Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

Except the whole debate is about people wanting to effectively justify creating a theocratic state as backlash to the Left's excesses, and thus the whole 'Christian society, not Christian gov' argument kinda goes out the window for their desired end-state.

People aren't cheering for an American Pinochet because they want to keep separation of church and state, or allow 'social experimentation/degeneracy', in whatever way they define it, to exist within the protection of the law in the US.

No, I did and this part:

Ignores secularism, and fears of what would happen if the gov showed societal/legal favor to any religion, is why the US has separation of church and state built into our founding document.

'Not mandating a state religion' is one of the core tenants of secularist thought, and was rather different from many nations at the time, which is part of what made the US so different.

These days the idea of the state being able to mandate religious doctrine/positions/power is so odd specifically because the US was one of the first to break from that idea, and then had many others follow suite after the fact.
1.You do not undarstandt,what separation of church and state mean.
People were free in Chrystianitas - in medieval Europe ruled mostly by secular rulers.
But,they made law.And each law is backed by some religion.
Becouse,to answer question "what is right",you need religion,not state.

And,USA worked till it was protestant state for WASPS.Even,if formally there was no official religion.

Now,you either back to WASP state,or find another religion.Lgbt or islam seem as most likely candidates.
 
Not sure where you’re figuring that?

Assuming it comes from Sodom and Gomorrah, though really, it always amuses me how people will cherry-pick which Biblical passages they observe when it’s convenient, and which ones they don’t (such as Leviticus passages about not mixing fabrics or whatever).
When I read about sodom and gemorrah as a kid, I thought "what a ridiculous over the top exaggeration. no way this could ever happen".

Then we got it IRL and I Realized the bible actually toned it down. Most likely because they thought future generations wouldn't believe them if they were truthful.
 
Okay, then. Thanks for the link, I guess.
Big shot local business man and city council basically conspire to fuck over a small business owner.

Small business owner does basically everything in his power to avoid going out of business and has constant meetings with city government officials. City government officials ignore him.

Small business owner builds killdozer in his shop, which was basically a bulldozer with a bulletproof steel sarcophagus covering the drivers seat.

Small business owner proceeds to try and destroy the property of everyone he thought responsible for fucking him over.
 
g8esl8.jpg
 
So what's the consensus for the forum with Killdozer? Reasonable man forced to make unreasonable actions. Or a loony?
 
https://forums.spacebattles.com/thr...lly.846646/page-3?post=78714154#post-78714154Well...
When ISIS took over they destroyed all antiques that don't conform to their theocracy.
Such antique destruction is a very common thing in 3rd world. So the british looting antiques worldwide was actually a good thing...

... for a time.
in 20 years britain will be an islamic state and will destroy all those antiques.

And already wokies are destroying antiques all across the western world. europe, UK, USA, canadia (aka mooseland), etc.
From the statue destruction in USA. To sweden destroying viking artifacts because "they were white colonizers"
The more I think about it, the less unreasonable Poligraf P. Sharikov's Antiquarians Militant sound.
Poligraf P. Sharikov said:
'I know no God but History. Every looter, arsonist and two-bit religious terrorist desecrates History with his actions, and while History may not cry out for vengeance, I do! Pity shall not stay my hand against the one who loots a priceless artifact to feed his starving family, and neither shall money buy mercy for the millionaire who bought it.'
The creed of the Antiquarians Militant.

Militant Antiquarianism is an ideology based on the writings of Harold Davis (1918 - 1994), a British archaeologist and historian specialized in medieval Nigeria. He was active in the field during the 50s and 60s as part of Charles Thurstan Shaw's team. Like all of them, he frequently observed looting of archaeological sites by unscrupulous people willing to damage priceless cultural artifacts and casually ruin archaeologists' efforts to piece together the history of that area. Over the years he spent in Nigeria, he became increasingly angry and his personal beliefs grew increasingly bloodthirsty and detached from reality. As he saw it, archaeology was the one meaningful profession in the universe, and anyone who interfered with its practice was a villain worthy of the fires of Hell. Archaeology, he thought, was nothing less than a God-given mission of self-discovery for humanity. Most importantly, historical information and artifacts were intrinsically worth more than a human life: after all, humanity can reproduce and make more of itself, but an ancient tomb or record cannot. By 1959, he had thought up an entire philosophy around that premise, as his diary (published in 2001) attests.

In 1960, he became a professor at the University of Ibadan, where he was noted for his charisma and popularity among the students. In 1971, he returned to Britain to take up a position at Oriel College, where he would teach for a further 13 years until his retirement in 1984. Throughout his career, he would spread his ideas among a large percentage of his students and acquaintances, who coalesced into a number of radical political clubs in England and Nigeria in the 70s and 80s. Most of these clubs limited themselves to simply raising awareness of the looting of archaeological sites, even if they sometimes got into trouble over their methods.

But the Order of the Antiquarians Militant was a different animal. For starters, it was founded in 1986, after almost all the others had already been founded. Davis treated this club as his magnum opus, his legacy, and pumped them full of his most zealous and psychotic beliefs, turning them into a full-fledged cult. All in all, this meant they had much less of a throttle on their activities, as Davis no longer cared about presenting a reasonable public image or losing his tenure. Under Davis's leadership, the OAM acted as a vigilante terrorist group. They targeted looters, bombed auction houses and generally left a trail of destruction in their wake. They routinely punched above their weight, tussling with the Mafia and assassinating several prominent politicians who'd decided to put their millions to removing the OAM's threat to their own illegal activities. After Davis's death in 1994, a leadership crisis would develop in the OAM which split it in three. Though the three successors don't fight anymore, they don't cooperate very much either and their core doctrines have diverged noticeably without Davis at the helm.
:rolleyes: No, you're just making excuses. Remind me, who exactly championed things like Blue Laws and fought tooth and nail to keep them? "Leaves other men free to live by their conscience, secure in their private lives" my ass. :cautious: And before you say anything - yeah, I know that's just one example - an easy one I thought of off the top of my head. Your "ideal" of everyone being a church-goer of being "cast out" if they deviate is frankly as much of a dystopia for me as the leftist one you claim is the only alternative. Fuck that and fuck your false dichotomy.
This. Both Evangelicals and Wokeists fail the D&D Test. Namely, that they'll both try to sabotage a perfectly harmless hobby because they think it advocates for satanism or they empathize with the Chaotic Evil factions.
 
This. Both Evangelicals and Wokeists fail the D&D Test. Namely, that they'll both try to sabotage a perfectly harmless hobby because they think it advocates for satanism or they empathize with the Chaotic Evil factions.
. . .

Oh for fucks sake how many times do I have to debunk this bullshit.

The DnD Panic, which was part of the larger Satanic Panic of the 1980s, was not created or driven by the Evangelicals or Religious Right. While they did embrace it, they were nothing special in this regard as ALL OF SOCIETY AT THE TIME EMBRACED SAID PANIC. That's the definition of a "Moral Panic".

The most significant driver of the Satanic Panic was the mainstream media, with the biggest single influencer on it being the CBS network with their 60 minutes special, which at the time was one of the largest and most influential television programs IN THE COUNTRY.

I've written about this numerous times before, so I'm just going to quote those posts:
There's no single article on this, so let's touch on the three big Moral Panics folks remember from the 80s and 90s (there were more, for instance, the "Repressed Memories / Daycare Sexual Abuse" moral panic but that didn't get into censorship.

So, let's start at the top with the Dungeons and Dragons moral panic of the 1980s. Firstly, this panic never got so far as to spawn any legislation, but did serve as a major poisoning point between Geekdom and the Religious Right (which is kinda sad really, seeing how fantasy as a genre has considerable roots in worldviews that align closely with the religious right and the Grandfather and Godfather of modern fantasy (Tolkien and Lewis) are both lionized by the religious right). Firstly, the moral panic around DnD chiefly started with the disappearance of James Egbert and its fictionalization in the novel Mazes and Monsters by Rona Jaffe in 1981. Those involved in the Egbert suicide and investigation were entirely politically unmotivated as far as I can tell. Later, after Irving Pulling, a gamer, commited suicide in 1982 his mother fixated on RPGs as the cause of his death and formed the advocacy group "B.A.D.D." While she certainly took a religious stance against DnD, by herself she wasn't very visible, no, it was the mainstream media special on 60 Minutes that catapulted it all into the public consciousness along with the 1982 made for TV movie based on the aforementioned novel that pushed it into full blown moral panic mode. Even in the 1980s one would be hard pressed to call Hollywood and the media bastions of social conservatives, though I will admit that the ideas did catch on much more within the religious right, but thus, the origin of the moral panic and propagation of it was distinctly bipartisan.

The next big moral panic was the Dirty Music Panic of the 1980s and early 90s. This one is pretty easy to show how it was bipartisan, since one of the chief pushers of this panic was the Parents Music Resource Center, which was founded by the wives of four politicians and doners, the politicians were from across the political spectrum, but most notably Tipper Gore, wife of then Democratic senator and later Vice President Al Gore.

Finally, let's dig into the Video Game Panic of the late 90s and early 00s. There can be no denying that the right wing was involved here as Jack Thompson is clearly a member of the religious right. However, despite Thompson being the face, there was considerable involvement from some very prominent left wing individuals. The most notable instance of this was the push for the Family Entertainment Protection Act, which was a bill basically to force rating onto the video game industry and otherwise censor them. The person who introduced the bill? Then Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. It's cosponsors? All Democrats. If that's not showcasing just how bipartisan this issue was, consider this, in 2011 the US Supreme Court struck down the California law restricting the sale of video games to minors and formally extending 1st Amendment protections to Video Games in a 7-2 decision, written by Scalia. The two dissenting opinions? One by Thomas (a conservative) and the other by Breyer (a Liberal). But that case brings us to my earlier statement about it being liberals who passed the laws, you see the California law in question was brought forward by the now infamous Leland Yee, a Democrat. In 2005 both houses of the California government were held by Democrats and while the governator was a Republican, nobody would seriously call him a conservative.

I'm not denying that, but people more remember the anti-DnD Jack Chick comic, which, let's be honest, likely saw very limited distribution, than they remember the 60 Minutes Special. Note, even in the Wiki I linked, the 60 minutes special is given a handful of sentences, compared to the various religious figures who had opinions on it. How many books or people do you think read those things or saw the anti-DnD chick comic? A few thousand, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands?

60 Minutes' estimated audience in 1985 was over 20 million. To put that into perspective, the US population is estimated to be around 240 million in 1985, which means that nearly a TENTH of the US population watched 60 Minutes. So, which do you find more likely, niche religious books and tracts being the primary vector for pushing the Moral Panic against RPGs, or a television show watched by about one in ten people in the US?

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first time you've even heard about the 60 minute special, it's been effectively memory holed, while everyone here knows about the Chick Comic I'm referring to.

hahahaha...

Yeah no.

The mainstream media has been terrible since at least the 80s, if not potentially earlier. You just weren't aware of it because there was no industry of conservative reporting or grassroots opinion generation like the internet to point out all the issues with the media from the time you were growing up. Not unless you happened to be in one of the groups the media constantly misrepresented like deep in the Pro-Life Movement, the first wave Homeschool Movement, or the Evangelical Right.

They never had standards, or rather, their standards were always "what favors the left". Now, they were frequently more subtle about it, usually spinning things exclusively via framing and omission, but they did it all the time.

Why do you think so many people believe the "Satanic Panic" and Anti-DnD push of the 80s originated with the Social Conservatives rather than the mainstream media (via 60 Minutes)? Why do people automatically assume that it was Social Conservatives who were all about censoring music in the 90s, when it was a bipartisan affair with high profile democrats? Why do you think that everyone assumes it was all Social Conservatives who were pushing laws against video games when the panic was bipartisan and it was Democrats in Democratic States that actually passed laws, not Republicans? Why do you think Westborough Baptist Church was the popular "face" of anti-LGBT "Christian Conservatives" despite literally being a single-family Church that is not actually associated with any of the Baptist conventions in the US?

Because those were the stories the media decided to tell. They basically pretend they and Holywood played no role in pushing the more panic about Dnd. They put Social Conservatives as the main front people for music censorship while quitely downplaying the major Dem figures who were involved. They focused on Jack Kemp and his antics in regards to legal activities in regards to video games, rather than reporting on the laws passed in California, Illinois, and proposed by (then) Senator Hillary Clinton to regulate them.

The media has always been manipulating things against the Right and for the Left for decades.

This stuff is why I always laugh by the Late Millenials and Zennials who moan about how Conservatives have Conserved nothing, and everything is getting worse. They should be, frankly, wondering how the fuck the American Conservative movement has managed to survive as long as it has and held what ground it has, because it's always been playing against a heavily tilted field while they just ate up the 90s and 00s narrative about Republicans and the Right.
 
Implementing Nazism is like trying to cure a man who's been poisoned by lighting him on fire. Not really a solution I'd recommend.


...That being said, the issue here is that modern historiography completely ignores why people were driven to support the Nazis. It's literally the "and suddenly, for no reason at all, the people elected Hitler" meme. The common fiction is that the Weimar Republic was some bastion of enlightened liberty. The truth is that it was a fucking cesspool. If your capital has a shitload of dodgy brothels where underage boys are forcibly kept to be raped by older men, and your "cabaret" shows include group sex on stage... things aren't going to go well.

This sort of ties into the previous discussion about secularism/progressivism and religion/conservatism. If you wholly reject the latter and embrace the former, you end up with that kind of situation. Given the currently climate of gradually normalising paedophilia and grooming, we're not far from it now. And that sort of thing will cause a backlash. That backlash, regrettably, may have a lot in common with Nazism.

Naturally, the secularist progressives then try to frame it as if all their enemies are one monolithic mass. "Nazis hate us and Christians hate us, therefore Christians are Nazis!" This is how you get the ridiculous accusations that a return to Christianity and conservatism in society and culture would be some kind of Nazi-like totalitarianism. The reality is that returning to Christianity and conservatism is the only way to avoid the alternative "reaction" to degeneracy-- meaning the reaction that looks more like Nazism.

If the progressives keep it up with their shit, they're going to bring forth another Hitler. One of the purposes of conservatism is to show an alternative and superior path, which confronts degeneracy in a better and more comprehensive manner. After all, the Nazis were radicals, too, and never forget that a scumbag like Röhm was caught with two under-age boys when Hitler decided to get rid of him. (And no, that wasn't because Hitler objected to his degeneracy -- which he knowingly allowed for many years -- but purely over a more political dispute.)
 
Last edited:
Implementing Nazism is like trying to cure a man who's been poisoned by lighting him on fire. Not really a solution I'd recommend.
Define nazism?

as far as I can tell, nazism is a derogatory term based on the now defunct natsoc (nationalist socialists) of 1930s germany.
which means "a demon of pure evil who should just be murdered without ever listening to what they have to say... and also anyone who disagrees with politically"

The actual now defunct 1930s german natsoc party?...
They wanted separation and financed resettlement.
"jews should have their own nation in israel" was the party line.
Look up the haavarah agreement

Turns out my grandpa moved to israel under it. Meanwhile I was taught in school that nazies were using human soap, human skin lamp shades, and human hair pillows. I asked... "why would they use human hair pillow, it itches?" and was told that they were just that evil, that they were willing to suffer itchiness for it.

147.jpg
 
Last edited:
Person A: "X is sinful"
Person B: "Why do you think that?"
Person A: "Because that is what the Bible teaches."
Person B: "Waaah you want to make a theocracy and force everyone to follow your beliefs!"
No, the first bit is "We shouldn't do X", which follows with Person B being rather visibly correct because Person A usually doesn't even try to have a secular reasoning.
 
Implementing Nazism is like trying to cure a man who's been poisoned by lighting him on fire. Not really a solution I'd recommend.
Not to parrot @mrttao , but modern exaggerated 'Nazis' or just plain national socialism?
You can have a populist dictator without the jew hatred, and after 'great leader' has cleaned up the mess, you can always get rid of him.
 
No, the first bit is "We shouldn't do X", which follows with Person B being rather visibly correct because Person A usually doesn't even try to have a secular reasoning.
Why do we need a "secular reasoning"? Again what exactly do you think the point of religion is? It has two to serve as comfort and give us an afterlife, and the second is to give us morals tell us what is right or wrong. If there is no God then everything is permitted why should we oppose the groomers and the LGBT, or incest why stop it "because of your nebulous social good"? As long as they don't go after me specifically or my family that don't want it. Let people do what they want if it feels good and doesn't immediately cause harm like killing or maiming.
 
Not to parrot @mrttao , but modern exaggerated 'Nazis' or just plain national socialism?
You can have a populist dictator without the jew hatred, and after 'great leader' has cleaned up the mess, you can always get rid of him.

In the quoted sentence, I'm talking about the historical situation in Germany. My post is a response to the previous statement: "And as current events show us, even nazis sometimes get it right." -- My point being that even if they arose in response to a genuinely bad situation, they were not actually a solution. They were just another iteration of the deeper problem (a warped society).

As such, I don't take @mrttao's reference to leftists calling anything and everything a "nazi" as applying to me. I'm talking about, quite literally.... the Nazis.

My only extrapolation here has been to observe that the excessive and unfettered degeneracy that arises (without fail) in any extremely progressive-secular milieu tends to invite "reactions" like that. So while the current era isn't the Weimar Republic, it does share traits with it; and this suggests to me that a possible -- indeed, highly probable -- outcome thereof will be the ascent of a "reaction" that similarly shares traits with Nazism (being born from the same frustrations; even the looming threat of economic disaster lines up).

That this future movement will not literally be Nazism is so evident as to go without saying.

My point is that the way things are going, the unrestrained lunacy that presently governs society will invite the ascent of a regime of that sort; and I would frankly prefer to avoid that. Failing that, I'd like to minimise it, so to speak. As you say, such regimes don't last forever. By their nature, all radical regimes burn out quickly. And afterwards, the alternative that I suggested -- a Christian, conservative society that rejects all the preceding radicalisms -- will still be there, ready to be embraced again. But I'd much prefer making the transition to that far more livable outcome as rapid and as smooth as can be managed.

Regrettably, the current establishment is doing everything to instead make the process as drawn-out and bumpy as they can...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top