United States Lets Discuss The Newest Political Cult

Shadepen97

Well-known member
So that cult that has getting a lot a popularity since the mid 1990's has it first open air sermon captured on camera, here it is discussed by the Beanie Man on his live stream.




How fast will it spread now that they have these open air sermons?
Will atheists continue to support this cult?
How will the President of the USA gain knowledge of these depraved summons?
How can I leave this twisted timeline?

Let us discuss these questions and more in this here thread!

Edit: Anyone who has evidence of other activities this cult engages in are welcome to post here if the mods are willing.
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
Honestly, it seems like a pattern with these types. They need something to believe in, and create their own secular religions, and unlike official secular religions (like positivism), they don't fess up to it. Communism is a religion, the Eco-Cult is a religion, they treated Obama like he was Nerevar Reborn, did that whole prayer to Muller...
 

Hlaalu Agent

Nerevar going to let you down
Founder
You know I think it’s kind of become obvious human beings are religious or are seeking to be religious. No matter if they profess disbelief in the supernatural or God.

Honestly, I don't look for religion anywhere. I'd rather find my own meaning, maybe nick a good classic philosophy and make it my own.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Honestly, I don't look for religion anywhere. I'd rather find my own meaning, maybe nick a good classic philosophy and make it my own.

You're being "selfish" there, and "selfish" people are a danger, even if they don't hurt anyone. They refuse to be "for others" and dedicate themselves and their thinking to said "others"

The moment you can live off your own self-affirmation and be honest about it and NOT care too much about the opinions of everyone else, is the moment you become an outcast
 

King Krávoka

An infection of Your universe.
You can't actually idolatry something with a pledge if in the pledge itself acknowledges it's under God.

Flag=Nation<God.

Idolatry doesn't happen when people decide that abstracts are worth more than them. Idolatry happens when you worship a physical object in the place of God. The pledge acknoledges it is explicitly lesser than God.
There are polythestic pantheons headed by a an analogue to the Abrahamic God. Their worshippers are still polytheistic.
And here is the thing, cult doesn't necessarily mean they are a religion, it also could refer to spiritual, or philosophical beliefs. So the whole argument seems to be a red heering. It most definitely applies as much as to "kooky" philosophical belief systems as it could to religious ones.
I acknowledge the existence of non-religious cults, but CO-DIV 21 has no objects of worship. They will backstab anything. For this reason I cannot consider them a cult.
Well the left is trying very hard to get rid of it... with rather predictable results.
Hopefully the Christian Right joins in.
 

Cyan Saiyajin

Well-known member
There are polythestic pantheons headed by a an analogue to the Abrahamic God. Their worshippers are still polytheistic.
I'm not following the point here. No one has ever claimed the Flag or America as its own deity. And if you consider some actions of nationalism to seem worshipful that is not the pledge, and the realm of opinion.

I acknowledge the existence of non-religious cults, but CO-DIV 21 has no objects of worship. They will backstab anything. For this reason I cannot consider them a cult.
Again I'm not following you, how does "worship objects" come into a non-religious cult?
 

AnimalNoodles

Well-known member
I wrote a post several years ago on SB about how the left had created a secular hinduism where people were born into castes based on their intersectional Karma and this Karma determined your inherent moral worth. People thought it was a bit of a joke. It got ALOT of likes. But It wasnt a joke. I was serious.

These people worship black people, or more accurately, Blackness. They believe american blacks are a kind of virgin birth, born free of negative Karma and this makes them inhabit a superior moral and spiritual plane. Whites on the other hand are intersectional Dalits. There are three strains of theology amongst these people

1) Eliminationists: White karma is irredeemable. It is best if it is expunged though the soft geneocide of cultural erasure and zero fertility.
2) Integrationist: Whites can redeem themselves by having children with non-whites, giving birth to children with pure POC Karma
3) Expiationist: whites must submit to blacks, allowing themselves to be humiliated, abused and oppressed in a sacred act of penance. This will purify white karma.


There is a sexual element to this as well. White leftists have always fetishised blacks. Fanon noticed this in his works. Liberal White self-degradation in front of blacks is a performance with psychosexual dimensions, but not one from an inferior to a superior. It is in fact a demonstration of power, the way a powerful CEO may hire a dominatrix to whip him. In the end, the dominatrix still works for him and they both know it.

Thats what you saw during the riots. As one rightist put it on twitter..you peeked in the window and saw an act of consensual BDSM, where one person whips the other and when its done both get up and dance.
 

LifeisTiresome

Well-known member
I wrote a post several years ago on SB about how the left had created a secular hinduism where people were born into castes based on their intersectional Karma and this Karma determined your inherent moral worth. People thought it was a bit of a joke. It got ALOT of likes. But It wasnt a joke. I was serious.

These people worship black people, or more accurately, Blackness. They believe american blacks are a kind of virgin birth, born free of negative Karma and this makes them inhabit a superior moral and spiritual plane. Whites on the other hand are intersectional Dalits. There are three strains of theology amongst these people

1) Eliminationists: White karma is irredeemable. It is best if it is expunged though the soft geneocide of cultural erasure and zero fertility.
2) Integrationist: Whites can redeem themselves by having children with non-whites, giving birth to children with pure POC Karma
3) Expiationist: whites must submit to blacks, allowing themselves to be humiliated, abused and oppressed in a sacred act of penance. This will purify white karma.


There is a sexual element to this as well. White leftists have always fetishised blacks. Fanon noticed this in his works. Liberal White self-degradation in front of blacks is a performance with psychosexual dimensions, but not one from an inferior to a superior. It is in fact a demonstration of power, the way a powerful CEO may hire a dominatrix to whip him. In the end, the dominatrix still works for him and they both know it.

Thats what you saw during the riots. As one rightist put it on twitter..you peeked in the window and saw an act of consensual BDSM, where one person whips the other and when its done both get up and dance.
Beautiful. You explained it better then I ever could.

@Senor Hortler

What do you think?
 

Senor Hortler

Permanently Banned
Permanently Banned
Beautiful. You explained it better then I ever could.

@Senor Hortler

What do you think?
It's an interesting way of looking at it; but I think it misses the active and burning strand of revisionism that runs through the modern social justice left. They don't just want to to purify their karma in a sense, but also erase the 'negativity' of their own past; which they don't really see as their history. They have no national ties, only ideological ties to the idea of 'justice'. They'll happily use the examples of say Churchill, or Roosevelt fighting fascism, but immediately backswing and call them racist monsters. It's mercenary, predatory action that see them turning on each other the moment they step out of line.

Fantastic description of lefty 'luvies' though.
 

AnimalNoodles

Well-known member
It's an interesting way of looking at it; but I think it misses the active and burning strand of revisionism that runs through the modern social justice left. They don't just want to to purify their karma in a sense, but also erase the 'negativity' of their own past; which they don't really see as their history. They have no national ties, only ideological ties to the idea of 'justice'. They'll happily use the examples of say Churchill, or Roosevelt fighting fascism, but immediately backswing and call them racist monsters. It's mercenary, predatory action that see them turning on each other the moment they step out of line.

Fantastic description of lefty 'luvies' though.


The revisionism comes from a class separation in anglo and anglicized whites, a separation so profound that it mimics an ethnic divide. (I have a theory that its a relic of the Norman conquest, but that's for another post) In a nutshell, managerial class whites have status, lots of it. But they have no real fixed identity. So they build an identity around their status. Any threat to this status is therefore a threat to their identity.

In the Anglo world, upscale whites show status by disdaining their own history and ethnic identities.

The formula is simple. Upscale anglo whites have status but no real community or identity. Downscale whites have more identity and community but no status. So the upscale white loses nothing by demolishing history. For the white proles, once you take away their communities and identity, they have nothing.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
That would explain why a lot of the "white guilt" stuff is pushed by well off white academics who do corporate seminars. People who have both degrees and respect merely due to being university educated and being interviewed on the Guardian.

Its a sort of class hatred. The more woke and disdainful of european/white history/culture you are the more you gain status and prestige in these circles.

They have no identity of their own, and more likely come from deracinated middle class backgrounds to start with-so its not hard for them to see the history of white people as something separate, alien, wrong. Something they have no ties too or reason to uphold, but in fact can gain a lot through attacking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Senor Hortler

Permanently Banned
Permanently Banned
The revisionism comes from a class separation in anglo and anglicized whites, a separation so profound that it mimics an ethnic divide. (I have a theory that its a relic of the Norman conquest, but that's for another post) In a nutshell, managerial class whites have status, lots of it. But they have no real fixed identity. So they build an identity around their status. Any threat to this status is therefore a threat to their identity.

In the Anglo world, upscale whites show status by disdaining their own history and ethnic identities.

The formula is simple. Upscale anglo whites have status but no real community or identity. Downscale whites have more identity and community but no status. So the upscale white loses nothing by demolishing history. For the white proles, once you take away their communities and identity, they have nothing.
Hmm, I agree. I think the whole situation has been massively accelerated by globalism as; back in the 40's, 50's, 60's you could hate your own culture, but like it or hate it you were stuck with it; you couldn't ethnically replace the nation, you couldn't shame the people below you into hating themselves, and people were far too connected to take the sort of 'fuck English gammon!' mindset that's so open and on display now.

But once you can just import a new culture to replace the current one the issues go away, once broken homes become the norm the family isn't a fortress, and the community doesn't really exist anymore.

That would explain why a lot of the "white guilt" stuff is pushed by well off white academics who do corporate seminars. People who have both degrees and respect merely due to being university educated and being interviewed on the Guardian.

Its a sort of class hatred. The more woke and disdainful of european/white history/culture you are the more you gain status and prestige in these circles.

They have no identity of their own, and more likely come from deracinated middle class backgrounds to start with-so its not hard for them to see the history of white people as something separate, alien, wrong. Something they have no ties too or reason to uphold, but in fact can gain a lot through attacking.
Yeah, one of the things I noticed about the anglo left, specifically the 'lefty luvie' type liberals such as Owen Jones (S) is the bizarre (to me) statement of 'What even is British culture!' As if he's never actually lived in British culture. Now he may have as a child, but once he went to university he became rootless almost immediately. I'm at uni currently, but I've gone into it about five years after most people would start simply because I didn't want to go. (I changed my mind and have started a biology degree) My 'identity' as an Englishman, part Irish and part Welsh; but mainly English and British at a push is firmly part of my life, it's how I think, and shop, and talk. I cannot understand how you could not know what you were by simple instinct.

People like Jones and his type spend their formative years in an education system that teaches very little of what it is being British, typically their family isn't going to be taking them out to do typically British things, and when they get to university they are rendered almost entirely rootless by the class divide encouraging them to be these internationalist workers ready to ship out practically anywhere. To take a /pol/ meme; English universities literally produce Beady Eyed Eternal Anglo's. I spend my formative years in education yes, but at a fairly 'laddish' catholic school, and then I was straight into a multiethnic workplace. Factory, then shop, then office environment. Racial cliques were distinct and pretty much universal in those environments except the office; where they still existed, but the white britsh didn't have one. They all sort of intermingled or clumped around who they sat with without belonging anywhere.

I've noticed it in my own lectures and seminars where the foreign lecturers such as the polish and Spanish ones will simply teach; but the middle aged white guy spends half of the time ragging on white male scientists and promoting random ethnic females with very little actually interesting or groundbreaking; and the young gay PHD student who sometimes stands in will end every mention of 'an old white guy' with an eyeroll and a tut. It's a very ingrained and casual dismissal of actual achievements over the politics surrounding them; we spent 45 minutes of a hour and a half lecture on DNA going over the evils of Rosalind Franklin being scammed out of her work.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
The author of White Fragility-Robin de Angelo or whatever her name was ah here it is, Robin DiAngelo - Wikipedia

Born in San Francisco on the eve of the sixties/counter culture movement, has been in west coast academia her whole life.

Is somewhat similar.

If I might offer a broader hypothesis-I'd say college itself de roots people. Especially those that spend way too much time there.
 

Senor Hortler

Permanently Banned
Permanently Banned
The author of White Fragility-Robin de Angelo or whatever her name was ah here it is, Robin DiAngelo - Wikipedia

Born in San Francisco on the eve of the sixties/counter culture movement, has been in west coast academia her whole life.

Is somewhat similar.

If I might offer a broader hypothesis-I'd say college itself de roots people. Especially those that spend way too much time there.
I would say that modern college deroots people because of its cosmopolitan and inherently (now) globalist nature. You are being prepared to be a modern worker, and the idea of a modern worker is a mobile individual with little ties beyond a small family. You are given transferable skills and a sense of freedom, but not a sense of societal responsibility and an understanding of what people before you have sacrificed to get you into college.

We are the product of hundreds of years of hard work and struggle, a continuous unbroken line of people who have worked their life through so we can sit here in relative comfort. I know it sounds absurd to have to literally sit a grown ass man or woman down and say to them 'You have a duty here, not just an opportunity'; but - anecdotally - people at university only seem to think in very short time bursts with little regard for what they are doing beyond the individual level. People I've talked to have no conception that they might want children beyond the 'Maybe, but future problem' debt is the same. They have no conception of community that isn't centred around the university; and they have no conception of country beyond 'place I live'

I hate to come off as a boomer, or old fashioned, or just plain naive; but I honestly do think we need to have more things like the cubscouts, or the scouts, or the army cadets (which I was in.); and other institutions made to instill a love of the homeland, and a sense of community. As corny as it is, I feel grassroots community building is the best way to counter that sort of derooting is to bury the roots deep (so to speak) and you can't do that post hoc generally. At least not without a sudden shock to the senses that throws you completely off kilter with your current 'smuggie' mindset.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
@AnimalNoodles
What about things in-regards to beauty standards? Honestly, I sorta think they're fetishizing being between plain-to-ugly-and-weird these days

Preferring weird androgynous body types for women and un-feminine hair as well in combination

I forgot who said this before, but the female fashion industry is one by very gay men that makes women look like very gay men of a sort in-combination with being really skinny and/or androgynous
 

Senor Hortler

Permanently Banned
Permanently Banned
@AnimalNoodles
What about things in-regards to beauty standards? Honestly, I sorta think they're fetishizing being between plain-to-ugly-and-weird these days

Preferring weird androgynous body types for women and un-feminine hair as well in combination

I forgot who said this before, but the female fashion industry is one by very gay men that makes women look like very gay men of a sort in-combination with being really skinny and/or androgynous
That's as old as subversive leftism is. Asger Jorn (commie from the 40's) created books of little more than shock horror 'fuck you dad' sort of art, the cover was sandpaper, it was made to hurt the user and damage the covers of other books nearby when it's stored. It's as simple as hating the idea of there being standards of anything. Beauty, decency, decorum. It's why progressive 'art' can be six oiled up gay dudes with laser pointers in their arseholes. The point of act, and the art is to present the viewer with a challenge; either they change their standards, or they disengage.

If you cannot disengage then you must change your standards, seems to be the mindset as to this deluge of fuck uglies, fat acceptance, and gibbering retards being pushed as 'beautiful' and 'stunning'.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top