A bunch of ranting I done did before crawling back into my hole under the big rock, wherein I await the next door-to-door holocaust. It’s the big rock in Montana, third from the left, you can’t miss it.
Can’t be bothered to write anything today, so you get big, fat, sloppy seconds.
This is a general response to a bunch of retards who are shocked- shocked!- to learn that the Supreme Court is not much concerned with the Constitution. Next you’ll be telling me the government tells the people what to do, instead of the other way around like in AMERICA. Isn’t this America? I thought this was America!
Come on, people.
We are talking about a country that has already murdered an order of magnitude more people than the Nazis, for eugenics. We’re talking about a country that regularly disappears, tortures, and murders any effective political dissenters, and will slaughter thousands of innocents just to get a distracting message on the teevee.
The only reason this matters is that the gulags are ready for operation, and now they want the best and brightest to volunteer themselves for the first round of “fivers”.
Honestly, what the fuck do you people expect? Y’all make me look like the picture of sanity.
Obviously failing eugenics, I might add. And yet the abortions continue apace.
Long run? What long run? Would anybody be talking about Amish breeding in the middle of a tornado?
This is nuts. You’re all nuts, all of you. Doesn’t mean I don’t like you, but I wonder sometimes if Christ himself can save you all from yourselves.
What is it about CULTURE WAR that is so hard to understand? Is it the culture part or the war part? I honestly want to know, it would be good for my blood pressure.
@Aeoli Pera: I’m not a Christian, so maybe it’s not the best question to ask. Cultural rules serve practical purposes, ultimately mostly military purposes. A lot of Christian rules are just baggage, pointless junk that only serves to obscure the fact to midwit secular society that a handful of the rules are utterly vital.
At least, Christianity as it’s understood here to mean Vox Day Christianity, i.e. a vanishingly small percentage of all those who identify as Christians. Because Christianity is also a Rorschach test in which people see whatever they want. SJWs are Christians too, just less practical ones.
Is homosexuality inherently bad or harmful? Not really. Aesthetically I think it is weird, and I strongly object to thought policing, but the fact is I could forget homosexuality exists if I just stopped reading the news, which I only really read to keep an eye on what thought police want me to pretend to believe today. I am not important enough to bother thought-policing, and I don’t do anything that would bring me into contact with them anyway, unless I decided to go out and poke them in the eye for the hell of it.
Homosexuality isn’t the problem. Anti-natalism is. Where was Christianity when people started prioritising just about everything ahead of reproduction? Where is Christianity on the population control movement? Or immigration? This “culture war” is about a handful of particular denominational organisations who perceive, correctly no doubt, that they are being attacked by the state on this issue. But those denominational organisations are barely any better on the real problem – replacement of epicurean virtue with hedonism – than the people who are attacking them, and their attempts to defend themselves don’t engage with or even recognise the existence of that problem.
Please understand that your line of questioning makes as much sense to me as an invitation to discuss poetry on the veranda over tea in the middle of a hurricane. The Supreme Court has now flagrantly disenfranchised 60% of the nation. American citizens considered to be dangerous (bankers, journalists, alternative doctors) are beginning to disappear in political assassinations.
I recently observed that Vox is a patient teacher. I will now emulate this as well as possible, considering all this.
You seem to have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the specious conception of religion as a mere means of control, as did your eponymous tyrant. And yet, we must ask ourselves why this form of control exists at all. If I find a claw hammer in an archeological dig, this tells us that the inhabitants had nails.
Sure, there may be a more parsimonious explanation that it was a weapon, but the reductionist answer is often incorrect. So it is with the explanation that religion is mere evolutionary psychology gone awry. Sure, the religious instinct can be used for control, and a hammer can be used as a weapon, but it is self-evident that 1) their form has aspects that cannot be explained by these reductionist interpretation, and 2) there are better, well-known historical tools for these same purposes that can be used more efficiently, for example tomahawks and fear/hunger.