• ComStar is pleased to announce that tonight's minor system update was completely successful. - Precentor Dune

Leftist Child Grooming

King Arts

Well-known member
Yeah, yeah, and Saudi Arabia is richer than South Korea on per capita basis, but only one of these countries is an industrial and technological power. But if we're talking industrially rich, rather than exporting lots of expensive resources, you won't find any.
What? Why are you bringing modern nations into it like it proves anything? Lords said that "democracies are ALWAYS richer than tyrannies!"

Who cares about industrialization he made a point about human history in general. Why can't a absolute monarchy be industrial and rich?

I'm arguing to the centrists and "moderates" here that support for globohomo and pedo rights does not make you richer or poorer.

The big government of yesteryear are by hard figures smaller than the smaller governments of post-industrial era.
Back to today:
USA has a public sector of size similar to socialdemocracies like Portugal, Germany, Mexico, Turkey, South Africa or Denmark, while post communist and communist countries reach multiples of that.
What? What so big government is just how many people are employed by the government? What a retarded definition no one thinks of it as simply that.

They think of it as a government that restricts people's freedom to do what they want. AKA killing you for fucking a man up the butt, killing you for not believing the right religion, killing you for insulting the leader.
Most historical nations in the Christian and Muslim world did not tolerate fucking other men, they would kill you for heresty or apostosy, and if you insult the king or sultan in a serious manner beheading was possible. Some of the more leniant ones might allow you to get away with drunken insults if you were a random peasant in a bar because it's not a big deal. But there was no freedom of speech, or religion, or privacy.
I mean inquisitions and witch burnings somehow respect the right to privacy come on?

So you just want a totalitarian government that rules on a whim, got it. Why don't you move to a country that has one? There are many...

That's called a regime change, explicitly advising against rule by whim.
Learn to read my friend, no I don't want my leaders to rule based soley on their whims because human whims are stupid. But if they decide that someone is an enemy/traitor the "security forces" of the time aka soldiers/inquisitors whatever would not have disobeyed the King if he ordered Duke Jackoff to be executed and his property taken from his family because "Oh the king is taking away the rights of the Duke!"

Other nobles might take issue with it which is why you don't want to alienate your power base, but if a noble is actively treasonous, like for example helping the Ottomans invade then other nobles would be perfectly ok with the king taking away the traitor nobles property and giving it to them.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
What? Why are you bringing modern nations into it like it proves anything? Lords said that "democracies are ALWAYS richer than tyrannies!"

Who cares about industrialization he made a point about human history in general. Why can't a absolute monarchy be industrial and rich?

I'm arguing to the centrists and "moderates" here that support for globohomo and pedo rights does not make you richer or poorer.
How does tyranny exclude globohomo and pedo rights, some of the sources of this mess were commie tyrannies in fact?
I don't think you are going to sway anyone by excluding modern economies, unless you want to argue for returning to agricultural economy, which again, won't help you sway anyone sane, as that historical point is irrelevant to any modern problems.

And of course it's not like republics got rich of globohomo and pedo rights, in fact they had their golden age before this shit got big, it's only now that these marxism inspired movements are being parasites on their built up wealth and status.
What? What so big government is just how many people are employed by the government? What a retarded definition no one thinks of it as simply that.
Well you can't have a big government that employs few people, and you can't have a small government that employs half the population, so pretty much yeah.
They think of it as a government that restricts people's freedom to do what they want. AKA killing you for fucking a man up the butt, killing you for not believing the right religion, killing you for insulting the leader.
Most historical nations in the Christian and Muslim world did not tolerate fucking other men, they would kill you for heresty or apostosy, and if you insult the king or sultan in a serious manner beheading was possible. Some of the more leniant ones might allow you to get away with drunken insults if you were a random peasant in a bar because it's not a big deal. But there was no freedom of speech, or religion, or privacy.
I mean inquisitions and witch burnings somehow respect the right to privacy come on?
So you just want a tyrannical government agreeing with your ideas.
But that goes into the problem of enforcement apparatus. If it's small, it cannot effectively enforce much of what you want to enforce, leading to a state of semi-anarchy. If it is meant to actually enforce it, it has to be a pretty big government, see: China. It's not like they have a big government to handle racism complaints and measure environmental impact of everything...

Unfortunately for you, the exact kind of tyranny you want is unlikely to happen, that is, if it happens, it will tyrannically enforce views different than you would prefer.
There is a bunch of countries with such absolutely powerful government now, and you know damn well you don't want to live there.
Learn to read my friend, no I don't want my leaders to rule based soley on their whims because human whims are stupid. But if they decide that someone is an enemy/traitor the "security forces" of the time aka soldiers/inquisitors whatever would not have disobeyed the King if he ordered Duke Jackoff to be executed and his property taken from his family because "Oh the king is taking away the rights of the Duke!"
And that goes back into the classic question of benevolent dictatorship. What if the king just simply sucks at handling money and he's doing it because Duke Jackoff doesn't and the king is in debt yet again?
This shit is why none of the sane countries have absolute monarchies anymore.
Other nobles might take issue with it which is why you don't want to alienate your power base, but if a noble is actively treasonous, like for example helping the Ottomans invade then other nobles would be perfectly ok with the king taking away the traitor nobles property and giving it to them.
We no longer have nobility either, and the people closest to the status of nobility in effect now are such that we can still perfectly understand why if you look at it.
The point is, if you give a king such unlimited power, nothing guarantees that he will use it for benevolent reasons and only that, and ditto for nobility and its privileges.
 
Last edited:

King Arts

Well-known member
How does tyranny exclude globohomo and pedo rights, some of the sources of this mess were commie tyrannies in fact?
I don't think you are going to sway anyone by excluding modern economies, unless you want to argue for returning to agricultural economy, which again, won't help you sway anyone sane, as that historical point is irrelevant to any modern problems.

And of course it's not like republics got rich of globohomo and pedo rights, in fact they had their golden age before this shit got big, it's only now that these marxism inspired movements are being parasites on their built up wealth and status.
Commies were bad, but the Warsaw Pact nations and China don't accept trannies and gays. That's a western thing.

Also if you are going to say that we can't look to the past anymore because modern technology rendered any predictions obsolete then we can't really guess anything either. Modernity has existed for maybe 200 years. That's how long capitalism and Communism have existed Well capitalism 300 and Communism 150. But the point is then we can't make any plots or guesses because hell even 500 years is an eye blink. The way you plot civilizational models requires you to look at multiple centures and preferably thousands of years. If you can't do that you can't make any inferences. Maybe we are doomed to trannies and pedos for all time then.
Well you can't have a big government that employs few people, and you can't have a small government that employs half the population, so pretty much yeah.
So was the medieval Catholic Church/Papal States a big government? Sure then I want big government. Though it's a pretty stupid example the wikipedia article you gave had examples with the eastern block having like 70 or 90 percent of people employed by the government, and modern western states having 20 percent, China now has like 30 percent.
I don't think we need 20 percent of the population to be government enforcers unless we are in a war for survival like Ukraine is.

So you just want a tyrannical government agreeing with your ideas.
But that goes into the problem of enforcement apparatus. If it's small, it cannot effectively enforce much of what you want to enforce, leading to a state of semi-anarchy. If it is meant to actually enforce it, it has to be a pretty big government, see: China. It's not like they have a big government to handle racism complaints and measure environmental impact of everything...

Unfortunately for you, the exact kind of tyranny you want is unlikely to happen, that is, if it happens, it will tyrannically enforce views different than you would prefer.
What? Are you telling me I should not support the FBI then? Because this all started over someone saying we need to get rid of 3 letter agencies. No thats stupid, you need government enforcers, and you need them to support the right, otherwise you will lose that article that was posted earlier where leftests will infiltrate any organization that is not explicitely right wing shows that.

I don't want tyranny I want people to be able to do what they want eat what they want, play what ever games they want, and those from serious religions to have autonomy and freedom to practice it. The only limits I'd want is prohibitions on advocating certain ideas that would lead to the overthrow of the order like liberalism and atheism, and anything that directly hurts another person against their will that was not known about.

As for it not happening yes I know it won't happen. Because the left will go full globo homo, the right are full of conservacucks who will stupidly support groups that are against them.

I'm at peace with that, I'll live my life as best I can and just ruthlessly mock conservacucks.
And that goes back into the classic question of benevolent dictatorship. What if the king just simply sucks at handling money and he's doing it because Duke Jackoff doesn't and the king is in debt yet again?
This shit is why none of the sane countries have absolute monarchies anymore.
I'm not arguing for a dictatorship. Again you can strip the rights of certain groups of people and not have it be a dictatorship was America when it was founded a dictatorship even though it enslaved an entire race, and did not let half it's population vote?

We no longer have nobility either, and the people closest to the status of nobility in effect now are such that we can still perfectly understand why if you look at it.
The point is, if you give a king such unlimited power, nothing guarantees that he will use it for benevolent reasons and only that, and ditto for nobility and its privileges.
We do have nobility though. They are the oligarchs. Big bussniess CEO's and those with large wealth.

And again I don't support monarchy or nobility I believe in meritocracy. Just because your father was a great man does not mean you are.
 

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
Except your ideas won’t work. Flat out you don’t have the ability to do what you say you want to do. It’s like Russia saying they will conquer America lol. Not only does the right not have the tools or organization or numbers to do lawfare and boycotts. You want to weaken it more with stupid ideas like abolishing three letter agencies. Your path just leads to conservatives being beaten or killed watching their daughters become shores and their sons trannies. All because you were too ignorant to know a right wing strawman needs three letter agencies.

funny the US had one of the most effective spy agencies in the world, one that prevented foreign intrusion and infiltration with an almost 100% efficacy record.

And it was an entirely volunteer and amateur force for a century or so before the three letter agencies.

Or y'know. We aren't Europe, we aren't Latin America and we don't need the crutches you guys need or us latins needed back home to keep our yard clean.

In fact powerful three letter agencies and centralization are the reason why this nation is rotting. We were designed from the ground up to be minarchistic and to only function when there's barely any centralizes government at all.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Commies were bad, but the Warsaw Pact nations and China don't accept trannies and gays. That's a western thing.
That's a post 60's western thing specifically.
Also if you are going to say that we can't look to the past anymore because modern technology rendered any predictions obsolete then we can't really guess anything either. Modernity has existed for maybe 200 years. That's how long capitalism and Communism have existed Well capitalism 300 and Communism 150. But the point is then we can't make any plots or guesses because hell even 500 years is an eye blink. The way you plot civilizational models requires you to look at multiple centures and preferably thousands of years. If you can't do that you can't make any inferences. Maybe we are doomed to trannies and pedos for all time then.
Where are you going to get 500 years of industrial economy history?
You can't, and trying to assume it can work exactly the same as agricultural noble landowner ones is ridiculous as we all know.
Trying to copy obviously obsolete civilizational models because reasons is just a dead end.
So was the medieval Catholic Church/Papal States a big government? Sure then I want big government. Though it's a pretty stupid example the wikipedia article you gave had examples with the eastern block having like 70 or 90 percent of people employed by the government, and modern western states having 20 percent, China now has like 30 percent.
I don't think we need 20 percent of the population to be government enforcers unless we are in a war for survival like Ukraine is.
It was small but absolutist, by modern standards a bit anarchic too.
You are accidentally or deliberately confusing everyone by calling it a big government, which makes 99% of other people think of USSR, China or Sweden.
What? Are you telling me I should not support the FBI then? Because this all started over someone saying we need to get rid of 3 letter agencies. No thats stupid, you need government enforcers, and you need them to support the right, otherwise you will lose that article that was posted earlier where leftests will infiltrate any organization that is not explicitely right wing shows that.
And that's one of reasons to have few organizations that the public and leadership watch closely, rather than 50 of them of which maybe 10 more important ones are kept functioning properly but then commies sneak into the other 40 boring ones and then slowly expand their authority. Having a shitload of organizations is what shitty countries have for grifting and coup proofing.
I don't want tyranny I want people to be able to do what they want eat what they want, play what ever games they want, and those from serious religions to have autonomy and freedom to practice it. The only limits I'd want is prohibitions on advocating certain ideas that would lead to the overthrow of the order like liberalism and atheism, and anything that directly hurts another person against their will that was not known about.
These things are easily contradictory, are you going to pretend they aren't?

As for it not happening yes I know it won't happen. Because the left will go full globo homo, the right are full of conservacucks who will stupidly support groups that are against them.

I'm at peace with that, I'll live my life as best I can and just ruthlessly mock conservacucks.
The solution to conservacucks is not proposing being even more delusional in the other direction, if you go on with medieval larp you are making the leftists look like the less crazy option to 99% people, especially with their PR assets available.
You don't need wannabe theocracy to tell marxists to fuck off, as many countries, including pre-60's West show.
I'm not arguing for a dictatorship. Again you can strip the rights of certain groups of people and not have it be a dictatorship was America when it was founded a dictatorship even though it enslaved an entire race, and did not let half it's population vote?
It was a Republic obviously, no one said a republic has to have universal citizenship since Rome. But the citizens had rights even then.
We do have nobility though. They are the oligarchs. Big bussniess CEO's and those with large wealth.
So what was the difference between the medieval merchants and the nobility?
They are only rich merchants really trying to secure themselves nobility-like privileges.
And again I don't support monarchy or nobility I believe in meritocracy. Just because your father was a great man does not mean you are.
Then you can't have such unrestricted concentrations of power, because that's exactly how you get anything but a meritocracy, as those who wield such power will use it to favor those they value and trust, and crack down on any competent wannabe replacements to themselves.
 
Last edited:

King Arts

Well-known member
That's a post 60's western thing specifically.
I mean even in the modern day commie nations like China don't have woke tranny shit being played to their people.

Where are you going to get 500 years of industrial economy history?
You can't, and trying to assume it can work exactly the same as agricultural noble landowner ones is ridiculous as we all know.
Trying to copy obviously obsolete civilizational models because reasons is just a dead end.
What? No I was saying even 500 years is an eye blink and at the very best that is enough time for just one civilizational cycle. I personally believe in cyclial history still applies. If you are saying conditions changed so much that we can't plot from the past. Ok, cyclical history still applies it just means that now there will be new conditions for rise and fall of empires. We need to wait for tech stabalization, if you are saying that industrialization was a sigularity like atheist nerds gush about the only thing we can do is nothing and let the trannies and pedos win, and let things keep going until technology advancement pleateus. We can have our descendants 1000 years from that point then start to make inferences.

It was small but absolutist, by modern standards a bit anarchic too.
You are accidentally or deliberately confusing everyone by calling it a big government, which makes 99% of other people think of USSR, China or Sweden.
Umm, most people say governments that have restrictive laws are big government. Like most would say Saudi Arabia is big government. Thats what they were saying here earlier, after all I never called for us to copy the USSR, China, or Sweden. They are all shit.

And that's one of reasons to have few organizations that the public and leadership watch closely, rather than 50 of them of which maybe 10 more important ones are kept functioning properly but then commies sneak into the other 40 boring ones and then slowly expand their authority. Having a shitload of organizations is what shitty countries have for grifting and coup proofing.
I mean I agree one organization would be more efficient. I support disbanding ATF, DEA, etc. and just putting them all under the FBI.
But that's not abolishing three letter agencies that's merely streamlining them.

These things are easily contradictory, are you going to pretend they aren't?
Umm I don't think they are. I blame atheists and their rise in the 60's for the mess that western society is in. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I don't want to let the Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and Amazing Atheists of the world keep fucking it up. I don't see why that type of speech can't be banned, yet people can still watch South Park and other raunchy commedy. Or do all sorts of other things that don't hurt others.

The solution to conservacucks is not proposing being even more delusional in the other direction, if you go on with medieval larp you are making the leftists look like the less crazy option to 99% people, especially with their PR assets available.
You don't need wannabe theocracy to tell marxists to fuck off, as many countries, including pre-60's West show.
I'm not advocating theocracy to people who are centrists. I was calling out conservacucks for being for "small government" and their other nonsense. The right would not make the center run away if the right supported security agencies like the FBI or other police forces for example.

It was a Republic obviously, no one said a republic has to have universal citizenship since Rome. But the citizens had rights even then.
Ok, so why did you say I want to make it a dictatorship? I said I want to remove some people's rights I never said I wanted everyone's rights. I can support a early American/Ancient Roman style Republic with limited citizenship.

So what was the difference between the medieval merchants and the nobility?
They are only rich merchants really trying to secure themselves nobility-like privileges.
The differance was legitimacy and that the nobles had monopoly of force well not a monopoly but you get what I mean. At the start of the modern era when the medieval period ended there was no differance between "nobles" and merchants. They were both parasites and the nobles of that time simply owned land they lost their warrior spirit and were no longer fighters.

Then you can't have such unrestricted concentrations of power, because that's exactly how you get anything but a meritocracy, as those who wield such power will use it to favor those they value and trust, and crack down on any competent wannabe replacements to themselves.
I mean yes and no. To a degree this is necessary. Loyalty should be ranked above competence. Both are important but let me ask you this would you rather have someone not that good at their job but is willing to follow your policy decisions, or would you rather have the best possible person at the job, BUT they will betray you for globohomo? That's what I mean, you don't want petty loyalty where you just kick out everyone who is not a suck up, but you also don't want to put in those who are disloyal.

This is a problem with the right, they don't support their own. They will readily hire someone on the left, but those on the left won't do the same they will help their own. Nepotism isn't great on the whole, but if everyone except you practices it then you are the one who is suffering.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Loyalty should be ranked above competence.
That's a terrible idea. It's how you get Russia's absolutely ruinous performance in Ukraine as now you've filled the corridors of power with yes men. You take both into account, and you go with your best possible choice. If that necessitates hiring someone with internationalist sympathies, then you keep a close eye on them.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
That's a terrible idea. It's how you get Russia's absolutely ruinous performance in Ukraine as now you've filled the corridors of power with yes men. You take both into account, and you go with your best possible choice. If that necessitates hiring someone with internationalist sympathies, then you keep a close eye on them.
That's a reasonable stance to take IF you are able to watch them.
If you can't then an honest idiot is better than a malicious genius.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
I mean even in the modern day commie nations like China don't have woke tranny shit being played to their people.


What? No I was saying even 500 years is an eye blink and at the very best that is enough time for just one civilizational cycle. I personally believe in cyclial history still applies. If you are saying conditions changed so much that we can't plot from the past. Ok, cyclical history still applies it just means that now there will be new conditions for rise and fall of empires. We need to wait for tech stabalization, if you are saying that industrialization was a sigularity like atheist nerds gush about the only thing we can do is nothing and let the trannies and pedos win, and let things keep going until technology advancement pleateus. We can have our descendants 1000 years from that point then start to make inferences.
It was a fundamental civilizational change, historically comparable only to the switch from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural ones. With hindsight, that should give you an idea how major the difference is.
Umm, most people say governments that have restrictive laws are big government. Like most would say Saudi Arabia is big government. Thats what they were saying here earlier, after all I never called for us to copy the USSR, China, or Sweden. They are all shit.
Saudi Arabia is a shitty government and big too. If not for its oil reserves, it would be a failed state. I'd be even worse to copy than China.
I mean I agree one organization would be more efficient. I support disbanding ATF, DEA, etc. and just putting them all under the FBI.
But that's not abolishing three letter agencies that's merely streamlining them.
Even FBI is in some ways superfluous, technically US Marshalls could be expanded to do the important things they do.
Umm I don't think they are. I blame atheists and their rise in the 60's for the mess that western society is in. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I don't want to let the Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and Amazing Atheists of the world keep fucking it up. I don't see why that type of speech can't be banned, yet people can still watch South Park and other raunchy commedy. Or do all sorts of other things that don't hurt others.
Oh sod off with your personal obsessions. They aren't the cultural marxists, cultural marxists were already in force before they were public names, if anything their movement got swept up by marxists and i was observing their spats with them in real time. Dawkins of them all got cancelled for sticking by non-SJW biology.

I'm not advocating theocracy to people who are centrists. I was calling out conservacucks for being for "small government" and their other nonsense. The right would not make the center run away if the right supported security agencies like the FBI or other police forces for example.
Again, it sounds like you are mixing up terms for no good reason.
Ok, so why did you say I want to make it a dictatorship? I said I want to remove some people's rights I never said I wanted everyone's rights. I can support a early American/Ancient Roman style Republic with limited citizenship.
Not way it can happen without outright collapse of state or civil war, so it's a matter of being realistic.
The differance was legitimacy and that the nobles had monopoly of force well not a monopoly but you get what I mean. At the start of the modern era when the medieval period ended there was no differance between "nobles" and merchants. They were both parasites and the nobles of that time simply owned land they lost their warrior spirit and were no longer fighters.
Nobles had nothing like a modern state monopoly of force. Shit, they fought each other often enough.
Warrior nobility was simply a somewhat formalized version of what we call warlords in the modern world. But that's not a state of affairs to aspire towards.
I mean yes and no. To a degree this is necessary. Loyalty should be ranked above competence. Both are important but let me ask you this would you rather have someone not that good at their job but is willing to follow your policy decisions, or would you rather have the best possible person at the job, BUT they will betray you for globohomo? That's what I mean, you don't want petty loyalty where you just kick out everyone who is not a suck up, but you also don't want to put in those who are disloyal.
The big question, even in medieval age was, loyalty to who or what?
Of course you don't want people loyal to foreign powers or third party organizations with separate interests. Yet at the same time, unquestioning loyalty to the ruler personally or state apparatus will likely result in a shitty country too sooner or later. Nationalism/patriotism seems like a good loyalty to select for.
This is a problem with the right, they don't support their own. They will readily hire someone on the left, but those on the left won't do the same they will help their own. Nepotism isn't great on the whole, but if everyone except you practices it then you are the one who is suffering.
That's not even the right, that's enlightened liberal centrists who are eager to give the left power for a pat on the back.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
It was a fundamental civilizational change, historically comparable only to the switch from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural ones. With hindsight, that should give you an idea how major the difference is.
Ok, then according to you at this time we should do nothing. And just observe.

Saudi Arabia is a shitty government and big too. If not for its oil reserves, it would be a failed state. I'd be even worse to copy than China.
Are you nitpicking everything? Saudi Arabia is not shitty because they oppress gays. They are shitty because the Arabs there are incompetent at governance. I gave an example of Saudi because Muslims are the only group that still treats their religion seriously as a collective.

ven FBI is in some ways superfluous, technically US Marshalls could be expanded to do the important things they do.
Again nitpicking it doesen't matter. You only need one police force whatever it is, unless you want a second one to maybe watch over them.

Oh sod off with your personal obsessions. They aren't the cultural marxists, cultural marxists were already in force before they were public names, if anything their movement got swept up by marxists and i was observing their spats with them in real time. Dawkins of them all got cancelled for sticking by non-SJW biology.
This is just stupid. You are falling into the same mainline conservative idiocy where you take the liberal position of a decade ago and say "This is great!"
Just because the current crop of Marxists are turning on Dawkins does not mean he is not one of them. It's the same with Rowling she is a feminist her ideals led it to that point. There is no such thing as a "based" feminist. As for the atheist movement again they were highly supportive of LGBT efforts, in the past like the 1800's deists and atheists might have looked down on gays. But once atheism became mainstream they embraced LGBT.

Again, it sounds like you are mixing up terms for no good reason.
Umm I'm not.

Not way it can happen without outright collapse of state or civil war, so it's a matter of being realistic.
Well obviously, perfect is the enemy of good because the right is not united. If it was united and it won it could slowly do stuff. But the first thing you need is to understand you need security services, military, intelligence services.
Nobles had nothing like a modern state monopoly of force. Shit, they fought each other often enough.
Warrior nobility was simply a somewhat formalized version of what we call warlords in the modern world. But that's not a state of affairs to aspire towards.
Again with the nitpicking I know there was not monopoly of force but a random person can't just go killing around anyone. Nobles had arms and were considered legitimate enforcers of the law.

The big question, even in medieval age was, loyalty to who or what?
Of course you don't want people loyal to foreign powers or third party organizations with separate interests. Yet at the same time, unquestioning loyalty to the ruler personally or state apparatus will likely result in a shitty country too sooner or later. Nationalism/patriotism seems like a good loyalty to select for.
Again, obvious. Time corrupts all things you will eventually have your nation fall apart to be incompent. Is this some sort of gotcha? Again better an honest idiot than a malicious genius.
The best would be an honest genius, but until Jesus returns and rules the world we won't get that for all time we will only have good periods and bad periods.

That's not even the right, that's enlightened liberal centrists who are eager to give the left power for a pat on the back.
Umm many on the right are advocating it.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Ok, then according to you at this time we should do nothing. And just observe.
No, i didn't say that. What we should do is to learn from our and other's experience in well functioning historical and current industrial civilizations.
Are you nitpicking everything? Saudi Arabia is not shitty because they oppress gays. They are shitty because the Arabs there are incompetent at governance. I gave an example of Saudi because Muslims are the only group that still treats their religion seriously as a collective.
And somehow it is also a group famous for their failed states. Coincidence?
If we have to learn from other civilization's experiences, it would probably be non-CCP East Asians, as they have pretty much what we have minus most of the marxist crap and its effects, proving that it is in fact possible to separate these things.
Meanwhile they don't oppress the rainbow people like Saudi Arabia, but also don't coddle them and make them into some sort of mini-nobility with special protections of their feelings and reputation like USA or Sweden.
This is just stupid. You are falling into the same mainline conservative idiocy where you take the liberal position of a decade ago and say "This is great!"
Just because the current crop of Marxists are turning on Dawkins does not mean he is not one of them. It's the same with Rowling she is a feminist her ideals led it to that point. There is no such thing as a "based" feminist. As for the atheist movement again they were highly supportive of LGBT efforts, in the past like the 1800's deists and atheists might have looked down on gays. But once atheism became mainstream they embraced LGBT.
That's the difference, don't say shit you don't know. Dawkins isn't a feminist either, he in fact was one of earlier attempts at malicious #metoo himself.
>highly supportive
I've just shown you how not so high the support was, and he had more spine in this matter than some churches and moderate right politicians. The rainbow people question is not a binary choice between Saudi Arabia or Sweden. Why can't we handle this more like Japan or pre 60's Europe? Forget about them and leave them be, and tell them off if they try to make themselves the center of public life, indoctrinate children, decide what's illegal for everyone to say, or do other stuff that a bunch of weirdos has no business doing in a sane country.
Well obviously, perfect is the enemy of good because the right is not united. If it was united and it won it could slowly do stuff. But the first thing you need is to understand you need security services, military, intelligence services.
Obviously, we're not anarchists here. But do you need several security services without even clearly separated roles and dozens upon dozens of agencies that can make what is effectively laws in various areas of life and commerce that some will enforce themselves without as much as asking any elected representatives?

Again, obvious. Time corrupts all things you will eventually have your nation fall apart to be incompent. Is this some sort of gotcha? Again better an honest idiot than a malicious genius.
The best would be an honest genius, but until Jesus returns and rules the world we won't get that for all time we will only have good periods and bad periods.
Again with the extremes. We don't need even honest geniuses, we need mostly honest people who are at least smarter than 9 out of 10 people, we would be doing pretty well with that.
Umm many on the right are advocating it.
But are they even the right? More often it's clueless centrists and outright political grifters.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
No, i didn't say that. What we should do is to learn from our and other's experience in well functioning historical and current industrial civilizations.
But that's just it human civilization is thousands of years old. As long as we don't get wiped out by nukes, or an asteroid humanity could live for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. If the industrial revolution means the civilization cycles of Rome, Perisa, China, etc. no longer apply then we are in uncharted waters. There is nothing to learn, the west had maybe half of a cycle 200 ish years. 200 years of industrial civilizations is not enough it could be a fluke thats why we can't study anything. Our descendants would have to study. If what you are saying is true we are doomed and might as well do nothing and see how industrial society would suffer a civilizational collapse.

And somehow it is also a group famous for their failed states. Coincidence?
If we have to learn from other civilization's experiences, it would probably be non-CCP East Asians, as they have pretty much what we have minus most of the marxist crap and its effects, proving that it is in fact possible to separate these things.
Meanwhile they don't oppress the rainbow people like Saudi Arabia, but also don't coddle them and make them into some sort of mini-nobility with special protections of their feelings and reputation like USA or Sweden.
Yes Arabs are famous for their failed states in recent years. But it was not always like this go back 800 years they were doing pretty great, were they doing things that diffrent?

As for your tangent about us copying east asia. Again there is not enough time to plot anything since 50 years is nothing on a civilizational scale. But let's go with it anyway. My thoughts are the reason they are able to do this(so long as the west doesen't poison and fuck them over) is because they lack Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Those Abrahamic religions are guilt based and had rules that ban certain activities. East Asia had a similar attitude towards homosexual relations as Ancient Greece did. It was ok as long as you made sure you still had a family to carry on your name and were somewhat discrete about it. But sexual actions as long as they don't cause society to collapse(aka violently raping others) were ok. Shame based culture where you sweep it under the rug is better and that leads to more stability and a better outcome.

While in the west the rejection of Christian morality leads to the people who like to fuck mens butts to instead be out and proud about it and be in your face. The only way we can adopt Asia's value is for our current western culture to fall specefically Christianity and a new non Christian western culture would have to rise.

That's the difference, don't say shit you don't know. Dawkins isn't a feminist either, he in fact was one of earlier attempts at malicious #metoo himself.
>highly supportive
I've just shown you how not so high the support was, and he had more spine in this matter than some churches and moderate right politicians. The rainbow people question is not a binary choice between Saudi Arabia or Sweden. Why can't we handle this more like Japan or pre 60's Europe? Forget about them and leave them be, and tell them off if they try to make themselves the center of public life, indoctrinate children, decide what's illegal for everyone to say, or do other stuff that a bunch of weirdos has no business doing in a sane country.


Why you defending him so hard, got a crush on him or something? The article you gave even has him say "Oh imm not trying to insult trans people, I'm not a Republican BIGOT!"
If that's not liberalism I don't know what is.

Obviously, we're not anarchists here. But do you need several security services without even clearly separated roles and dozens upon dozens of agencies that can make what is effectively laws in various areas of life and commerce that some will enforce themselves without as much as asking any elected representatives?
Again, I think thats a perfectly valid and smart move. Why are you bringing it up? I don't oppose that, I was oppsing people saying to ABOLISH IT. Abolish means get rid of in entirety.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Clothing might have been invented by our pre-human ancestors or Neaderthals. The latter - who weren't Homo sapiens BTW - would not been able to survive a European winter without clothing.
I was considering civilization as agriculture and cities. Which the first ones started popping up 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. According to evolution the current version of humans(not neaderthals or prehumans) homo sapiens sapiens came about 100,000 years ago.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
I was considering civilization as agriculture and cities. Which the first ones started popping up 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. According to evolution the current version of humans(not neaderthals or prehumans) homo sapiens sapiens came about 100,000 years ago.
From what I know:
- behaviorally modern: 50,000 years ago
- anatomically modern: 250,000 years ago

Fire? There's evidence that Homo erectus was using fire 2 million years ago. Wokists can't accept that and are revising things so that Homo sapiens did it first.

For agriculture and cities I'll accept 10-12k years ago as the start.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
@King Arts

Your quite wrong about Ancient Greece and homosexuality.
I remember watching this before and it was very informative. I knew that the Romans did not look kindly upon the submissive partner. I was not sure if the Greeks did or not.
But while he is right that many modern people overblow the whole "Da Ancient Greeks was GaY! Yass queen slay!"
it's not correct that they had a complete hatred for it. Yes the Greeks thought of straight relationships as normal and what was neccesary. Of course all societies Japan, China, Mesopotamia did the same otherwise society can't go forward, straight relationships are necessary, while gay ones are not.

The whole pederasty thing is muddled on one hand it does seem like there might be sexual activity, but on the other hand many prolific writers said that it was a horrible travesty if the man took the youth like that.
Also his video himself talked about how the Cretans used it as a population control thing, and while everyone hated the Cretans they were still Greek. I feel like at most it might have been seen as a faux pas. Because we know other societies did have gay relationships and they were not called repressible by the Greeks and Romans. The reason we know that the Carthaginians actually sacrificed babies to Moloch is because both the Jews and the Greeks and Romans talked about it and were horrified and condemned it.

If homosexual actions were not tolerated then when Christianity came in there would have been no need to make laws proscribing execution.

 

King Arts

Well-known member
I'd be careful about using that bloke. He's said some...curious things about Jews in the past and his comment section is filled with people who say even more curious things about Jews.

He might be coming at it from a biased angle.
So? What is with this liberal cancel shit?
Attack the argument not the person. His video has nothing to do with Jews, it has to do with Ancient Greeks and homosexuality.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
So? What is with this liberal cancel shit?
Attack the argument not the person. His video has nothing to do with Jews, it has to do with Ancient Greeks and homosexuality.
My point is that people who make those sorts of comments have a rather profound bias and are happy to twist things to fit their worldview, unwittingly or otherwise (confirmation bias is a Hell of a thing).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top