coming from the same source.
In rejecting all ideologies and belief systems one is then open to accepting truth and wisdom where one finds it. One is the look beyond the limiting borders of one’s own beliefs.
Baby-bathwater.
You restrict yourself even more by throwing away the tried and true belief systems of the past without analysis. Do you think Einstein discovered relativity in a vacuum? Do you think Tesla could have done what he did without the research and work of Volta? Do you imagine that Benjamin Franklin, who was perhaps the psychological core of Constituionalism, could have made the psychological leaps he had without Descartes, Socrates, or the works of Plato to learn from?
Look… everyone lies. All human virtues are, more or less, lies that everyone agrees with. The Essence of red pill is to UNDERSTAND the lies… it is stupid to throw away a useful lie until you have something better to replace it with.
Lies keep people from killing each other and stealing their shit. Lies allow humans to interact, cooperate, and compete without murder. Lies keep deals honest, and keep people from treating each others like shit. Lies are at the core of charity, of decency, of humanity, and of everything that makes us anything other than clever animals. Without lies like “A gold piece is worth ten bushels of wheat” we could not even have basic trade.
The problem with america today, is that new lies are replacing the old ones… Untested lies, or lies that have been proven false too many times. lies like ‘people are all the same’, lies like ‘women are as good as men’. The true test of a good lie is that it CAN NOT BE PROVEN FALSE.
And that is why religion is so important… because it is a really, really good lie that cannot be proven false… and it brings with it a bunch of other good lies like ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ and even quite a few proveable truths.
But, keep telling yourself the lie that rejecting all other ideologies or belief systems somehow opens your mind up… It’s a very, very bad lie. Add to that the fact that you have a thousand other lies and belief systems in your head that you simply do not realize are lies. Unproven lies like ‘slavery is bad’, and ‘women are human too’, or lies that are provably false like ‘Humans are inherently decent if not taught to be evil’… Lies that inform your entire world view, without the slightest evidence or analysis on your part.
Ask yourself some very very basic questions some time, and try to answer them with actual facts rather than emotionally… If you do this, you may begin to understand why the old lies are so damned important to support, even if you do not personally believe them.
1. Is beating your children wrong?
2. Is rape wrong? why?
3. Is slavery wrong? Why?
4. Is money wrong?
5. Is Murder wrong?
Asking yourself these sorts of questions (No, I don’t want your answers… They are simply examples) and puzzling them out LOGICALLY, unclouded by emotion, can perhaps give you an idea of why ‘long standing customs’ (of which religion is a prime example) are incredibly important, and why refusing to support them, or trying to destroy them, is flat-out suicidally stupid.
It’s not the rejection of ideas, I reject the boundaries placed around a set of ideas that says, “everything in this little box is right and pure, and everything outside is wrong and evil”.
Then how do you determine evil? Or do you simply believe that it does not exist?
Yes, there are no moral absolutes and there is no good and evil. There are right and wrong actions for that particular time, place and context. Is killing evil? But in war we heap medals, promotions and praise upon our best killers. Is stealing evil? What if it is to feed a starving child? Men such as Mao or Hitler believed that what they were doing was good for their country and their people.
And that’s the rub. You sir, are certifiably insane. If you ever come around my family, I will shoot you to protect them and myself.
Situational morality is the sickness that must be cured, and contra-civilization. THAT is why religion is so important… consistency is king. There is no such thing as ‘situational morality’. Soldiers are not practicing situational morality, their morality includes a predictable, consistent code that places following orders higher than not killing.
You are either too stupid or do not have enough information to create a moral code for every situation… That mean, in point of fact, you have NO code, you are a beast that is utterly unpredictable, and can rationalize ANY evil. In short, sir, you are subhuman.
This is exactly what I have been saying: you would shoot a man, having done no violence to you simply for expressing a conflicting view point. You’re no different than the stalin you rail against, merely with a different ideology. It’s what I have been saying all along. I confident I am much more ethical and moral person than you are.
Be confident.
You wouldn’t let an abused tiger into your house, you wouldn’t let your children play with a rabid dog, amd you wouldn’t tolerate a man with inconsistent ethics, as he is the most dangerous of the three.
You could commit any evil, and all you would need would be a way to rationalize it. So spare me your confidence.
Without an unbendable code of ethics, You have no code of ethics. Without a limit on your actions, a line you will not cross, there is no line you will not cross.
The un-bendable breaks. The pliant overcomes the rigid.
except that you are not talking about metal, you are talking about human mass psychology.
The ‘ten commandments’ for example, are rigid as hell… and yet, even today, they still provide a decent framework for human civilization.
You wouldn’t build a skyscraper with rubber support members, to use your own idiom.
Islam shows that nuisance religions exist, and that they can become existential threats unless the people who don’t want to convert organize a way to stomp on them – HARD! – to keep them under control. This liberal atheist jerkoff didn’t have to murder random mostly harmless Muslims, obviously. But eventually we’ll have to deal with Islam in some pretty ugly ways as a matter of survival.
maybe, but I somewhat suspect that muslim terrorism has partly been exploited (and sponsored directly or indirectly) by forces in the west to position domestic populations against the values that the ‘extremists’ are considered to represent.
The thing about the modern left, is that it is almost entirely organised around the concept of ‘hate’ or rather ‘hating hate, which is absurdly spun as ‘tolerance’ – which is as Orwellian a misnomer as it comes. As the left and the governments it effectively controls continues to censor freedom of speech and thought, it is also pushing ideologies which purposely set people against each other: that is what ‘identity politics’ does, particularly where gender and race is concerned. In fact it creates groups out of nothing, simply in order to do this. The left has been strongly influenced by positioning theory such as Althusserianism, in which the ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys’ are effectively ‘interpellated’ through discourse so that society can be slowly manoeuvre into the desired position. Organisations like the SPLC (and ADL) are hugely involved in this very lucrative business. They claim to be objective and impartial but they barely even try to look even-handed let alone be even-handed. Leftist or feminist sites are very rarely targeted, despite the fact that there are even radical feminists websites out there that argue for reducing the proportion to men to 10% etc.
Just like feminists working to expand the definition of rape to something equivalent to the early rad fem “all penetrative sex is rape” stance the SPLC keeps expanding its definition of hate to include anybody who doesn’t tow the party line – don’t support gay marriage? well guess what you’re a hate-mongering extremist. One reason for this may be the fact that both feminists and the anti-hate industry are big business – the SPLC are worth some $180 million dollars, although exactly how they get their money is an interesting question in itself.
But as this article correctly identifies hating hate is guess what – hate! Leftist always have been full of biliious repressed or more typically outwardly projected haters, and as some here have mentioned uncounted millions have paid the price for that in blood. In fact I’d go as far as to say that left-liberalism actually attracts people with psychopathic disordered personality types precisely because it enables adherents to posture as ‘the good guy’ who wants to change the world for the better, while at the same time giving them a mandate to go on “search and destroy” missions for left-approved ‘enemies’ whose lives they can destroy
If you want to end this crap call the “liberal” left to task for its historical and continuing crimes against society and above all expose the power and money making scam that is the faux anti-hate industry.
“Even if they were on it, I doubt Hicks could have used it to find the individuals.”
They were his neighbors, he lived in the same apartment complex
Hmmm. Hicks is a murderous POS. The victims didn’t do anything that validated their murders. Yet they were muslims…. I’m conflicted.
SPLC SPXL southern policy xtreme law center. Ironically named given that liberalism is helping to keep these people in poverty.
Crimes perpetrated by the privileged class (white; rich; oppressor communities; whether in the US or in Israel or elsewhere) are individualized; only the perpetrator is responsible. (just a parking lot dispute)
Crimes perpetrated by the oppressed class, the ‘other’ed class (black; brown; Arab; Muslim; the majority of the people in the world, actually) are held as representative of that entire race.
Such is the power of privilege.
that is a liberal way of seeing things. Only in the collective leftist mind does such a conspiracy exist
The “privileged” (white, male, Christian generally) hold their own to account. The “othered” use every excuse available to deflect away from personal responsibility and put it on the “privileged’. If they aren’t actively trying to justify it, they stay silent.
Yup. The left loves to point to OKC bombing from 21 years ago to point to white male terrorism. They often will claim McVeigh was an Xain although that is a flat out lie.
What did white America do? White cops (probably Christians) hunted McVeigh down and put him in chains. A white (probably Christian) jury convicted him and sentenced him to death. Wanna put a wager on the demographics of those who carried out the execution? White, conservative, male, & Christian would be my bet.
It’s not a flat-out lie. McVeigh was a self-professed Catholic at the time. He only became an atheist later on in prison.
Mass murderers and serial killers tend to be white males, but blacks are about half of all murders (victim and perpetrator) despite being only something like 12% of the population.
.
Here in Canada they had to change the law specifically for Aboriginals (Indians) to try to keep them out of jail because too many were committing crimes and ending up in prison.
That is a myth. I have a spreadsheet of serial killers and mass murderers at home from Columbine forward, and most are not in fact white males. The media kind of like to keep that quiet though, to help the convenient myth they adore continue to exist.
http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-american-serial-killers/
More than 100 of the 133 listed are white
Wikipedia doesn’t have pictures.
How did you define serial and mass, respectively?
How exactly are these “others” opressed? Please tell me more
Oppressed is the wrong word. I take that back. I don’t believe there is any kind of oppression in America against anyone. Let me just say “less-privileged” instead
As a European.:
What dafuq is the thing with this “privilege” of yours?
I read that everywhere on your side of the internet.
I do not believe that there is “White Privilege” in the US but let’s say there is. Good. I’m glad for it. It is my culture that conquered, created and maintain this country. Why shouldn’t we have a privileged position in our own country?
Is their Japanese privilege in Japan? Is their Mexican privileged in Mexico?
The US aint N. Korea or E. Germany. You have the privilege of leaving anytime you want. You or your ancestor’s immigration to this White Xian country is a testament to your culture’s inferiority.
How the hell are muslims are oppressed class? They are basically the most oppressive group on earth who commit the most murders, ethnic cleansing and terrorism. Lol at pretending that muslims are an oppressed group. Did they earn their “oppressed” status by threatening to kill people if they didn’t receive it?
I am sorry but when a group earn their “oppressed” status by murdering people, using violence and terrorism like muslims and blacks do, they are not oppressed. We call this playing the victim. And their fake victim status justifies more violence and more bullying. That is like a high school bully beating a nerd until the nerd apologizes and says that the bully is a victim. It is exactly how those races are acting right now.
Going SJW now, are we Jockey?
I don’t know. I’m still getting blamed for what other white men did….200 years ago.
To be fair, was this incident not over a simple parking space?
The greater truth to be learned here is that leftists are seldom as loving or tolerant as they think, they only portray themselves that way out of self-righteousness. This mentality causes them to believe that those who wrong them, or disagree with them, are indisputably evil, and therefore deserve any kind of attack since the leftist is only “Fighting for Justice”.
He shot 3 people in their heads in their apartment. You really believe that was over a parking spot?
It was probably over mental illness.
Amazing how a white killer always has a mental illness while an Arab killer is always a terrorist
Islam has an element of cultural insanity. All the white losers who catch a jet to Syria to kill infidels have issues.
Do you know any Muslims personally? Or just speaking from what you see on Fox news?
I had some Muslim friends in high school. They were Ismaili so they almost don’t count: they are so modern that most other Muslims consider them to be heretics. I chatted online with a girl in Egypt and she was afraid of other Muslims because her family was too modern. I know a Coptic from Egypt and he says it is just too scary to go back there in the conceivable future.
.
Mostly though, I am speaking based on the available evidence from a variety of sources.
.
When was the last time a murderer shouted “In the name of Christ I cast thee out!” before shooting a bunch of people?
It’s the Muslims who are thoroughly western that are not the problem. The war on terror is a clash of civilizations not a clash of religions.
how does me knowing or not knowing any Muslims change the fact Muslims are the ones committing all these acts of terror over cartoons
Do you really think there aren’t any crazy Christians killing people? Just because it’s not in the mainstream media doesn’t mean it’s not happening
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/10/christian-zealot-beheads-teen-for-practicing-witchcraft/
It is happening but with Islam it seems more frequent and on a very wide scale. Christians who kill seldom do it in the name of their religion. And when we are talking about Christianity, we are talking about a western construct. Islam seems to have two variants, one founded on western society and one that is not. There is reason why the Nation of Islam does not dispatch suicide bombers and Hezbollah does. By the way, the Nation of Islam is on the SPLC’s watch list.
Because people are labeling all Muslims as terrorists. So I asked that question to see if you think those Muslims that you personally know are terrorists.
Oh it happens, but the incidents are largely isolated, not part of a larger agenda, and condemned by the mainstream Christian community. Or in your example, he was a junkie.
.
About the only comparable example in the last 20 years is the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda. Before that there were the Serbs whom were promptly bombed by NATO (ie, other Christians) into submission to stop them from killing Muslims.
Unfortunately, there are not a lot of westernized Muslims. Some will shave, dress in suits, learn English well and the next thing you know they are honour killing their daughters.
.
Islam itself, unlike Christianity, purports to be a complete code for living: personal, political, military, economic. It also did not experience a broad Reformation and never seemed to have gotten its internecine warfare out of its system.
“Because people are labeling all Muslims as terrorists. ”
Boohoo. I guess those people sat down and read the quran.
People label all Klansmen and Neo-Nazis as terrorists too. I’d wager most are good honest, hard working folks, who’ve never committed any crime and just want a bright future for the children blah blah blah.
The founder of the cult was a pedophile and a terrorist. The founding document is filled with mandates to exterminate those who oppose it. You can no sooner rebrand Islam than you could National-Socialism.
Another terror attack in Europe! I eagerly await the day that ‘solutions’ begin to be proposed to the muslim question. The West can cause the suffering and deaths of millions of muslims simply by denying visas and asylum.
muslim = terrorist.
A very interesting point that many are not wanting (or willing) to see. The problem with the media (at least in the U.S.) is that it all depends on the channel, today. It’s all about a story (any story) for viewers (profit).
Any news channel leaning left is going to report a news story (like this) and it’s going to lean (or create) the story that fits its viewers’ narrative.
The same with other news channels leaning right. They are going to lean (or create) the story that fits its viewers’ narrative.
It’s all about grabbing viewers, keeping them (for profit).
We’ve had “terrorists” in our nation’s history but we called them patriots…same as other countries. It’s all about fitting that comfortable narrative so that people can sleep better at night or feel good about it.
They may be selling….but many times I’m not buying.
Nor did the Reformation do that to Christianity. It was a conflict over theology, not about the proper role of religion or religious institutions in society. For hundreds of years after the Reformation, the Protestant states it spawned were just as religiously supremacist as their Catholic rivals.
On the field of Breitenfeld, there’s a monument to the heroic Swedish warrior-king Gustavus Adolphus for “securing freedom of religion for the world”. And while his troops were doing the securing, back home in Sweden it was Luther or GTFO.
C’mon man, you can’t compare Christianity’s extremists with Islams extremists, its like comparing apples and oranges.
Mohammed was a warlord who brutally murdered and also fucked a 6 year old girl. Jesus was some hippy carpenter who went around preaching peace and kindness. (I’m not a follower of either religion btw)
The Koran even states multiple times to “kill all nonbelievers wherever they hide” and all types of violent shit.
In my opinion the terrorists are the true muslims because they are following the Koran accurately, you moderates are the fake ones.
Yes, the Catholics and Protestants were at each other’s throats for a long time. Eventually they agreed, at least in Germany, that the state religion will be the religion of the sovereign.
.
At about the same time there were social, economic and technological revolutions underway that coloured the practice of religion. Meanwhile, the Muslims had been kicked out of Spain at the end of the 15th century, stopped at the gates of Vienna at the end of the 17th century, and by the middle of the 19th century had been removed from power in India.
.
At best, stagnation and at worst social, economic and technological decline all wrapped up in the worldview called Islam.
.
The discovery of oil on Muslim lands pole vaulted their economies but did nothing to add to their social doctrines which had fossilized centuries earlier. So you get third world countries with developed world bling and a social ideology not too far removed from the medieval age.
Why not? People kill each other over all kinds of stupid things. I’d imagine a lefty atheist in this country would probably go after Christian groups first.
A cursory observation at Hollywood and literary trends shows that liberals are infatuated with violence. Look at Carlin’s standup, for example, where he describes beheadings with a sadistic glee. Or Norman Mahler or Quentin Tarentio, again a lot of violence there. Look at Hollywood- a lot of senseless violence in the movies and very liberal.
Why not? American blacks routinely murder people for no reason at all, almost every day. It is not like it would be something new.
To be honest I had no idea of SPLC map of “hateful groups”. In my opinion that’s a real danger to people/groups on their list. God knows how many lunatics read their site and decide to deal with the “haters”? How are they allowed to do this?
The splc is itself a hate group.
When will the killing of innocent Christians stop ? When will all muslims take responsibility for their backward doctrine that teaches young men to be violent with all “non-believer”? When will they stop flaming ROK with their bullshit about “religion of peace”. When will they stop cheating the US government and work under the table jobs while on welfare? When will they stop getting money from Saudi Arabia for continuing the practice of Islam? When will converts not get paid to become muslims? When will they stop causing problem in Europe and impose sharia law upon christian based land? When will they stop harassing and blowing up churches in the middle east?
When your presidents stop dancing with them.
http://shemsdance.com/site_images/sword-bush-guys.jpg
Realpolitik sucks sometimes.
So, “no true Scotsman?”
Leftists do that with everything. They think that socialism/communism were not represented in the past by “true liberals”
I suppose I should give some credit to the moderate atheists who came out in droves to condemn this act of violence.
Jews and Christians have more of a right to raise questions about Islam than any other religious group because all three religions recognize their origins with Abraham. Islam is the family member gone wrong however, the cause is the culture of the terrorists. They are not western. I’ve yet to see a westernized Muslim engage in the kinds of acts that African and Asian Muslims engage in.
Islam is also an outlier in that there is huge social pressure against conversion to a different religion. Converts to Christianity are common among all other major world religions… but not from Islam. Islam is like the Borg or something.
Strange how Islam and Christianity are raked over the coals but Judaism is untouchable.
This entire article is an example of correlation without causation.
Your entire comment is mere accusation without elaboration.
Morris Dees, in my opinion, is an utterly despicable virulent scumbag. His entire existence is to agitate conflict and crises which are then used to further consolidate the iron grip of the State over 99.9 % of the rest of the population. The amount of blood and wrecked lives on this mans hand is astounding. Waco is just one illustration. His group labeled David Koresh and his “church” a “hate” group long before the FBI moved in for destruction. He and his group (SPLC )are major cogs in the wheels of the machine that is grinding our freedoms into dust.
Ramsey Paul is doing yeoman service exposing this supposed “hate warrior” for what he is : a peddler of lies and disinformation who in the bowels of his darkened soul hates individual freedom and self choice with a passion.
SJWs are essentially running a type of extortion. You have to buy them off with donations to their pet cause, or they scream “hate crime”.
The people killed were vicious racists and jihadi propaganda spreaders. Google it, as always “innocent” is the operative term.
According to who. ? Is the court of public opinion now the judge jury and executioner? Have we reached a point where society is the Great Decider of who lives and dies. I hope not – but if so – you better hope that your beliefs don’t end up in the crosshhairs of the herd
Ummmm.
I despise muslims. I would not piss on a muslim child if it was on fire. With that being said, what could those people have done that justified their murder?
I guess everyone wins here, the killer satiated his murderous impulse while the 3 Muslim folks went straight to heaven to meet Allah and his prophet Muhammad. Ask any Muslim whether they rather be here on this largely sinful infidel earth or cuddled & pampered by Allah in heaven, subhanallah.
Remember kids its ok to murder someone as long as its not done with “hate”.
It is especially OK to murder anyone as long as God ordains it, just ask the ISIS dudes.
I’m an atheist /nonbeliever but I’m a right wing/conservative one which I think is rare.Right wing atheists are just nonjoiners and have a “live and let live” attitude about belief and religion. Most atheists are rabid left wingers whose religion is the government. Government and the STATE is the atheist’s religion. Lefty atheists hate religious people because religion puts God, family to be more important than the State which lefty atheist cannot abide
“I’m an atheist …conservative”
Me too. I have a “Live and not give a shit” outlook on life. I wont impede homos from fucking each other but I want pay for AIDS research. I won’t tell a women her place but I wont pay for her choices or support her in any way.
Conservartism either adopts libertarianism as a main moral base or it will disappear due to Cultural Marxism.
Atheist conservatives tend to be either libertarian or Objectivist. Many are isolationist and egocentric, and under the false impression that everything they have they got by their own effort rather than inheriting it from the society into which they are born. Lefties put the state about god, but godless right wingers put themselves above state, god and society.
me too. i can’t stand meeting other atheists bc they’re all tree-humping radical lefties. god-disbelieving as i may be, i’m still so pro-religion just to piss these faggots off. plus, we’d all be better off with religion like christianity that supports distinct gender roles.
I’m an atheist, moderate (probably a little to the left on certain issues and right on others) and I also have a “live and let live” attitude. For the most part as an atheist you have to because so many people are believers here in the United States and around the world.
Leftism is mainly a female dominated ideology. Like women they compete for who is the bigger victim.
True. Women (feminists and fat women, in particular), LGBT (nothing against these people for who they are but the whole movement likes to victimize themselves), and even animals! (look at PETA) The competition is who’s the biggest victim. If they want credibility in society, they should all stop playing the bigger victim game because it’s going too far. The world is getting fucked up every second.
There was a study on climate change showing that people who doubted climate alarmists were quizzed on science facts, were in fact smarter and answered more questions correctly than the global warming crowd. The article went on to say that the debate has resulted in a polarization of party affiliation to the point that dem’s / libs – believe in global warming and conservative / libertarians do not. The sad part is the total lack of critical thinking in each debate to the point where it has come down to team colors so to speak. We have seen the same thing in the vax hysterics as of late too.
See this is millitant atheism at its finest, I dare say most atheist if they could get away with this would do it. Faith is unexplainable and atheist use reason to get where they get, flawed reasoning but resoning none the less. The claim to have proof but I have none except the bible, which condemns everyone’s lifestyle, and is one hundred and ten percent whith God or against him. And as the world turns what will these people the militant atheist do if say a alien ship shows up or we find the missing link. Oh they will go crazy and run in churches and demand people like me aknowledge that there is no God, and when I don’t they will be upset. upset enough to kill me, in this day and age you can’t live by your faith, if you do take the bible as the word of God it must be at least figurative, because you can’t possibly believe that . And if you do you are a fill in the blank. It is sad that those Muslims died and went to hell, but this is just the beginning of a trend.
My problem with the narrative of “victim groups” is when the groups in question obtain their “victim” status by using murder, violence and terrorism. Kinda like blacks and muslims. Certain groups are really victims, but those who kill and terrorize others are not. That’s called playing the victim and it’s a huge difference.
Here is how you become an oppressed victim, the black/muslim way. Find someone weak, preferably a nerd. Start beating the crap out of him and threaten to kill him. Then force him to acknowledge that this is all his fault and that you are the victim. Then demand compensations. Congratulations, you earned your victim status.
The mainstream media is a fucking joke. Nothing but manufactured reality.
NPR is a fucking joke. Feel good news brought to you from tax shelters, oil companies and idiots spending $100 on a coffee mug.
people got shot by a guy. that story doesnt sell. so ‘peaceful muslims’ got shot by an anti muslim bigot. btw i went to his fb and the only thing remotely anti muslim was a meme comparing the similarities between radical christians and radical muslims. he was also pro choice and pro lgbtqrtg or whatever. again, assholes of every stripe: some people got shot by a guy. it happens all the time.
This article is plain rubbish. George W. Bush Jr. was a right wing/conservative, and look at how many innocent lives he destroyed!
He was a neoconservative, i.e. not a true conservative at all.
I say Liberals are more racist and intolerant than those on the right, they just do not show and are more hypocritical. I think coastal cities are some of the most racist in America. Look at Eric Garner, choked to death by the NYPD in one of the most liberal bastions in America. I live in Seattle which is full of liberal people but people here are very racist inside. An Indian cab driver who was not Muslim got beat up by a drunk idiot a few years ago.
I do not condone acts of violence like the one committed by the moron above, and also groups like the SPLC and the ACLU do zero to create unity among people.
I honestly think people should practice their religion if they want but do it in private rather than in public where frictions are likely to occur. That is just my personal feeling.
Its human nature no form of government will ever work because the human race as a whole doesn’t work, we fight over anything we can and trying to change human nature based on ideals is always going to be frivolous, history repeats and for good reason its because human nature will never change.